BREAKING - Wikileaks: Iraq War Logs (Military Gave Secret Order Not to Investigate Torture)

[Hissyspit]

Source: Wikileaks/Al Jazeera/Guardian/New York Times/Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Breaking News: WikLeaks Secret Iraq Files Reveal U.S. Turning Blind Eye to Iraq Torture

WikiLeaks Iraq files reveal torture
Al Jazeera's access to leaked documents reveals secret US military order not to investigate Iraqi torture.

Last Modified: 22 Oct 2010 20:20 GMT

It is the biggest leak of military secrets in history. Al Jazeera has details of nearly 400,000 classified US documents. They are the secret Iraq files, leaked to whistleblower website WikiLeaks.

For the past ten weeks Al Jazeera's had complete access to those files. As part of our forthcoming coverage, we reveal how the US military gave a secret order not to investigate torture by Iraqi authorities discovered by American troops.

VIDEO AT LINK

Read more: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/10/20101022202210771944.html

---

PREPARE FOR 'NOTHING NEW IN IRAQ WAR LOGS' SPIN & PUSHBACK - IT'S BULLSHIT - THERE'S PLENTY NEW - H'spit

Anyone who says there is nothing new in these reports is BULLSHITTING you.

WikiLeaks Twitter:

Al Jazeera have broken our embargo by 30 minutes. We release everyone from their Iraq War Log embargoes.

Darn those Muslims!

NEW YORK TIMES:

http://www.nytimes.com/?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1287781258-5iOy3NfUcR9doUmzkbgV+Q

The War Logs

A trove of secret field reprots from Iraq, obtained by the group WikiLeaks sheds new light on such issues as civilian deaths, detainee abuse and the involvement of Iran

From the Field Reports: Civilian Casualties, Abuse of Detainees, Iran's Involveme:

Reports Detail Iran Aid to Iraq Militias

By MICHAEL R. GORDON and ANDREW W. LEHREN
Published: October 22, 2010

On Dec. 22, 2006, American military officials in Baghdad issued a secret warning: The Shiite militia commander who had orchestrated the kidnapping of officials from Iraq’s Ministry of Higher Education was now hatching plans to take American soldiers hostage.

What made the warning especially worrying were intelligence reports saying that the Iraqi militant, Azhar al-Dulaimi, had been trained by the Middle East’s masters of the dark arts of paramilitary operations: the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps in Iran and Hezbollah, its Lebanese ally.

MORE

Civilians Paid War's Heaviest Toll

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and ANDREW W. LEHREN
Published: October 22, 2010

The reports in the archive disclosed by WikiLeaks offer an incomplete, yet startlingly graphic portrait of one of the most contentious issues in the Iraq war — how many Iraqi civilians have been killed and by whom.

The reports make it clear that most civilians, by far, were killed by other Iraqis. Two of the worst days of the war came on Aug. 31, 2005, when a stampede on a bridge in Baghdad killed more than 950 people after several earlier attacks panicked a huge crowd, and on Aug. 14, 2007, when truck bombs killed more than 500 people in a rural area near the border with Syria.

But it was systematic sectarian cleansing that drove the killing to its most frenzied point, making December 2006 the worst month of the war, according to the reports, with about 3,800 civilians killed, roughly equal to the past seven years of murders in New York City. A total of about 1,300 police officers, insurgents and coalition soldiers were also killed in that month.

The documents also reveal many previously unreported instances in which American soldiers killed civilians — at checkpoints, from helicopters, in operations. Such killings are a central reason Iraqis turned against the American presence in their country, a situation that is now being repeated in Afghanistan.

MORE

Detainees Suffered in Iraqi Hands

By SABRINA TAVERNISE and ANDREW W. LEHREN
Published: October 22, 2010

The public image of detainees in Iraq was defined by the photographs, now infamous, of American abuse at Abu Ghraib, like the hooded prisoner and the snarling attack dog. While the documents disclosed by WikiLeaks offer few glimpses of what was happening inside American detention facilities, they do contain indelible details of abuse carried out by Iraq’s army and police.

The six years of reports include references to the deaths of at least six prisoners in Iraqi custody, most of them in recent years. Beatings, burnings and lashings surfaced in hundreds of reports, giving the impression that such treatment was not an exception. In one case, Americans suspected Iraqi Army officers of cutting off a detainee’s fingers and burning him with acid. Two other cases produced accounts of the executions of bound detainees.

And while some abuse cases were investigated by the Americans, most noted in the archive seemed to have been ignored, with the equivalent of an institutional shrug: soldiers told their officers and asked the Iraqis to investigate.

A Pentagon spokesman said American policy on detainee abuse “is and has always been consistent with law and customary international practice.” Current rules, he said, require forces to immediately report abuse; if it was perpetrated by Iraqis, then Iraqi authorities are responsible for investigating.

MOREGUARDIAN's Coverage: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9370124

Iraq war logs: secret files show how US ignored torture
• Massive leak reveals serial detainee abuse
• 15,000 unknown civilian deaths in war

Nick Davies, Jonathan Steele and David Leigh
guardian.co.uk
Friday 22 October 2010 21.26 BST

A grim picture of the US and Britain's legacy in Iraq has been revealed in a massive leak of American military documents that detail torture, summary executions and war crimes.

Almost 400,000 secret US army field reports have been passed to the Guardian and a number of other international media organisations via the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks.

The electronic archive is believed to emanate from the same dissident US army intelligence analyst who earlier this year is alleged to have leaked a smaller tranche of 90,000 logs chronicling bloody encounters and civilian killings in the Afghan war.

The new logs detail how:

• US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers whose conduct appears to be systematic and normally unpunished.

• A US helicopter gunship involved in a notorious Baghdad incident had previously killed Iraqi insurgents after they tried to surrender.

• More than 15,000 civilians died in previously unknown incidents. US and UK officials have insisted that no official record of civilian casualties exists but the logs record 66,081 non-combatant deaths out of a total of 109,000 fatalities.

The numerous reports of detainee abuse, often supported by medical evidence, describe prisoners shackled, blindfolded and hung by wrists or ankles, and subjected to whipping, punching, kicking or electric shocks. Six reports end with a detainee's apparent death.

MORE

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM:

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com

[derby378]

1. Is this the "Insurance" file?

And if so, any chance of the rest of us getting the encyption key so we can sift the data ourselves?

[Hissyspit]

4. PLENTY NEW in Iraq War Logs Leak:

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com

Secret Files Reveal That 103 Civilians Murdered Every Day In The Continuing Bloodbath of December 2006

Obama Administration Handed Over Detainees Despite Reports Of Torture

U.S. Apache Guns Down Surrendering Insurgents

U.S. Troops Ordered Not To Investigate Iraqi Torture

Allegations Of U.S. Prisoner Abuse By U.S. Troops AFTER Abu Graib

These links have Creative Commons License.

[Turborama]

53. I don't think it's the "Insurance" file. 1.4 gigs would contain more than 4,00,000 docs

I'm waiting for the encryption key, too.

[harun]

170. No, that is different.

[laconicsax]

2. And the President is committed to sweeping it under the carpet.

I really wish I didn't keep getting pissed off at his decisions.

[Pavulon]

17. What should he do? Its spilled milk, war is over.(nt)

[laconicsax]

21. Oh, I don't know...maybe prosecute war crimes? n/t

[Pavulon]

23. Repeat after me. Never going to happen. At most some E3

in a picture will get a suspended sentence. Bush to the hague is not happening.

[laconicsax]

30. Like I said, the President is committed to sweeping it under the carpet.

I really wish I didn't keep getting pissed off at his decisions.

[Pavulon]

60. you can always vote palin..

choices are out there.

[Mojorabbit]

89. False choice

One can be very upset at the decisions the current admin are making and to voice their disgust at it without having any notion of voting for that disgrace to enlightened women everywhere.

