WikiLeaks Releases Cache of 400,000 Iraq War Documents

The irony... by Loopy · 2010-10-22 14:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

...of people like this complaining about "collateral damage" is so thick you could drive a truck across it.

Re:The irony... by insufflate10mg · 2010-10-22 17:28 · Score: 5, Informative

Supposedly the documents show that the actual deathtoll for the Iraq War is over 105,000. Nearly 70,000 of these casualties were civilians. The documents reportedly also tell about incidents of torture by coalition forces, and of civilians being killed at checkpoints (for speeding to get their wife to the hospital). There is an incident described where a single terrorist on the roof of a building caused the military to obliterate the entire building and everyone in it (civilians). It also reports 15,000 bodies being buried without being identified.

Source: WikiLeaks & ABC News (Al Jazeera claims to have found far more embarrassing records but I went with ABC for obvious reasons.)

I've never given money to a web site before by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-22 14:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

But I just donated 50 EUR to WikiLeaks.

Re:I've never given money to a web site before by toastar · 2010-10-22 14:42 · Score: 5, Informative

But I just donated 50 EUR to WikiLeaks.
Just letting you know you might be on the no fly list now

-Uncle Sam
Re:I've never given money to a web site before by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-22 14:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Having worked in the U.S. before and having an SSN and all that, I actually got worried about this (I'm not American). Regardless, I went ahead and used Paypal.
I figured that if I actually get in trouble with TSA and all that, then they would be doing me a favor, and I would be better off not entering the U.S.
Re:I've never given money to a web site before by Runaway1956 · 2010-10-22 17:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

A little bit of over reaction? Hey, I'm a veteran. I know stuff happens. No, I never killed a civilian. But, I've been close enough to the real shitz to know that it gets damned ugly. IMHO - people at home SHOULD know just how bad things get. They SHOULD know how damned confusing warfare is. And, they SHOULD know that our allies aren't always what we might wish them to be. Worst, and best, of all, they SHOULD know that our won troops aren't always what we might wish them to be. That said, Wikileaks puts a spin on all this crap that just isn't quite right. They work the sensationalism angle pretty hard. I like what Julian does, I just don't like his angle on things. But, guess what? That's the price we pay for our secretiveness. If the Pentagon and the various corporate lapdogs in Congress would allow ALL of our dirty laundry to be publicized, with explanations and/or justifications, Julian wouldn't have the open playing field that he has right now. Abuses by Iraqi Army personnel? They should have been publicized when they happened, and the Iraqi government should have been tasked with setting things right. Why the hush-hush? Oh - wait. Corporate America was making money from the war in Iraq, and they didn't want to embarrass ANYONE who might be aiding and abetting the profit motives. I'm one who believes the war in Iraq was entirely motivated by profit and the availability of oil. Oil is essential to the world economy, and our government wanted that oil to be pumped out of the ground. So, yeah - it was corrupt from the start. But, our troops aren't guilty of the things that Assange accuses them of. Crazy Horse, the chopper in the original video, was fully justified in their actions. They shot up what they believed to be enemy combatants, all according to the laws of war. I see corruption - but we need to point fingers in the proper direction. As for protecting our allies - screw that. I have no desire to protect an Iraqi soldier who is on our side, but commits the same tortures and executions that Saddam Hussein's troops did. Allies like that, we don't need. Throw him to the dogs - or throw him to the Muslims.

--
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Re:I've never given money to a web site before by dkleinsc · 2010-10-23 01:02 · Score: 5, Informative

I've been around peace activists all my life. Contrary to what you might think, especially in light of much of the propaganda about peace activists, they have absolute respect for the soldiers and why they joined. What they're against is idiots ordering them into combat for no good reason.
Here's the other piece of the puzzle: Soldiers who join up with the best of intentions often have severe psychological problems while serving and after their service is up. 40 years ago, there were plenty of decent men who went to Vietnam to serve and protect their country, and while they were there they found themselves doing things to civilians that still give them nightmares. Many of the guys who committed the My Lai Massacre were perfectly decent and loyal folks before they left their home.
In short, war is hell, and peace activists are trying to prevent soldiers from having to go through it. In addition, they are generally supportive of efforts to help veterans deal with both the physical and psychological damage that all too many come home with (which is a point of disagreement with the Pentagon brass).

