Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks Releases Cache of 400,000 Iraq War Documents
Caelesto writes "Today around 21:00 GMT, WikiLeaks declared an end to their media embargo of over 400,000 Iraq War documents after Al Jazeera released their story 30 minutes ahead of schedule. These documents, which have been kept under wraps by WikiLeaks for months, may reveal tortures and murders ignored by coalition forces during the fighting and occupation in Iraq. The Pentagon maintained that releasing these documents represented a danger to US troops, but already dozens of news outlets are scrambling to report on what could be a devastating blow to the US Armed Forces' already tattered image." Reader Entropy98 points to the BBC's coverage, as well. If you care to download the collection of files, it's available as a torrent.
But I just donated 50 EUR to WikiLeaks.
Posting these may be wrong but it does bring to like some abuses by all the groups involved which have either never been discussed or their existence never known before. Personally bringing abuses to light which were previously hidden makes this partially right.
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
"scrambling to report on what could be a devastating blow to the US Armed Forces' already tattered image."
Am I the only who didn't think the first release left the US Armed Forces with a tattered image? These are huge volumes of reports from the US Armed forces about the actions of the US Armed Forces (good, bad, etc) the fact that all actions of the armed forces are so carefully logged leads me to believe that despite issues and anecdotes the US Armed Forces are actually pretty damn professional... Top level officials not wanting these documents publicly released is unfortunate but the fact that these documents even exist is a testament to professionalism on the part of the Armed Forces.
many of us think this is a key point in history where freedom is clashing with government invasion of privacy. we see escalating levels of snooping on the part of 'the officials' and the people are forced to endure this treatment under the guise of 'making us safer'. we know its not for that purpose but we are told we have to give up our privacy to the government.
well, wikileaks is giving them a taste of their own medicine. not for that reason primarily, I don't think, but its in there to some extent.
its a statement of: if you are going to dish it out, you BETTER be ready to take it.
the governments (all over the world) are trying to limit free speech (the internet) and seem to have fallen in love with keeping detailed data on all its citizens. they want a one-sided arrangement.
its not fair but there was nothing the little guy can do, no matter which country you are in. (name one that is really 'free' these days. please.)
wiki is sort of a dose of 'fuck you right back'. again, even if not fully intended, it kind of comes off that way.
sort of like a big bully getting a dose of medicine.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
We have bias on two sides: Wikileaks, and the US forces who wrote the reports.
The facts in them, though, should be fairly accurate.
If the reports aren't factual, I think it is far more likely that they were falsified by those who wrote them in the first place than by Wikileaks.
You can make a different interpretation of them if you think the reports are too biased (by either side).
In the old days kings used to lead their soldiers into battle. In modern times this is impractical and counterproductive.
But you can still have leaders lead the frontline in spirit.
Basically, if leaders are going to send troops on an _offensive_ war/battle (not defensive war) there must be a referendum on the war.
If there are not enough votes for the war, those leaders get put on death-row.
At a convenient time later, a referendum is held to redeem each leader. Leaders that do not get enough votes get executed. For example if too many people stay at home and don't bother voting - the leaders get executed.
If it turns out later that the war was justified, a fancy ceremony is held, and the executed leaders are awarded a purple heart or equivalent, and you have people say nice things about them, cry and that sort of thing.
If it turns out later that the leaders tricked the voters, a referendum can be held (need to get enough signatures to start such a referendum, just to prevent nutters from wasting everyone elses time).
This proposal has many advantages:
1) Even leaders who don't really care about those "young soldiers on the battlefield" will not consider starting a war lightly.
2) The soldiers will know that the leaders want a war enough to risk their own lives for it.
3) The soldiers will know that X% of the population want the war.
4) Those being attacked will know that X% of the attackers believe in the war - so they want a war, they get a war - for sufficiently high X, collateral damage becomes insignificant. They might even be justified in using WMD and other otherwise dubious tactics. If > 90% of the country attacking you want to kill you and your families, what is so wrong about you using WMD as long as it does not affect neighbouring countries?
Yes, the 40 million or so people who voted for Dubya had nothing whatsoever to do with his win.
But could you explain to me again how it is Ralph Nader's fault that the Democrats have the White House, the House of Representatives and a super-majority in the Senate and still can't get much of anything worthwhile done?
Weird. The country with the world-record in political assassination is the US. Explain to me why I should be more scared of the shitty remains of the USSR than of your chacals?
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
I saw one document on here which really disgusted me. The American troops had someone detained, some soldier walks in, pulls out a browning and fires 7 rounds into the detainee for no apparent reason. That soldier then gets detained for a while then he's let of. WTF, this is bullshit.
A coalition of groups in the U.S. wanted the Iraq war:
The U.S. government has killed an estimated 11,000,000 people since the end of the 2nd world war, by invading or bombing or causing political problems in 24 countries.
Well said. The framing of this stuff is insane. Another thing that disturbs me is the quote of 100,000 killed. That's just the recorded incidents of "killed by munitions". The number of deaths due to the destruction of the clean water supply, hospitals, food supply, electricity, roads etc is vastly huger. By nearly any standard the Iraq War is a war crime.