[Pavulon]

93. Obama is not going to the mat for Bradley manning and his editor.

I would bet quote tho opposite given his view of leakers. Upset and reality are not the same. Sure everyone wants to see these people "accountable" but in reality they will not be. History will judge their actions. Thats it.

[liberation]

174. Niiiiice tangential deflection.

Ironically, that means you agreed with the previous poster. LOL

When some of you put your favorite political team over the interests of the country, sorry but you stop being that much different from the GOP dopes who were doing exactly that for those long 8 years of Bush. Congrats, I guess...

So the "yes we can" was really "well, what'cha gonna do?" after all. Talk about false advertisement.

[Pavulon]

177. Reality first, this is not a church..

you will not see the US rip open a war winding down. Not only is it counterproductive to leaving but serves no purpose.

Getting out is the goal, this dump may actually draw that out. Bet Assange would be a bit surprised by that response.

[liberation]

182. "Reality" does not mean what you want it to mean...

... milquetoast enabling of crimes by refusing prosecution is many things, but a monopoly in "reality" is not.

"Not only is it counterproductive to leaving but serves no purpose." Hundreds of thousands of people are dead, Iraq is a big crime scene. Either we live in country under the rule of law or we do not. And that is the "reality" of it. Wether you like it or not or you don't feel like dealing with the implications, that is another subject altogether.

In the end, you are now making a case for acquitting the Bush admin of the same crime people in this forum were crying to high heavens not too long ago... all because you are putting the interests of your preferred political "team" over the interests of the country. As I said, that is no better than what the die hard repugs were in the end doing. Congrats again.

[Pavulon]

185. You may be right, but so am I. This will be cycled right out of the news in 6 days

best. I can tell you with zero hesitation there will be no trials, no hearings, nothing that involves the civilians who ordered the war in Iraq to happen.

No ones interests are served by that action so it will not happen. If it were expedient for someone sure, but its not.

Mark my words, no church commission will be had.

[laconicsax]

104. Overplayed garbage.

Do you actually believe the bullshit you type?

[Pavulon]

107. As much as you believe someone will stand trial over dumped content

really where do you think this is going?

[laconicsax]

110. When did I say any of that?

I said that "the President is committed to sweeping it under the carpet" and that "I really wish I didn't keep getting pissed off at his decisions."

Your inability to understand the written word is really precious.

[Pavulon]

112. "What do you expect him to do"?

feel free to post a few realistic actions for him to take.

[laconicsax]

127. I responded with what I would like to see, not what I actually thought would happen.

Keep reaching; you'll get something eventually.

In the mean time, maybe you could explain why you feel it's appropriate for war criminals to get off scot free.

[Pavulon]

129. There are lots of feelings flying around. Feelings will not convict people

war crimes actually require evidence. Now if you want to convict a CWO flying a helicopter you may have something. Maybe, but it would be a real stretch.

If you are actually thinking about convicting civilian leadership of the US military you have no chance. They use lawyers to verify they are covered. Short of the US being taken over and trials forced that will never happen. Just like lawyers are involved in killing people in pakistan right NOW. This very minute.

I FEEL the political cost for even discussing a "war crime" event would stop any and all forward motion being made by the administration.

I know that it will NEVER happen, not now, not ever.

[ooglymoogly]

151. God, what it must be like to deal from such a simplistic mind. nt

[Pavulon]

160. Simple situation. dont need a slide rule to make eggo's

the current administration has zero interest in this and will dump it off as fast as possible to the Iraqi government to handle. They want to be out of there, this is a distraction from that goal

The Iranian aspect will get more attention in the press. But not much will happen there either.

You think it is coincidence it is dumped now?

[Drops_not_Dope]

175. Just joking right laconicsax?

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/2010/10/23/secret-files-reveal-allegations-of-prisoner-abuse-by-american-troops-after-abu-ghrai/

WE ARE WAY BEYOND BUSH HERE.

Allegations of prisoner abuse by US troops after Abu Ghraib


The US promised a crackdown after the Abu Ghraib scandal. But the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal that 303 allegations of abuse by coalition forces were reported in the military files after 2004.

The reports date from August 2005 until the end of 2009. They began 16 months after the Abu Ghraib scandal. Forty-two of these involve allegations of serious abuses, including the use of electric shocks, beatings, water torture and mock executions. In nearly half of these, the claims are reported to be backed up by medical examinations carried out by US medical personnel.

[laconicsax]

191. Who said * only?

I sure didn't.

We need to hold accountable those responsible; we're either a nation of laws or we aren't.

[suffragette]

158. "UN calls on Obama to investigate human rights abuses"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/23/united-nations-call-obama-investigation-abuses-iraq

The UN has called on Barack Obama to order a full investigation of US forces' involvement in human rights abuses in Iraq after a massive leak of military documents that detail torture, summary executions and war crimes.

The call, by the UN's chief investigator on torture, Manfred Nowak, came as Phil Shiner, human rights specialist at Public Interest Lawyers in the UK, warned that some of the deaths documented in the Iraq war logs could have involved British forces and would be pursued through the UK courts. He demanded a public inquiry into allegations that British troops were responsible for civilian deaths during the conflict.

The Guardian has analysed the 400,000 documents, the biggest leak in US military history, and found 15,000 previously unreported civilian deaths. The logs show how US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and murder by Iraqi police and soldiers whose conduct appears to be systematic and generally unpunished.

Nowak said that if the files released through WikiLeaks pointed to clear violations of the UN Convention Against Torture the Obama administration had an obligation to investigate them.

You ask: "What should he do?"
Well, there you go.

[Pavulon]

159. Get a list of names and hand it over to the Iraqi government..

that works... To expect anything more is unrealistic. Sounds like their problem to deal with. Unless our people were involved they are a sovereign state now.

If US service members were involved that changes things.

[suffragette]

161. "Some cases of alleged abuse by UK and US troops are detailed in the logs."

That sentence is from the same article. Does that "change things" for you?

Again, you asked what *should* be done.
Manfred Nowak has clearly stated what should be done - investigate. I agree.

[Pavulon]

163. Well if a us service member broke the law he should be punished under UCMJ

now wake me if they snag anyone over E3. Depends on what "abuse" means and if it is a crime. If its a crime punishment should be handed out by a jury.

[suffragette]

165. "Depends on what "abuse" means and if it is a crime."

Just, wow.

Of course, the 1st step to determining any of this is a full investigation..

Still standing by my agreement with the U.N. call for that.

And you?

[Pavulon]

166. UCMJ defines legal and illegal, not feelings

if abuse meant making a person unhappy by making them listen to lady gaga its not illegal. If its was putting a dog collar on them and dragging them around naked or sticking a gun to their head thats illegal. Illegal acts should be prosecuted.

Here's my prediction, there will be no investigation based on documents stolen by private manning. Incidents will be investigated where criminal activity is alleged and handled accordingly.


NO ONE is going to have an open forum on the Iraq war before mid term elections or near the presidential elections. Which basically means no open investigation.

There is no political gain in dragging this out now. Because this will do nothing to benefit the current position of the US government in Iraq or the Middle East, I think, and believe it will go away very quickly.

[suffragette]

167. "Political gain" should not be the basis for whether to investigate

Again, back to "What should he do?" posed by you earlier.

He should investigate.


And I spoke nowhere about feelings. An investigation is what would determine violations or not. There are allegations of abuse and those should be investigated.

[Pavulon]

172. Based on the merit of the source , sure. If you have done any reading

much of this information is second hand.. X reports to US that something happened. If it was observed by us then it should be handed over to the government of Iraq to prosecute.

He should do what is required by law, that's it.

[JDPriestly]

173. It is not individuals who need to be on trial here, it is a system,

an institution. Legal and illegal will not be the issues.