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:I've never given money to a web site before by el_jake · 2010-10-23 01:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's scary. In old communist Russia one would be scared of donating to something that critiqued or opposed the government. But now in todays western society we are apparently scared of doing this. This definitely shows that our governments are on the WRONG TRACK!

--
In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.

Re:Wow by hsjserver · 2010-10-22 14:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

As long as they're releasing factual information I find claims that I should discount that information dubious at best.

Tattered Image by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-22 14:38 · Score: 5, Interesting

"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.

Re:Tattered Image by BLKMGK · 2010-10-22 14:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

After seeing the gunship video they presented... and then later the way it was torn apart by others examining the film I no longer get too worked up over anything Wikileaks has to say. It's sad really but they will do just about anything they can to skew what they present :-(

--
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Re:Tattered Image by phantomfive · 2010-10-22 17:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Exactly. I support Wikileaks, and like what they do, but the last release didn't show anything we didn't already know. The kind of stuff in the article is just fearmongering:

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
*May* reveal? What, didn't you read it? They *may* reveal that Elmer Fudd is God, too, you never know. Or that aliens landed and the government is covering it up. Stop the sensationalism (although I understand why they are sensationalistic, and it's a fairly normal human failing so I don't begrudge them that).

--
Qxe4
Re:Tattered Image by Angst+Badger · 2010-10-22 17:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
At the risk of invoking Godwin, it's worth pointing out that the Nazis maintained meticulous records on the operation of their extermination camps that make these documents look like scribbling on the back of a napkin. Professionalism is value-neutral. You can be perfectly professional about both good and evil, and it has no effect on the moral value of what you're being professional about.
In short, if what you're doing is torturing people and murdering civilians, professionalism is really neither here nor there. Whether our forces a) stop doing these things, and b) hold accountable the people who did them (and their superiors) is the issue at hand.
I'm not holding my breath about either one. My guess is that instead, we'll be treated to a bunch of bloviation about WikiLeaks' danger to our national security, what an exception to the professionalism of the armed forces these thousands of anomalous incidents are, and, if all else fails, a tour of historic military atrocities aimed at arguing that everyone else does it, too, only with more words and no awareness of the consequences of letting our morality be determined by the lowest common denominator.
Oh, and that word you're using, "unfortunate"? It's not actually a synonym for "criminal coverup".

--
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
Re:Tattered Image by fredmosby · 2010-10-22 20:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm not sure what you're talking about. There were no misrepresentations in those videos. An AP reporter really was shot and killed by US armed forces. The van the helicopter shot up really did have children in it (which is a strong indication that they didn't realize they were involved in combat). The video doesn't attempt to claim that they deliberately killed innocent people. The video shows that the army has very low standard of proof in deciding whether someone might be a combatant, and that innocent people die because of it.

Some people might say that these things inevitably happen in war. That's exactly the reason things like this should be made public. People need to know that things like this happen. Right now I get the impression that most Americans believe war is like a hollywood movie where the good guys never kill innocent people.

Re:Wow by cosm · 2010-10-22 14:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's too bad Wikileaks has such an obvious agenda. I like the idea of them, but that the same time, knowing they have such a clear agenda, makes me wonder what they decide not to release because it doesn't flow with what they want the world to think.

Why is it too bad? What the fuck are you talking about? Would you rather have them have a hidden agenda? Like the government bullshit they expose?

--
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF

nothing's going to happen by heptapod · 2010-10-22 14:51 · Score: 5, Insightful

Wikileaks released 400,000 more dox that will shake the very foundations upon which the Middle East War rests upon and the news organizations will just sit around masturbating over "Was this ethical? Are people really endangered? What does this mean in regards to bloggers vs. journalists" but never looking at a single document or citing it for the sake of delivering news instead of the storyline which has been perpetuated for the last ten years.

Re:its called war by cosm · 2010-10-22 14:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

Thank you. It is simple as that. So many people after 9/11 beat the war drum, and now almost a decade later are horrified that bad things happen in war. I am not condoning or supporting the way the war has gone, but it is truly frustrating the way some folks just imagine bubble and sunshine and invasion before really considering the repercussions of their voting decisions (plebeians and bureaucrats alike).

