Wikileaks Discloses Iraqi Torture Docs

By Jeralyn, Section War In Iraq
Posted on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 08:23:36 PM EST
Tags: wikileaks (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Wikileaks has published 400,000 pages of military documents from 2004 to 2009 revealing details of murder and torture. It's the largest leak of military documents in history.

"There are over 300 recorded reports of coalition forces committing torture and abuse of detainees across 284 reports and over 1,000 cases of Iraqi security forces committing similar crimes," WikiLeaks said in a press release.

"There are numerous cases of what appear to be clear war crimes by US forces, such as the deliberate killing of persons trying to surrender," WikiLeaks said.

Via the LA Times: [More...]

The most explosive documents are reports suggesting that U.S. forces knew about but failed to stop numerous cases of prisoner abuse by Iraqi police and soldiers, according to accounts by several news organizations that were given early access to the files by WikiLeaks.

The documents, known in the U.S. military as "significant activities" reports, describe in minute detail what U.S. troops in Iraq encountered on a daily basis from 2003 to this year, from daily casualty notifications and routine descriptions of attacks to sensitive intelligence tips and accounts of meetings.

< O.J. Simpson Nevada Conviction Upheld, Co-Defendant's Reversed | Worst Prosecutor Comment of the Week >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Wikileaks Discloses Iraqi Torture Docs | 18 comments (18 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

And with this, Obama will be forced to act... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 08:28:30 PM EST

- against the leakers.

: You can say that (5.00 / 3) (#3)
by Peter G on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 08:46:09 PM EST

again.

: It's (none / 0) (#7)
by lentinel on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 05:50:56 AM EST

clear that the leakers will be portrayed as the villains - not the torturers and the politicians that enable and protect them.
That's our press - showing its dependence on corporate advertising including the enormous advertising by our two wealthy political parties.

Thank you Wikileaks... (5.00 / 3) (#9)
by kdog on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 10:20:17 AM EST

we still don't know the half, but without the leaks we wouldn't know the half of 1/16th.

Since we bankroll the sordid misadventures, not only do we have the right to know, we have an obligation to know since ultimately we are responsible for all the dirty.

Imagine the nation was a corporation...we're the shareholders, Obama is our CEO. We're at the annual shareholders meeting and Obama is giving the state of the company address, then some random dude bursts in and tells us all this sh*t the CEO left out...that CEO would be sh*tcanned would he not?

And with this, Obama will be forced to act... (none / 0) (#1)
by Mr Natural on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 08:27:52 PM EST

... against the leakers.

WOW! OMG! (none / 0) (#4)
by cpinva on Fri Oct 22, 2010 at 11:22:59 PM EST

now we'll see the administration really, really pursue the perpetrators of these heinous acts! oh yes we will, by gum and by golly!

nah.

remind me, who won the 2008 election?

And (none / 0) (#6)
by lentinel on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 05:48:12 AM EST

this was ongoing during at least the first year of Obama's administration. Either he was ignorant of it - oooof - or he knew about it and let it continue.

Change you can believe in, American style.


At this point for me (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 10:18:07 AM EST

I'd have to say who knows what he knew. IMO he makes an effort to actually not know what is going on in either war zone that he could have to account for.


It must (none / 0) (#11)
by lentinel on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 10:34:44 AM EST

take some considerable amount of effort on his part to actually not know about what is going on in either war zone.

He must lay awake nights doing his best to remain ignorant.

To me, this is hair-pulling-out stuff.


: I won't be able to read any of it (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 10:44:23 AM EST

until Monday. U.S. soldiers are not allowed to read anything that wikileaks dumps that were classified documents. They were all reminded after the last dump that classified means classified for them and if any of them are discovered reading any of the stuff they can and probably will be charged for whatever it is that they are violating. Since my husband has weekends off at home right now I won't be able to read any of this until Monday. And I will probably go to a public wifi spot to do so too so that there is no possibility that he could be implicated in my reading of any of the stuff.
Since this "reminding" I don't use his computer anymore for anything and he doesn't use mine. And I'm reluctant to ever go to any wikileaks links via the house internet connection.

: When the only direction one looks is (5.00 / 3) (#14)
by Anne on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 04:11:25 PM EST

forward - and never, ever back - it doesn't matter what people did, who knew what was done, who did it, or who approved it.
Note, if you will, that Obama started out not looking back at the Bush years - now, it seems, we are already avoiding the look-back to the early Obama years...funny, that.
It's a pretty evil template, if you ask me, that pretty much boils down to, "we're going to do whatever we want, and you can't do anything to stop us because we make all the rules - none of which will apply to us, and all of which ensure that we hold all the power."
If I didn't think it would make my brain explode, I would wonder when enough will ever be enough.

The BBC (none / 0) (#5)
by lentinel on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 05:46:42 AM EST

after looking at some of the photos and reading some of the documents detailing torture and deliberated murder of civilians went so far as to say that it "appeared as if they were not quite playing by the rules".

A good example of how broadcasting is influenced by its association with government.

This isn't good (none / 0) (#10)
by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 10:31:08 AM EST

As far as what Iraqi security forces have done though it isn't for us to discipline them in any way. After the first elections we weren't involved in disciplining any of the Iraqi security forces. We aren't their boss, that is part of returning sovereignty to them, we work with them, we can withhold certain things when we disagree, but we don't discipline them in any direct fashion.

Pretty sure we give them money though (none / 0) (#13)
by ruffian on Sat Oct 23, 2010 at 02:42:45 PM EST

: We withhold things all the time from (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 07:38:44 PM EST

Iraqi security forces when things go down that aren't cool, but in the end it is to only bring us to the table to discuss. If you took away everything we gave them then they have nothing to use to actually provide security or they are severely limited. I'm not sure where we are now when it comes to providing money and equipment. Everything came from us at one point, don't know what we are providing now and how much they are spending themselves. But this is that Pottery Barn thing that Powell spoke of, once you break it, then you own it and all of its brokeness. I do remember when security forces were caught doing a lot of things though and if we pull everything, then we have to take care of the country forever, so we must threaten and reward good behavior. We can't shut their forces down though unless we want to occupy.

Wasn't the Point of the Invasion... (none / 0) (#17)
by ScottW714 on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 11:11:37 AM EST

... to eliminate this sort of lawlessness and corruption ?


: There was just one bad man back then (none / 0) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 25, 2010 at 12:35:51 PM EST

according to the spin. The one who planned to kill the first Bush and he had a bunch of oil just sitting there by the way.

Assange not guilty (none / 0) (#15)
by Xclusionary Rule 4ever on Sun Oct 24, 2010 at 10:09:27 AM EST

I don't think intent could be shown under either the Espionage Act or 18 USC 2388 against Assange. He offered to redact before posting both sets of documents and they declined. He withheld a substantial portion of the first batch. Now the Pentagon reports that nothing in the first batch actually hurt the military. I think he's covered under the "imminent lawless action" doctrine in Brandenburg v Ohio.
For the same reason, the republican teabagger in Texas, Robert Broden, can't be prosecuted for saying that violent revolt is "on the table" if the republicans don't win this November. My 2 cents here.