The question will be -- How will ordinary Americans who are an essentially and deeply decent, caring and moral people (you may be too cynical to believe that, but I know what I am talking about) deal with the emerging picture of a military gone soulless and sinful.

When Evangelicals say that we are a country of Christians, some of them don't really mean it, but many of them, in fact most of them do, and those are the people we need to reach with this information.

It is not a matter of propagandizing people. It is a matter of giving them the facts about the crimes have been permitted in their names.

War is Hell. We know that. And we accept the horrible bombings of Hiroshima and of cities and the countryside in Germany and Austria because we believe that, in the end, they served a purpose that was noble.

The important thing at this point is not the official legal judgment about these crimes but the general moral judgment of the American people. These acts will not be judged as single acts but as a whole and in the context of the whole war. Thus, for ordinary Americans to whom this information will be new, it will boil down to that question we have heard so often: "What was the noble cause?"

Thus far, no answer has been articulated, not by the Bush administration, not by the Obama administration. Was the oil in Iraq worth the deaths of the innocent children and families who were killed for it? Or were we really fighting over something else?

And how much of the killing of civilians, if any, was really justified by military or political strategy? How much was simply wanton destruction? Those are moral issues that supersede questions about legality.

As an aside, as I recall, the School of the Americas was accused of having encouraged or even taught techniques of torture and abuse as a means of controlling insurgents in South America. My question is whether, in Iraq and Afghanistan, the use of similar techniques by Iraqis was encouraged by Americans or simply tolerated by Americans?

Another question I have is to what extent the disregard for the killing of civilians is simply a part of war and to what extent, to the contrary, it must be attributed to a sort of psychological warfare against the spirit of a people. Were the civilian casualties a legitimate result of a reaction to the inability of the troops to identify the enemy, in other words, a cost of modern insurgent warfare, or was it perhaps a tool to subdue the will of a nation?

I am asking questions, not positing theories. I do not know what this was about.

Certainly, there is always an element that is sadistic and antisocial and likes to see violence. It would be interesting to know about the psychological profiles of some of our military leaders. We are familiar with Rumsfeld's insensitive bungling and Dick Cheney's cruel streak but what is there more behind this in terms of abnormal psychological profiles? (I consider Cheney might fit some profile of an aberrant personality, but I don't know him personally and can't seriously say.) If so, what and who? Because if we permit people who are by nature cruel to take positions of leadership in our military, we are going to have a terrible problem.

And do not say that a cruel nature is the rule among military leaders. I do not have the impression that General Petraeus or the former General Wesley Clark are sadistic people. Quite to the contrary.

[Pavulon]

176. That's Assange's goal and it will not happen. Most of the bodies

were iraqis killing each other. It was a civil war we started by having no plan after the invasion. Tommy franks owns that. There will NOT be a "trial" of the US over his dump of material. He wants it, he can taste it, his agenda is clear, so the people with real power will not let that happen.

I have not seen any oil revenue from Iraq yet, where is it? Not only was it a waste of life, serving no US interest, but no structure to pay for it was set up.

I would bet no more than 10% of that number were killed by US action.

The real question is and always will be what US interest was served there. That answer trumps all this, and is far more important.

[JDPriestly]

189. I hope you are right. You are probably right that probably only

a small percentage were killed by US action. The issue is whether we have established a pattern in Iraq and Central America of facilitating crimes by governments with which we ally. I'm not so sure about that one.

Is there some coincidence in the pattern of the killing of innocents that emerges in Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, and Iraq? Is it due to historical, cultural patterns within those societies? Or is it due to the influence of subcultures in the US military?

[Pavulon]

193. The US actions in Vietnam basically ignored civilians, not a great way to win.

I would be we did not "target" civilians for death, but may not have conducted the war in a manner to limit their deaths. By invading without a plan we created the situation that caused the majority of deaths. We may not have directly killed them but our poor planning and the invasion contributed. It gets more complicated in both Vietnam and Iraq we did not understand the cultures in the countries where we fought.

The major question is still , what did the US gain from the Iraq war? The answer is nothing.

[ProudDad]

199. "General Petraeus or the former General Wesley Clark are sadistic people"

Nope. They're heavily deluded people who are in the service of a sadistic system...

[JDPriestly]

196. I agree with you. This may make it easier for the US to leave

an Iraq that is governed by laws. Maybe --

[saigon68]

134. Its just more "Change We Can Believe In"

[harun]

171. By him not doing a whole lot about these leaks, he is doing us all a favor.

It is actually the best he can do with this.

[liberation]

178. since no responsibilities are being requested...

by mot doing anything about what these leaks imply means this administration gives their tacit approval of these practices. Taking that implication to its ultimate consequences is not a positive thing, IMHO.

[mbperrin]

3. Let's have it all out in the open.

My taxes bought and paid for it, and I deserve to see what I bought. I'd love to see criminal prosecutions as well, but I suppose that's out of the question.

Times like these, I wish there was a hell so that the bastards who disgrace our country and commit crimes against humanity could burn in it.

[bvar22]

44. The only reason it is out of the question,

is because so many people buy into the "Out of the Question" framing.

[Iowa]

73. Yep. It's not out of the question. Obama simply chooses to cover for the war criminals.

[Pavulon]

75. vs what exactly? please detail how he should handle the issue(nt)

[JDPriestly]

181. Actually, you raise an interesting question.

Does Obama choose to cover for the war criminals, or are the war criminals actually in charge, and they choose to tolerate Obama.

Did we as civilians lose our control over the military long ago?

Most people in the military are very decent. There are very decent officers. It's like bullies in Jr. High. It only takes one to change a peaceful, supportive group of people into a Lord of the Rings mob. So, I don't know what is going on. I would like to know. I doubt that members of Congress really know.

[Pavulon]

186. Civilians control the military. People like D Rumsfeld

and his staff built architecture the war. Remember Doug Feith, responsibility for the failure Iraq was and is sits with them, and of course the bush administration.

Ripping it open now may serve Assange but does not serve the US interest, so it will die on the vine.

[JDPriestly]

188. Civilians control the military -- in theory at least.

What happens next will demonstrate whether civilians control it in reality.

I'm not sure what the US interest is in this situation.

I agree with criticisms of Assange that his revelations about Afghanistan could endanger American troops. The word, "could" is critical, however. Time will tell whether he has or is endangering American troops and whether that danger is justified by the benefits that public scrutiny of American war strategy may actually bring those troops in the long run.

If our government has the right to x-ray our bodies as we prepare to get on planes, why shouldn't we have the right to know who our government is killing or what murders and toture by allies our government is willing to ignore? Isn't information, isn't open communication vital in a democracy?

I have not supported Assange's revelations about the on-going war in Afghanistan because that really could put our troops in harms way. But, we have been told that our troops are no longer engaged in combat in Iraq. If that is true, if we are not being lied to about the role of our troops in Iraq, isn't it time to review what we did there?

Remember, the Iraqis know full well how our troops performed in Iraq. Much of this information is known to them. This information is new to Americans but not to the relatives of the innocent people killed in Iraq.

My husband was on the ground in Austria during WWII. He is half Jewish. He was a small child during bombing raids including raids right near his kindergarten and the house in which he was living. He understands the price that had to be paid by the civilians on the ground in that war (and is a US veteran), but the bombing was not hidden from the American people even if they did not entirely understand what it meant to innocent people including children on the ground in the countries that we bombed. The many espionage ruses that we successfully and unsuccessfully carried out are not known to many Americans to this day. I don't think that Assange has revealed those kinds of secrets.

A good rule in life: don't do things you would not want to admit to having done.

If the American military overlooked torture, if it authorized the killing of innocent civilians, it needs to get that "off its chest" so to speak. There is a time for public confessions and public discussions.