War is nasty. Lets think this shit through next time. If diplomacy is not an option, and all other options have failed, and there will be an provable danger to us or our allies by not acting, then bomb the motherfuckers. Otherwise can we please just stay out of the rest of the world's business? Do it quickly, cleanly, with a solid plan, with an exit strategy, accomplish the goal, and move on. War cost money, and between the MID profiteering it, the globalist loving it, the extremist encouraging it, the only people that lose are the taxpayers and the unnecessary casualties.

Why is that so hard?

If our civilization overcomes the thread of annihilating itself, I hope dearly that it becomes peaceful and moves away from dogmatic BS and more towards science and reason. I don't care if it is after I am dead. I just would sleep better knowing that the human race will make it over the next 1000 years. It really doesn't look so good. I don't think the idiots can handle the fruits of the scientist labor in a responsible manner.

--
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF

Re:Just us, or ... by sammyF70 · 2010-10-22 15:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

Just a thought, but could it be that Wikileaks never received any classified informations about it? I'm sure they would be happy to release them if you have anything that can be verified to an extent. Those "why don't they have something about ..." commententors seem to be oblivious of the fact that leaks don't appear out of thin air.

--
"DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow

Re:Wow by Ubitsa_teh_1337 · 2010-10-22 15:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

So... what are the mitigating facts which support torture and murder, again? The US military is welcome to add their own facts to the picture...

Re:Wow by cappp · 2010-10-22 15:16 · Score: 5, Funny

Three things occur to me:
You should never Slashdot after a few pints
Jerking off probably isnt the best example of a fact
My presidential slogan "Capp, He Jacks Off So You Don't Get Fucked" probably needs some revision

Re:Just us, or ... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-22 15:16 · Score: 5, Insightful

Do you have reason to believe they have such documents in the first place?

Unlikely. It's a rhetorical question as the obvious answers are... obvious.

A. It is intended to make you think that maybe WikiLeaks has something against the Western world.. or at least against the U.S.
B. It is intended to make you remember that other countries do atrocious things, too.. thus on some level, to some people, mitigating the fact that `we're` doing so now.
C. It is intended as a troll to invite such east vs west, Russia vs U.S., U.S. vs the world, etc. debates that serve only to muddy the waters.
D. any combination of the above.

Move along, nothing to see here but flamebait.

Re:Wow by TubeSteak · 2010-10-22 15:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

The problem with facts is that they're easily picked and attached to dubious endevours - Wiki has been unabashed about holding a specific philosophical view - which is admirable really especially given that they're so honest about it - and that viewpoint has an effect on what they chose to present as the truth.

If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have the law on your side, pound the law.
If you have neither on your side, pound the table.

Claiming bias makes it rather transparent that you're pounding the table.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!

what goes around, comes around by TheGratefulNet · 2010-10-22 15:36 · Score: 5, Interesting

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."

Re:the US and Israel butchers assassins torturers by arth1 · 2010-10-22 15:41 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually it's the Iraqis that are the butchers. Clearly you didn't read the article.

"Actually" apparently means different things to different people.

I've grepped the documents themselves, and they tell a different picture. The colour designations indicate that there are far more "blue white" than "green white" incidents, which is scary considering that there are far more green than blue people.
(And there more "blue blue" and "blue green" casualties than "red blue" (a.k.a. "friendly fire") incidents, which is even more frightening. Most of which are marked secret with the justification of potentially inciting public/media unrest, which is downright chilling)

For those who don't know the colour designations:
Blue = US and allied forces
Green = Native "friendly" forces: military, police and mercenary
Red = Enemies
White = Civilians

"blue white" or "blue on white" means an incident where US and/or allied forces engaged a civilian target. One is one too many.

Re:Facebook Censoring Torrent Link by MichaelSmith · 2010-10-22 15:44 · Score: 5, Funny

Yeah at least the Libyans are trustworthy.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au

Re:Do two wrongs make a right? by hedwards · 2010-10-22 16:20 · Score: 5, Insightful

Telling the truth is never wrong. Breaking your promise to keep certain materials confidential is wrong. It's fucked up beyond belief that anybody believes the notion that telling the truth can be wrong. It's only wrong by proxy of all the other fucked up stuff that's gone on.