We are, still, a democracy. And we are supposed to have civilian oversight of our military. It is hard to imagine that civilians would agree to authorize some of the activities described unless those civilians were under a lot of pressure.

The revelations about Iraq are appropriate in my view. With regard to Afghanistan where our troops are still involved in combat against insurgents, I am less certain one way or the other, but out of caution feel that the military should be responsible for deciding what it reveals. However, the military should realize that sooner or later, the truth will come out, and act accordingly.

[Pavulon]

190. If it has to be public, this manner is better than a church comission type event

here the focus in on the bad guy rather than the documents. There is so much of it, what he has revealed will take time to figure out.

The current interest is to GET OUT. We need to get out of Iraq now and hopefully this will not create any event that slows that.

[JDPriestly]

198. I agree that getting out is the top priority.

I don't know which way this will affect that.

[ooglymoogly]

152. It is out of the question; because the whole Neocon empire's

house of cards would be blown away; if such an investigation and prosecution took place; opening a Pandora's box of unimaginable horror on steroids....Decimating the Republican party and its many powerful heads; in legend, like the serpent Hydra. Sadly "0" is not a Hercules; not even close.

So justice will not be served and America becomes a paraplegic, dealing from hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy.

[cal04]

5. Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-dump-put-iraqi-war-death-toll-285000/story?id=11949670

In what is being described as the largest release of secret U.S. military documents ever, whistle-blowing web site WikiLeaks has released a trove of classified reports about the war in Iraq, including a secret U.S. government tally that put the Iraqi death toll at 285,000, according to news sources that received advanced copies of the documents.

The documents include evidence of state sanctioned torture by the Iraqi government, new evidence of Iraqi government death squads, and Iran's involvement in funneling arms to Shiite militias, according to Arab news channel Al Jazeera, which has been able to review the documents before their release.

Al Jazeera has reviewed the 400,000 documents that are being released. WikiLeaks says it will hold a press conference Saturday morning in Europe. WikiLeaks' Web site is currently down, for what it calls "scheduled maintenance," and ABC News has not viewed the documents firsthand.


NY Times
A trove of secret field reports from Iraq, obtained by the group WikiLeaks, sheds new light on such issues as civilian deaths, detainee abuse and the involvement of Iran.
http://www.nytimes.com/?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1287782613-URogT+AhRC8G1/7ZYc0YPQ
The Iraq Archive: The Strands of a War
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/23/world/middleeast/23intro.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[Pavulon]

6. Will be interesting to see how many we killed and how many

died from IED and sectarian violence. Hopefully the real data is released.

[bvar22]

45. The US Invasion and hostile Occupation spawned....

IED and sectarian violence.
This is not a viable way to duck responsibility.

[OnyxCollie]

68. Amazing what lengths some will go to to avoid accountability.

Hey! He got shot in the face, not the back of the head. Doesn't count!

[Pavulon]

71. Hey I see 750,000 live bodies that were supposed to be dead accordign to lancet

and lots of info on Iran. Waiting to get raw docs, reading up on the revolutionary guard will be quite informative. The rest of the part about dead people in a war supported by two branches, not all that earth shattering.

pointless war, but should be an interesting read.

[OnyxCollie]

72. Thanks, Baghdad Bob. nt

[Pavulon]

74. Hey the hague is waiting for Obama to hand him over..

so he can die awaiting trial like Miloshevich. grow up, deal with reality.

[OnyxCollie]

78. Does your part about the war

being supported by two branches of government include the cherry-picked intelligence Congress was given?

The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued in September
2002, stated “(T)he threat of retaliation is less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more
willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations.”55 It
then noted that the legal rationale for a preemptive strike was dependent upon “the existence of
an imminent threat”56 and suggested “We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the
capabilities and objectives of today’s adversaries.”57

If it is to be assumed that rogue nations would operate irrationally, risking their own
survival to attack the United States, and that the legitimacy of a preemptive strike to defend
national security is conditional upon an imminent threat, and that imminence is characterized by
the capabilities and objectives of the perpetrator, then the claims of capabilities and objectives of
Iraq as presented by the Bush Administration must be examined for validity.

On March 16, 2004, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government
Reform produced a document entitled Iraq on the Record for then-ranking member Rep. Henry
Waxman. The document compiled statements made by five Bush Administration officials,
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, and Condoleeza Rice. It found
that out of 125 public appearances, the five officials made a total of 237 misleading statements
regarding Iraq’s urgency as a threat, its nuclear capabilities, its chemical and biological warfare
program, and its ties to Al Qaeda.58 The misleading statements began on March 17, 2002 and
continued through January 22, 2004, with 161 statements made prior to the invasion and 76
made after to justify the action.59 The greatest number of misleading statements (64) occurred in
the month before Congress voted to invade Iraq.60

Beginning with Iraq’s characterization as an urgent threat, on October 2, 2002, President
Bush said, “the Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency. . . . (I)t has developed weapons of
mass death.”61 On August 26, 2002, Vice President Cheney stressed the need for immediate
action, saying, “Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies,
and against us.”62 On November 14, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld offered this scenario:

Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years, or a week, or a month,
and if Saddam Hussein were to take his weapons of mass destruction and
transfer them, either use them himself, or transfer them to the Al-Qaeda,
and somehow the Al-Qaeda were to engage in an attack on the United
States, or an attack on U.S. forces overseas, with a weapon of mass
destruction you’re not talking about 300, or 3,000 people potentially being
killed, but 30,000, or 100,000 . . . human beings.63

Despite the certainty of the statements above regarding Iraq’s urgent threat, on February 5, 2004,
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director George Tenet stated that the intelligence community
“never said there was an ‘imminent’ threat.”64

Of the 237 statements, 81 statements exaggerated Iraq’s nuclear capabilities.65 Examples
of these statements include President Bush’s January 28, 2003, State of the Union address, “The
British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of
uranium from Africa”66; and Vice President Cheney’s statement on September 8, 2002, that “we
do know, with absolute certainty, that he is using his procurement system to acquire the
equipment he needs . . . to build a nuclear weapon”67; and the Vice President’s statement on
March 16, 2003, that “we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons”68

Regarding Iraq’s nuclear capabilities, the 2006 report from the Senate Select Committe
on Intelligence (SSCI) Postwar Findings About Iraq’s WMD Program and Links to Terrorism
and How They Compare With Prewar Assessments revealed that the State Department’s Bureau
of Intelligence and Research (INR) evaluation of Iraq’s activities did not equate to “a compelling
case that Iraq is pursuing... an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear
weapons.”69 Additionally, INR’s evaluation of the claims that Iraq tried to procure uranium from
Africa were “highly dubious.”70 A July 2004, SSCI released a report concluding “that the
judgment in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear
program ‘was not supported by the intelligence.”71

Proceeding to Iraq’s biological weapons capabilities, in October 2002 President Bush
said:

(W)e assess that most elements of Iraq’s BW program are larger and more
advanced than before the Gulf War. We judge Iraq has some BW agent and is
capable of quickly producing (in both mobile and fixed facilities) a variety of
such agents, including anthrax. It can deliver these BW agents by bomb, missiles,
aerial sprayers, and covert operatives.72

Yet only a month before, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) determined “There is no
reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons or where
Iraq has— or will — establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities.”73 Furthermore,
the 2004 SSCI report examined the NIE’s assessment that Iraq had biological weapons and
determined the assessment had:

overstated what was known about Iraq’s biological weapons holdings, did not
explain the uncertainties underlying the statement (“Baghdad has biological
weapons”), and did not explain that the conclusion that Iraq had a mobile
biological weapons program was largely based on the reporting from a single
source.74

Advancing to Iraq’s ties to Al Qaeda, what officials in the Bush Administration said
publicly did not match intelligence estimates. From the section marked “Confidence Levels for
Selected Key Judgements in this Estimate” in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate
on Iraq, a rating of “Low Confidence” was given to the suggestion of “Whether in desperation
Saddam would share chemical or biological weapons with Al Qa’ida.”75 Nevertheless, President
Bush claimed an Iraq-Al Qaeda tie by saying that Saddam Hussein is “a threat because he is
dealing with Al Qaida. . . . (A) true threat facing our country is that an Al Qaida-type network
trained and armed by Saddam could attack America and not leave one fingerprint.”76

55 White House, National Security Strategy of the United States, September 2002, p. 15.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid.
58 U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform- Minority Office, Iraq on the Record, p. i
59 Iraq on the Record, p. ii
60 Ibid.
61 White House, President, House Leadership Agree on Iraq Resolution (Oct. 2, 2002).
62 White House, Vice President Speaks at VFW 103rd National Convention (Aug. 26, 2002).
63 U.S. Department of Defense, Secretary Rumsfeld Live Interview with Infinity CBS Radio (Nov. 14, 2002).
64 Central Intelligence Agency, Remarks as Prepared for Delivery by Director of Central Intelligence George J.
Tenet at Georgetown University (Feb. 5, 2004).
65 Iraq on the Record, p. ii
66 Ibid, p. iii
67 Ibid.
68 Ibid.
69 National Intelligence Estimate. (2002). Iraq’s continuing program for weapons of mass destruction, pp. 8, 9.
70 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. (2004). Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar
Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, S. Rept. 108-301, p. 53.
71 Ibid, p. 129
72 Committee staff notes of President’s NIE Summary dated October 1, 2002
73 Defense Intelligence Agency, Iraq — Key WMD Facilities — An Operational Support Study
(Sept. 2002) (unclassified excerpts are available at http://www.ceip.org/files/nonprolif/templates
/article.asp?newsID=4928).
74 Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, Senate Select Committee
on Intelligence, S. Rept. 108-301, July 7, 2004, pp. 188-189
75 National Intelligence Council, Iraq’s Continuing Program for Weapons of Mass Destruction:
Key Judgements (from October 2002 NIE) (declassified July 18, 2003), supra note 16.
76 White House, President Outlines Priorities (Nov. 7, 2002).

You're a hack, Pavulon.

[Pavulon]

79. How many bills passed to fund it, is it funded now?

move on and get real. get your friends out to vote. this is history and putting effort into it now will leave you feeling sad when it drops away after a 5day cycle.

I'm realist. Some fucking E3 may get fucked, maybe a major, shit a light col. but no real accountability, other than manning who will die surrounded by people that hate him as a traitor for dumping this all for the lulz.

[marasinghe]

50. would have been interesting to see how many Iraqis would not have died ....

if our murderous leaders & armies hadn't attacked a country that was innocent of any aggressive intent, much less actions, against our countries. but then, we'll never know will we? 'cos most of the evidence is just dust blowing in the wind now.

amazing to find freaking apologists still floating around on the fringe, trying to rationalize mass-murder of what - at present - appears to be close to 300,000 innocents; the majority civilians, including women, children & infants.

and the whole torture meme is the least of the crimes here; just an attempted diversion of attention from the mass-murders.

[Pavulon]

66. Thought the sanctions killed a million

then we killed another million, so thats like 5% of the population in lancet numbers. Just saying, we did not drop those bodies, maybe 10% at the outside are US the rest are internal.

Sure a stupid war, not like we burned tokyo there.

[bvar22]

146. So how much unnecessry DEATH are you OK with?

You are a cold piece of work, Pavlulon.

[Pavulon]

147. None, The Iraq war served no american interest. A colossal waste

of lives and treasure. But a realistic approach to this is not expecting bush to the hague and a presidential pardon for some guy that stole all this information on a cdrw with a lady gaga sticker in it.

No one did their job in 2003 and later and looked at the Iraq war objectively.

People running around looking for Obama to address this are on crack.

[bvar22]

149. You are mistaken.

There are several members of Congress who did their jobs,
along with several million American citizens....

...and I see you are still doing yours.

[Pavulon]

150. No real press did anything prior to invasion. No one saw information

the whole show was based on. congress has continually funded the war since day one. The press only came around after there was no doubt they were bamboozled.

Yes being a realist is a job around here. But hey keep waiting for Obama to send bush to the hague. whatever floats your boat.

[bvar22]

154. And yet, most of us here at DU...

...were able to easily find out the TRUTH.
Millions nationwide knew the TRUTH and acted accordingly.
Also, over 150 Congresscritters KNEW the TRUTH and acted accordingly.
I would propose that EVERY single Congresscritter KNEW the TRUTH,
but some are more venal and have less political courage than others

[Newsjock]

7. What is the appropriate international punishment for the USA?

And how will it affect each of us? Serious questions, not snark.

Even if "you" and "I" were not directly complicit in the crimes, our democratically elected government was, and it is only reasonable that the rest of the world will demand some type of restitution for the wrongs that have been perpetrated in our name.

Will we be subject to de facto foreign control for some years? Hmmm ... wait ... I think that's precisely what's already started to happen.

[Pavulon]

8. None. There will be much soap boxing but no consequences.

the us and uk (rest of nato) have this information. Will be interesting to see if they dump peoples names into the clear.

How exactly will we be controlled?

[Newsjock]

10. Foreign money

How exactly will we be controlled?

Through the "U.S" Chamber of Commerce, it seems! Buying our elections to install politicians who put the interests of other countries above those of our own.

[Pavulon]

11. That supreme court case ties into Iraq? Note china revalued currency last week

not exactly a step towards domination of the US..

I believe foreign money is still illegal.

[totodeinhere]

62. In the first place, it was not a "democratically elected government."

Bush stole both of his elections. In no way do I consider myself responsible for what the Bush Administration war criminals did, and I doubt if you are responsible for it either.

[bhikkhu]

157. Economic sanctions would be the basic punishment

...perhaps put on the table as an incentive to the nation-in-question to clean up its act, strengthen its laws against repeated offenses, and pursue those guilty.

Of course in practice it would be a token threat, as economic sanctions cost everyone money and business and no one wants that, and prosecuting the guilty is also usually a token response which goes after no one really responsible...but in any case it would be better than nothing at all.

[ixion]

9. "Turned a blind eye"? Hardly. WE HELPED...

and had our own torture chambers goin' as well.

[Pavulon]

13. Boy I would like to see the originals in a searchable format

so far, not out there.

[Turborama]

136. Here you go

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/23/wikileaks-iraq-data-journalism

[Turborama]

138. Even better link

Here: http://wikileaks.org/iraq/diarydig

[Pavulon]

164. Off to a public computer with a thumb drive..(nt)

[druidity33]

12. Is this Reston5?

They were getting hacked earlier and "activate Reston5" was reported to have been logged by a Wikileaker...

I wonder if they planned it for today... normally Fridays are a dump.

:shrug:

K&R

[Heywood J]

14. I'll be waiting to hear what the President's official line is on this.

Why are US forces being used to prop up a government that's of the strongman-tyrant variety? Doing nothing after this sort of revelation will cost Democrats seats in 2010 and valuable support in 2012.

Any President in office before LBJ would have been outraged to see the kind of shit that's coming out in these files.

[Pavulon]

16. Yep, it took 30 years to figure out who killed Diem

every US presidency has secrets. His line will be were out of there and 1 guy died in country this month. Have a nice life Iraq..

What should he do, send bush to the Hague? The only loser here is manning, who will die in custody while assange gets his hard earned lulz..

[Poll_Blind]

18. "(something, something)...change is hard...(something, something)...the road is long..."

That's as close as it's going to get.