But blaming in on telling the truth is just bullshit.

Re:Wow by GNUALMAFUERTE · 2010-10-22 17:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

Except all the "other side" of the 'truth' has already been published. It's actually the ONLY fact presented so far.

If nobody ever had said anything anywhere about the US military, and wikileaks published this, then it might have been a half truth, or at least something to be taken with a grain of salt. But what actually happens is that everyone, always and everywhere is fucking talking about the "heroes" that are "fighting for freedom" over there at the "axis of evil". Everything we've heard so far is their side. So, accusing wikileaks of being one sided is fucking stupid. The other side is the whole fucking media. All the fucking media against a single fucking website. Don't be such a fucking hypocrite.

--
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?

Re:Wow by KeensMustard · 2010-10-22 18:11 · Score: 5, Funny

I like your thinking:

America: Better in some ways than Russia

You should start an advertising company.

Drink Dioxin! It's less poisonous the strychnine.

Disgusting by GeekHang · 2010-10-22 19:57 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Disgusting by ThePhilips · 2010-10-22 21:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Looting. Rape. Killing. This is normal. This is what war looks like up close.
Short glance through the articles reminded me of few things my grand-father were telling about WWII (who fought on Russia's side).
Over time I have developed the opinion that glorification of a war is the sign of corrupt and evil state.

--
All hope abandon ye who enter here.

Irony indeed by drinkypoo · 2010-10-22 20:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

I liked this one:

Mr Morrell, of the Pentagon, told the BBC that the leak was a "travesty" which provided enemies of the West with an "extraordinary database to figure out how we operate".

I think the whole world already knows how we operate. This only proves the point.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"

Your international rights by PietjeJantje · 2010-10-22 21:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

What are the new international rights for Americans?

Now let's suppose a group of Canadian terrorists bombs a building a China. You couldn't complain if the Chinese consequently invaded the USA because you are harboring Canadians. The Chinese could march up to Washington, catch Bush, Obama and friends from pits in the ground, and execute them after a fake trial. While hunting the terrorists, they could kill innocent civilians with a ratio 5:1. These events, they could hide them actively from the media and from being ever discovered, because it is the patriotic thing to do and to protect the Chinese freedom fighters. If your family was killed at a checkpoint, you could witness people on Chinese internet forums discussing that it is irresponsible to have information about this incident released, that this would be anti-Chinese and evidence of a strong bias and sensationalism of the person of organisation releasing that secret info. There will be much torture, and those who expose it will be branded traitors, while the torturers walk. Many Americans and Canadians will be shipped to a remote prison. The new Chinese ruler who will keep everything the same will get the Nobel Peace Price.

Re:Playing devils advocate by vadim_t · 2010-10-22 23:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

Problem is, it was supposed to be a liberation, not a war.

When the WMDs didn't pan out, Bush went on and on about the glorious democracy they were going to bring by deposing of the evil tyrant. Well, just look at it. Isn't the guy who was driving his wife to the hospital glad you set things right?

I'll grant you that ignoring a checkpoint in wartime isn't the smartest decision one can make, but chances are under Saddam he would still be alive. And I thought that the whole point of this was making things better.

Re:Playing devils advocate by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-22 23:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

So, we're now the radical left if we think that a whole building full of people don't deserve to die because there is a sniper there? Great. Hope you weren't anywhere in DC when there was a sniper there...

Invading a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and no WMD is not a valid military tactic. To compare the invasion of Iraq with liberation of Europe is laughable. Would you suck it up with "War is hell" if they did this in your country? And "muslims killing muslims" - well, what if I invaded and put the KKK in charge of the US - would that be OK as "Christians killing Christians"? When you remove power and authority and hand it to psychopaths you are NOT absolved of whatever they do.

So FUCK YOU armchair warrior. Your "War" was illegitimate, the hell you brought with you is horrendous, and if it makes me a radical left winger to say so, we DO need to see what the results of our "War on Terror" are and become outraged that thousands of civilians have been killed FOR NOTHING. I don't want to be desensitized. I don't want to get used to it. I want it to stop happening, unless it's the absolutely fucking last resort, which it was not in this case.