PB

[cal04]

15. Twitter: Al Jazeera have broken our embargo by 30 minutes.

Al Jazeera have broken our embargo by 30 minutes. We release everyone from their Iraq War Logs embargoes.
http://twitter.com/wikileaks

[kgnu_fan]

27. Oh, my, I wonder if they are going to be in trouble!

[SpiralHawk]

19. "Smirk." - xCommander AWOL (R)

[Xmit]

80. First off

This is bullshit and an absolute disgrace;



Second, people die as a result of war, sorry to let you know that, but it happens.

[kgnu_fan]

20. Steal the Iraq War Logs analysis (Creative Commons Licensed) http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/

[kgnu_fan]

22. 31 Iraq civilians dying every day during the six year period

At 5pm EST Friday 22nd October 2010 WikiLeaks released the largest classified military leak in history. The 391,832 reports ('The Iraq War Logs'), document the war and occupation in Iraq, from 1st January 2004 to 31st December 2009 (except for the months of May 2004 and March 2009) as told by soldiers in the United States Army. Each is a 'SIGACT' or Significant Action in the war. They detail events as seen and heard by the US military troops on the ground in Iraq and are the first real glimpse into the secret history of the war that the United States government has been privy to throughout.

The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984 'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces). The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60%) of these are civilian deaths.That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period. For comparison, the 'Afghan War Diaries', previously released by WikiLeaks, covering the same period, detail the deaths of some 20,000 people. Iraq during the same period, was five times as lethal with equivallent population size.

Please donate to WikiLeaks at https://donations.datacell.com/ to defend this information.

[Pavulon]

25. You left out the 40k from IED and 40K from sectarian numbers.

would be nice to see the originals. Guess that is less than the lancet million?

[The abyss]

38. No IED nor “sectarian” actions prior to the US occupation.

Amazing how that works

[Pavulon]

54. We did not drop the bodies. Sure it was a debacle but it is not dresden

they killed each other.

[kgnu_fan]

24. Julian, thank you. You are a brave man

[Pavulon]

26. Thank Bradley Manning, the guy who will die in federal custody, assange

got all his lulz for stealing all the data. Assange just published it all.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

28. No, wait, let me guess, you mass-post on all Wikileaks threads because you "don't care", right?

[Catherina]

31. Quite curious isn't it? n/t

[Poll_Blind]

32. I know, I've noticed it too. Concern troll is concerned, apparently. n/t

PB

[U4ikLefty]

43. Very concerned it seems. n/t

[liberation]

184. He's concerned that you guys will not grasp how much he does not care...

LOL

[Pavulon]

57. Put up or shut up, say Iran running ops or the not quite 1 millionbody stack

talking some shit is easy, putting facts down based on the reporting not so easy. Circus seal it all you want.

[liberation]

183. "talking some shit is easy"

... as you keep proving over and over in this thread. LOL.

[Pavulon]

187. I have content and ideas, you could use your brain to discuss the news cycle on this

the actions that may be taken (or not taken by the Obama administration) but that assumes you have enough brain cells to hold your asshole shut and discuss in an intelligent manner.

Still on the table.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

48. You wanna make him really not care? Say the word Chavez.

:rofl:

[Pavulon]

58. Poor hugo, between fluffing china and iran he is running out

of holes to work with. Dont worry, I have only the utmost respect for che jesus.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

69. Aaaaand he takes the bait! nt

[Pavulon]

70. Oh boy oh boy, another cerebral response. wanna talk iran in iraq, percent of bodies dropped

no, you wanna talk shit because reading is hard.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

82. Oh no I wanna talk about the 2 books you've read that you keep talking about over and over again. Oh

and frogs can't forget about the frogs. And no, reading's easy but you're just so predictable.

[Pavulon]

84. Ohh, I missed you content. busting my balls is entertaining, but lacks any grey matter effort

what do you think will happen in US domestic policy to address these documents? What do you think will happen to bradley manning? will Venezuela build some additional power generation capability so they dont run out of hydroelectric again next summer? I mean after hugo gets off his knees and finds the mouthwash. Will their economy suffer inflation rates like their murder rates?

Will you bring anything to the table or will I eat your fucking lunch?

Feel free to put some content out there, because talking shit is fun and all but this is not home room.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

90. When talking about grey matter one should be able to write coherent sentences, number one.

Number two,pulling out the lotion and fantasizing about what's going to happen to Hugo Chavez or Julian Assange, doesn't exactly make you William F Buckley. So, the day that you'll "eat my fucking lunch". Will be right after I shit it out. It's fun to talk shit because you make it easy. The cardboard GI Joe shtick is really not impressive, sorry.

[Pavulon]

96. Not one bit of content. all hat not a single fucking cow.

how many days of cycle will this get? Who will be charged, what venue will they be charged in. How does this reflect on the Lancet study with a million dead in Iraq? How will a country who has nationalized raise billions to build hydroelectric or other infrastructure requiring long term investment?

Easy as I made it your crayons are still in their little box, you put nothing on the table except more shit talking.

I can try to post questions you can use google to answer, regretfully the real world, unlike your social studies homework is not found in a search engine.

child.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

99. And as much shit as I keep putting out there you continue to swallow it whole. I'm deeply touched

that you care so much about a subject that you claim not to care about. Hell nobody cares right? I mean the next time Tom Cruise farts. That's what we'll all be talking about. I love it how every time the subject's brought up you just can't help yourself. Seriously, how many times have you cut and pasted the same dumb ass comments. Come on dude mix it up a little. Maybe you can try the boiling pigs and frogs walking on two legs or something.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

105. Hey, Guy, this is getting boring. Wanna go see the giraffes? -nt

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

108. Mejor vamos a ver dos moscas metiendo. Es mil veces mas interesante. nt

[Pavulon]

106. Post one comment with content. just one, try..

talking shit on the internet is fun, I enjoy calling out a hollow retard as much as the next person.. those things that look like this >>? means you can add content.

Feel free, even if you all fucked up on a friday night give it a try.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

114. I'll have you know I'm a

full retard thank you very much. 8------) Do you know what this is?

[Pavulon]

116. Another empty post minus anything close to content? Yep that would be it(nt)

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

119. Well there was some content. Long content one might say. Some might even call it art. nt

[U4ikLefty]

201. dude..."The cardboard GI Joe shtick is really not impressive, sorry"

That was goooood!!!

Thanks

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

92. Nothing cerebral is going on here.

We're at the zoo, watching a chimpanzee running around, flailing its arms, and screaming loudly.

Low brow entertainment, surely, but it's good clean family fun.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

95. ANIMAL FARM READ FUCKING ANIMAL FARM!!!!! RED SHIRTS, YELLOW MOONS, ORANGE STARS, GREEN CLOVERS!!!!

[Name removed]

97. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

103. Retards? My my aren't we touchy? Such ugly language from a dime store ''intellectual''. The

funny thing is that you don't realize how hilarious you are. It's like that person who's not only stupid, but they're so stupid they don't that they're stupid (I'm just using this as an example. I'm not actually calling you names. That would just be rude.)

[Pavulon]

109. Content, still waiting for it. Regretfully it cant post its self >>?

for a poster to add something. Any hollow ass can bust balls but surely you can post you opinion on the approximate time to cycle this story will have.

Maybe even a hint on the domestic impact of this in the current administration. Hell if you had a spare brain cell not holding your asshole shut you could discuss the idea that this was dumped BY the intelligence community to hold off a church commission type event.

But that may be over you head. Regretfully the weekly reader does not cover these topics.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

113. You shall not have it.

We'll keep posting "without content", just to poke you and watch you dance.

[Pavulon]

120. for the lulz, your post is almost /b quality, but even they post content(nt)

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

117. .

:spray: Ok ok seriously now.English is not my first language. What's your excuse??!!!! :rofl:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

121. He's a right winger. An EXTREMELY RIGHT WING right winger. Want more reason than that?

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

124. The spelling always gives them away. nt

[Pavulon]

125. Yep, I am reich wing. So far to the right that I disregard all fact and never

post anything to back up my posts because god will take care of that for me. I am like right of hitler, pol pot, stalin, and mao. Right wing as shit, yeah that it,

oh , rather than using all caps like a poon I would happily discuss anything approaching content with you but you seem unable to post it.

ALL CAPS MAKE MY POST MORE IMPORTANT...READ IT..

[Jazzgirl]

141. They call it Anosognosic.

n/t

[Pavulon]

55. I care so much. Got a point, care to discuss facts or just talking some shit?(nt)

[girl gone mad]

47. For all we know..

Manning is just a psy-ops plant.

No reason to jump to conclusions.

[Pavulon]

56. And assange is a honeypot, still one gets to portk swedish groupies, the other dies

in florence adx.

[LanternWaste]

29. This will certainly put troops in danger....

This will certainly put troops in danger :sarcasm:


...or so we're consistently told in tones of righteous indignation by the 422nd Ineffectual Martyr Regiment.

[Pavulon]

67. Waiting for the documents. The real data is there, so far you have nothing

once the raw material is loose then the impact of what he dumped will be clear.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. Times Square:

[Poll_Blind]

35. Nice shot, CPD! n/t

PB

[Blue_Tires]

64. 285,000...All I can do is hang my head...

I knew the civilian death toll was higher than the "official" number, but not that high...

[bigdaddycoles66]

34. TORTURE

The numerous reports of detainee abuse, often supported by medical evidence, describe prisoners shackled, blindfolded and hung by wrists or ankles, and subjected to whipping, punching, kicking or electric shocks. Six reports end with a detainee's apparent death.

Oh well for waterboarding! This makes waterboarding seem like feather tickling someone for a confession! What the heck is going on here in the U.S? Is this okay?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

39. Ask Dick Cheney

[lovuian]

36. America's actions in the Iraq War is violation of Geneva

Convention

The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches, and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:

* willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
* willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
* compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
* willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial

Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:

* taking of hostages
* extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
* unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.<11>


Lets face it
We were the oppressors in Iraq

[Rosa Luxemburg]

37. Didn't stop Bush and Cheney

they weren't interested in the Geneva convention and the rest of the world did nothing

[Pavulon]

61. Were not in Iraq, one guy died there this month.

the lawyers have a plan for this right after they figured out what manning stole. this is a 5 day news cycle and then off to the same place his last dump went.

[SnakeEyes]

40. Just wish they didn't redact...

I want all names and places of those complicit in this illegal and immoral war to be exposed for their war crimes.

[Pavulon]

59. You payed income tax, you own it.

you want some dude in a sunni shithole to get his face blown off to feel better about yourself. Look in the mirror, you represent this. Its legal, it was run by two branches of government.

Moral and correct, serves american interest not so much.

[SnakeEyes]

148. I don't own shit...

I pay taxes because I ain't going to jail for not doing so. I protested before, during, and after the decision to go war and after it started I voted for no politician who supported it or didn't want to end it.

It's not a legal war. We had no legal or moral right to invade Afghanistan or Iraq, destroy their country, and kill their innocent people. The wars were rationalized by the previous administration using lies. Atrocities and war crimes have been committed. They are also illegal because there has never been a formal declaration of war passed.

As for some dude in a "sunni shithole" (wow, such a degrading attitude toward the region), I'm unlike many around here. I've refused the BS the right has forced people into of supporting the troops but not the mission. Now, troops that signed up before the wars could be considered a different story. However we are far removed from the start of these wars. Anyone over there now is there after having voluntarily signed up or resigned after the wars had begun. Not only that but are far enough removed that they would have done so well after we knew of the atrocities that are going on over there. They are all complicit in this illegal and immoral war.

[Pavulon]

162. Please. Every person there was not involved in any illegal activity.

if a US service member committed a crime as defined by UCMJ then they should prosecuted (torture, murder, etc). However the CIVILIANS who issue orders are responsible for the war. The war powers act negates you illegal because not declared meme.

Illegal in what realm like 9th circuit federal court, illegal in the UN? Legality assumes there is a body who will conduct a legal proceeding.

We are right now killing people in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Funded continuously from day 0. The Iraq war served no american interest, afganistan did and was poorly handled.

At some point it will wind down but the people who pull events like Munich , the bali bombings, etc and kill americans and others in targeting killings will still be handled in a military manner. The rules changed.

[JDPriestly]

197. We have had terrorist attacks off and on for many years.

As long as we have air travel and people can move from one continent to another easily, we will have terrorist incidents.
Remember the Achille Lauro

http://www.specialoperations.com/Images_Folder/library2/achille.html

Nothing really changed with 9/11 except the repressiveness of our government's reaction to the terror.

It was the idea that it could happen on US soil that was thought to be new.

But then we had the bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma. Remember Timothy McVeigh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing

Then there was the crazy guy called the Unabomber.

Terrorism is not new. Nothing really changed -- except our panic in the face of it.

Oh, and a lot of people who manufacture this surveillance equipment decided to make some money off the panic. Nothing new here, nothing at all.

I am more likely to die due to a drunk driver than due to a terrorist attack.

[SnakeEyes]

202. Yes they are... the entire wars are illegal.

Therefore anyone willingly participating in the wars are involved in illegal activity.

Just following orders is not valid.

[cal04]

41. WikiLeaks Dumps 400,000 Military Documents Reportedly Containing Details on Iraqi Torture

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wikileaks-dump-put-iraqi-war-death-toll-285000/story?id=11949670
video at llink

[Capitalocracy]

42. Seems logical.

I mean, why would we investigate a client state's acts of torture when we're committing torture ourselves?

[bvar22]

46. The Democratic Party Honor Roll:

These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand AGAINST the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq.


United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)


United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[G_j]

51. +10000

[Arrowhead2k1]

49. It's mainly Muslims who are suffering, so it won't change a damn thing in America.

Abhorrent, but true...

[Turborama]

52. Heads Up: Live Stream Of Al Jazeera English "Iraq Secret Files" (Live Show That's Just Started)

Links here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9371627

[dflprincess]

63. Now we know (well, most of us had guessed) why the current administration didn't want

these documents released.

It makes it quite clear that Obama's refusal to investigate the Bush administration makes him and Hoder (at the least) accessories after the fact.

[Pavulon]

65. so vote palin. maybe dennis k will send them to the hague

when he takes the oval office. dont know what planet you are from but your choices are quite clear. rehashing the iraq war, a complete failure, at this point is quite stupid.

i have yet ot see any documents, only blather from various news groups.

[bvar22]

76. Realistically,

Not investigating the dynamics of this monumental failure,
and NOT holding accountable those who spawned this disaster,
will ENSURE that it happens again.

Lets learn from this atrocity.

BTW: Did you know that not a single member of Congress or the Senate who voted NO on the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq holds a leadership position in the Obama Administration?
Only those whop got it WRONG have been rewarded.

[Pavulon]

77. Why make simple complex. People manipulated information

as far as possible within the realm of the legal (because they have lawyers) and started a war that was unnecessary. It cost lots of lives and money.

Giant fuckup ensues. Obama shuts it down. Now, do you expect him to go try to put people on trial on charges not supported by evidence and covered by national security (even mr manning did not steal enough to get convictions) or to move on and fix shit.

Seriously its like kindergarten around here. No one is going on trial, no one is going to be "accountable" to anyone other than historians.

Move on , vote in the upcoming election.

[dflprincess]

83. In 2009 the United States deported an 89 year old man to Germany

to face trial for crimes committed while he was a guard at Sobibor - 65 years ago. The German government charged him with several thousand counts of murder - 1 count for each inmate who died while he was a guard at the camp.

But apparently there is a statute of limitations when it's Americans who committed the crimes because then it's just a "giant fuckup". (And with Obama continuing rendition and okaying the murder of an American citizen, it would be a little sticky for his administration to accuse Bush & Cheney of crimes).