All war, all the time by Anonymous Coward · 2010-10-23 01:24 · Score: 5, Interesting

The very careful peer-reviewed Lancet surveys of Iraq War casualties estimate the deaths caused by the U.S. government to be within "a range of 426,369 to 793,663 using a 95% confidence interval". The U.S. government has killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein.

A coalition of groups in the U.S. wanted the Iraq war:

Cheney and Bush and their families and friends were heavily invested in weapons companies.
Other weapons investors also want continuous war. There are very profitable no-bid contracts. It is easy to get fraud to be accepted.
Many Jews want someone else to pay for Israeli security.
There are two kinds of oil investors. One of those kinds makes money by capturing oil profits through violence.
There are U.S. citizens who are extremely arrogant, who believe that the U.S. government should "police" the world, even though that increases the total violence.
There are U.S. citizens for whom having their government kill people is a way of acting out their personal anger.
In the U.S., starting a war assures political support. Everyone who doesn't want a war is characterized as "soft".

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.

Playing devils prosecution by Internetuser1248 · 2010-10-23 01:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

You say that pointing out the bad things that happen in war is wrong because in war they are inevitable, well they are not. The real issue is that the war was illegal, injustified (unless lies are currently a justification for anything), and in direct violation of international law. Even enemy soldiers getting killed is a tragedy and worth speaking up about, let alone pregnant women on their way to hospital, and for the record labour is quite often an emergency, especially where poverty and bad hygiene are involved. Ask a doctor if you doubt this.

I have a joke for you: A man breaks into a house and starts raping a woman living there. Her husband interferes. In the ensuing struggle the husband and wife are both killed. In court the rapists lawyer says: "Rape is a messy business, that's the reality. People get killed sometimes." So the judge lets him off the murder charges.

Also, the idea that you should silence the critics of war in order to have a rational debate about atrocities committed is absurd, I hope you realise this.

Now that the silliness is out of the way, can we talk about REALity?

Re:Playing devils advocate by commodore64_love · 2010-10-23 02:46 · Score: 5, Informative

>>>The real problem is that the right.....

I wish you (and other posters) would stop saying "the right" as if we all think with one hive mind. I'm on the right (tenth amendment constitutionalist) but I'm anti-"war on terror", and always have been since the towers collapsed. Stereotyping is a bad thing to do.

If you want to denigrate, then be more specific with your targets. "The real problem is that the Bush/neoconservative Republicans from 2001 to 2008 were pro-war and..." i.e. Don't include me in your 2-minute hate, because I was NEVER sided with them. And there's lots more like me (Ron Paul, Judge Napolitano, Harry Browne, et cetera) who also were against the war.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Re:Playing devils advocate by commodore64_love · 2010-10-23 02:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

BTW there are also a lot of people on "the left" who were pro-war.
Go back and look at the Congressional Authorization for War in 2001.
The Democrat representatives voted near-unanimously to go to war.

Even now the Democrats continue forward with war, even though they've held Congress since 2006 and could have ended the war anytime they felt like it. IMHO they should have ended it then, or immediately after Obama became inaugurated.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Diagnosis is the first part of the cure by Weaselmancer · 2010-10-23 06:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not being divisive to diagnose the problem correctly. AC is spot on.

The problem with the radical left wing is that it is measured in distance from the right. Which keeps moving to the right. In the 1960's you had to be a hippie in a minivan or a communist or a black panther to be called radical left wing. These days all it takes is for you to say "gee blowing up children might not be a good thing."

If you want a serious dialog on this, I'll tell you what. We of the left will happily become more centrist. Just as soon as you put down the Fox news driven fear and paranoia, and really think about what is best. A good start would be to just simply head to youtube and watch a few recordings of the Dalai Lama speaking.

I've done my part. I'm a registered Democrat and I'm pro second amendment. And guess what? My head didn't explode. So that's my first step. What will yours be?

--
Weaselmancer
rediculous.

Slashdot Mirror

WikiLeaks Releases Cache of 400,000 Iraq War Documents

39 of 676 comments (clear)