Really, why prosecute any crime? By the time it gets to trial, it's all in the past and any victims should just "move on".

[Pavulon]

85. Because reality is real.

short of bush eating a iraqi kid like a pig pickin on tape nothing manning stole will get a criminal reaction. there is no legal framework to prosecute people you dont like for shitty political decisions. Half of the guysvwho drew up the orders still work at DOJ and DOD. You think these federal guys all just quit between seat warmers in the white house.

Same guys that let some fucking kid from socal get greased with a predator let us invade iraq with shit intelligence.

Seriously, those are the pieces on the board. Your nazi comparisons may seem relevant to you but are not in play here.

[dflprincess]

87. A war of agression is a war crime

and the whole world heard the lies that stooge, Powell, told the UN and the whole world heard Bush's lies about the war. There is plenty of evidence.

[Pavulon]

88. Right. Just not enough to convict anybody of anything in the US

now if this gets really bad some staff sargent, maybe a light colonel will get some time. but go to bed comforted that no one in the civilian leadership of the US government between 2001 and 2010 will ever speak to this under oath, never mind actually face a charge.

The UN cant do shit about the 6 million dead in the congo with powerless nations and you think it will take a stand against its benefactors.

Sad but true. History will be the only judge of these folks.

[G_j]

102. they may be political decisions, but they are international actions

which violate treaties. They most likely will never be prosecuted, but I believe there are legal grounds. It certainly won't happen in the US under Obama or any future Republican president.

[Pavulon]

111. Right after Diem's killers stand trial...

seriously you think people never read about the environment that they live in. Never happen under any administration, period, ever.

Take the single casualty in Iraq this month as a win and move on.

[Turborama]

81. You call this "blather"?

http://www.iraqwarlogs.com/

[Pavulon]

86. I call that evidence. And poor bradley will pay for his lulz

long after the 5 day news cycle of this dies off. I see no video and nothing that will keep interest past MTP next week, at the best. Mid term elections are the longest this story lives, short of a plane crash or some such shit next tuesday.

None of that will have repercussions beyond the people who get paid to talk on the TV set. Count on it.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

94. You know, you should use actual porn, sex porn, instead.

Much healthier to masturbate to.

[Pavulon]

98. Can you pass a turing test are you just a shell

feel free to post content. I assume its Friday where you are and you are all fucked up, but even a drunk can come up with three sentences.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

101. Learn some geography. Oh, I forgot, Real Americans don't do that. -nt

[Pavulon]

115. Aww did feelings get hurt, No Idea where you sit off of UK master time

you know the people whose clock you hack off of where ever you call home.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

118. That was utterly incomprehensible, even for your standards.

[Pavulon]

122. let me make a geography refrence here and be sure not to use the message block

for anything like content..

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

123. This is almost Andy Kaufmanesque. THis is some serious Tony Clifton shit right here. But

come on man!!! How is your Garfield strip going to affect oil prices and the sale of soy bean futures? Tell me that smart ass!!!

[Pavulon]

126. $10 if you read the rolling stone article about the guys your strip refrences

turing would be needed there. teh google will not cover that one either.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

128. Bwwwwaaaahaaahaaaaa!!!!! My strip... what??? Haaaahaaahaaa!!!! Stop it you're

killing me!

[Pavulon]

130. Leet meeee post lotsss!!!! of STufff here... post ..may have been for CPD.. ppooooster... fuck

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

131. Oooh K you alright there champ? Take it easy I'm starting to get worried.

:evilgrin:

[Pavulon]

132. Just fine, and for $100 Alex the answer is Motorhead, Lemmy was

in a decent Rolling Stone article a while back.. Poor washed up bastard. Obviously this whole conversation will be <deleted subthread> by the time I wake up after 10 tomorrow.

[Pavulon]

139. Wow this didn't get deleted, a testament to

posting and drinking..

[Turborama]

135. You should try this one

Says it all: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4584873&mesg_id=4585575

[Pavulon]

140. look at the post one above it..^^^^ note the similarity

[OnyxCollie]

100. He can't get it up.

Guns ALWAYS deliver.

[snot]

91. K&R'd

[chill_wind]

133. K & R. Revelations and threads like this

would have had several hundred recs during the Bush regime years.

[suffragette]

168. +1,000

Ain't that the truth.

[panzerfaust]

137. And what will happen now is ...

Nothing.

Indeed, I would be surprised if president Obama even mentions it, shocked if he devotes a speech to it, and entirely gobsmacked if he orders an investigation into that illegal, unjust, immoral war or its prosecution by our military.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[histeria]

142. Files: Iraqi deaths higher than US count

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – Military documents laid bare in the biggest leak of secret information in U.S. history suggest that far more Iraqis died than previously acknowledged during the years of sectarian bloodletting and criminal violence unleashed by the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

The accounts of civilian deaths among nearly 400,000 purported Iraq war logs released Friday by the WikiLeaks website include deaths unknown or unreported before now — as many as 15,000 by the count of one independent research group.

The field reports from U.S. forces and intelligence officers also indicate U.S. forces often failed to follow up on credible evidence that Iraqi forces mistreated, tortured and killed their captives as they battled a violent insurgency.

The war logs were made public in defiance of Pentagon insistence that the action puts the lives of U.S. troops and their military partners at risk.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101023/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/wikileaks;_ylt=AjR7T.uekKFDt7DIk5hY5RKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTM5bWh1cXVkBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAxMDIzL3dpa2lsZWFrcwRjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzMEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl90b3Bfc3RvcnkEc2xrA2Z1bGx

---

This is huge. We were lied to about how many were killed in the war based on lies. Someone has to go to jail.

[on point]

143. Scale of War crime yes, but lies alone no

Bush and cronies absolutely need to be tried for war crimes (crime of aggression), crimes against humanity (torture), violation of the constitution (lying about the reason for the war. And so do any enablers like congress, the NYTimes, and people who fail to prosecute when the evidence is everywhere. But lying about how many were killed is not a crime in and of itself, unless it was used to cover up something else like torture or wholesale slaughter. But then it merely establishes the scale and is a lesser point in the larger crime.

So let's focus on the real crimes, and not create ones that don't exist. Lies in this context, by themselves, are not crimes.

[ooglymoogly]

155. Any serious investigation or prosecution would evolve

into war crimes. Pug and neocon heads would be exploding like jiffypop. This is a more dependable measure as to the extent of damage those criminal and prosecutable war crimes caused.

[xchrom]

144. recommend

[flyarm]

145. On NY radio last night..(CBS? I think) they said the documents show way way more civilian

casuaities than the USA has ever reported.

Sorry I was driving and I didn't listen to what radio station I was listening to,..I was trying to find the playoffs on radio while driving and I heard this.

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madmax]

156. Cheney and bush to the Hague

I wish but, won't happen. :mad:

[Drops_not_Dope]

169. *

http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

179. Why is Julian still alive?

I mean, with all the death squads and rendition aircraft at the military's disposal, how is this guy still above ground?

I'm starting to think that there's a lot of good info in those leaked files.

And maybe a good amount of disinformation, designed to cause distrust within the al quaeda leadership.

Now I'll take off the tinfoil hat and take my nap.

:hi:

[kgnu_fan]

192. Why not? We need more man who is brave enough to risk his life for TRUTH

[Pavulon]

194. Bradley Manning? He is the real source, Assange is just basking in his lost lulz..(nt)

[ProudDad]

200. 'Cause he's very, very careful? (n/t)

[nashville_brook]

180. more "don't ask don't tell"

[felix_numinous]

195. Is not divide and conquer

the art of manipulating people to fight amongst themselves, so they can do the killing for you? They have done this in every country occupied, and now they are attempting the same tactics domestically.