Wikileaks outs 400,000 classified Iraq War docs

Wikileaks has released nearly 400,000 classified US military documents involving the Iraq War, defying warnings from the US government that disclosing the documents would put lives at risk. Dubbed "the Iraq War Logs." the documents were posted to the whistleblower site at around 21:00 GMT on Friday, after they were released to …

[Neal 5]

Partners or allies.

Good to see the US showing its true relationship with the world, partners.

So to put it on a business relationship, seeing as it's your "partners" taking all the f+++++g shi+ and "friendly" fire, how about some cash up front to fulfill your global domination ideals.

Ask, Wayne Rooney, what use is half a blowjoib, perhaps Mrs Clinton could think about that, next time she opens her mouth, of course.

[Steen Hive]

Lives at risk?

Definitely. How many innocent lives are at risk in the next "operation" if these fuckers' propaganda and deceit isn't exposed?

[rahul]

There's some good too...

...in true WikiLeaks fashion, the reports are unbiased and (mostly) untampered. While everyone may cry foul, there are some reports that show the good that Americans are doing as well (Eg, some interventions of American soldiers to prevent torture of civilians in police custody). These are being overlooked in the mass hysteria of "bad" or negative reports.

War has it's good and bad sides; but often both these sides are ignored to show a third side: the sensational (mostly falsely sensational).

[Graham Marsden]

Oh well that's ok then...

... don't worry about the ones who *were* tortured, after all we didn't turn a blind eye *EVERY* time, so that makes it better...

[Anonymous Coward]

if

If just one soldier stands by whilst a man is raped with a stick and is allowed to get away with it then the whole nation (government and authority structure along with anyone disgusting enough to make excuses for them) is guilty.

[Campbeltonian]

No...

What put lives at risk was the fact that these things were done in the first place. Complaining about publication is far too little, far too late.

[Andus McCoatover]

Dunno why the US is upset...

"US officials have said that they kept no official record of civilian deaths, the leaked documents also show that 66,081 civilian died among a total of 109,000 war fatalities, according to The Guardian. "

So, as US officials have stated they keep no official record, these are unofficial documents. So, no problem. Huh?

[BarryUK]

Ignored is putting it mildly

I wouldn't say the US "ignored" torture - I'd say they deliberately created the conditions where they knew it would happen. The US has research going back at least to the Stanford Prison experiments on the situations under which guards begin to torture prisoners and the situation at Abu Gharib was a textbook example - as Phillip Zimbardo who ran the Standford study has pointed out.

Iraq was US government sanctioned torture - no question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hypocrisy Rules

"WikiLeaks continues to put at risk the lives of our troops, their coalition partners and those Iraqis and Afghans working with us."

More troops and civilians will die as a direct result of US policy than will ever die as a result of this so called leak.

If they're so concerned about the preservation of life why wage a war in the first place?

[Anonymous Coward]

So...

...you're OK with those deaths, simply because there are less of them?

You're right - it does.

[Allicorn]

Title schmitle

Because in the minds of the types of folks behind it, war is Necessary... truth isn't.

[Anonymous Coward]

The enemy of my enemy

OK the military might have a valid point about putting lives at risk, but you have to wonder how organisations like the Taliban have managed to garner enough support to warrant going after them with guns.

Well the reason why is - we gave them guns and ammo during the Cold War in an attempt to dislodge the Russians from Afghanistan and it all kinda snowballed from there. We weren't that bothered that this might be a problem at the time because they were keeping the Russians away from us. Unfortunately this attitude seems to have gotten us into a spot of bother.

So the question is, seeing as this "arm them and don't be too concerned with the consequences" would seem to be a repeated pattern of behaviour (at least as US foreign policy is concerned), who the hell are we arming right now? Because it will be them - whoever they are - that we have to deal with next. In fact if we are currently arming someone else in the next phase of whatever ideological battle we're supposed to be having maybe we should be learning from recent history and not repeating the same behaviour over and over again?

The enemy of your enemy isn't your friend: He's just the next enemy in a long line of enemies who could have been your friend if it weren't for the fact that you keep seeing enemies everywhere.

[Andus McCoatover]

@ AC. Your last paragraph...

"The enemy of your enemy isn't your friend: He's just the next enemy in a long line of enemies who could have been your friend if it weren't for the fact that you keep seeing enemies everywhere."

Couldn't have put the whole balls-up better.

Delivered in a nutshell. Memorable. Thanks.

[Jimmahh]

Or as said slightly differently.... ;-)

"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."

[Cameron Colley]

Is it a US idea that he is your friend?

I seem to recall hearing someone blaming the whole "the enemy of your enemy is your friend" bollocks on Sun Tzu, but it doesn't appear in the translation I have read at least. It also doesn't sound like something I'd expect from Clausewitz or Machiavelli -- so is it a US invention?

If it is a US invention it seems Alanisly ironic since their military seem to be one of the best demonstrations of how even your friends aren't all that good to have around at times...

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of arming people

What kind of hypocritical as*holes does it take to try and disarm the citizenry, whilst arming random militant groups around the world?!

Seriously.

[g e]

Learning from history?

Not the US's strong suit.

They inherited the entire volume of history of Europe and ignored that. What makes you think they're gonna take more notice of their own pamphlet-sized history book ?

As long as control & influence can be extended now who gives a toss for tomorrow.

[The Indomitable Gall]

According to the internet...

According to the internet, the Americans think this is an "Arabian proverb". Personally I think they fell for it, hook line and sinker.

[Anonymous Coward]

Truth

Hurts sometimes, doesn't it?

[Ian McNee]

Too right...

...but that truth was also a lot more painful for the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians slaughtered by British and American military forces in these illegal wars. And for the millions still suffering the ongoing consequences.

[Anonymous Coward]

So on the whole

Most of it was the Iraqis taking it out on their own people.

"Plus ca change"

[cannon]

Fallujah War Crimes

i see the whole two months regarding the USA's use of the illegal chemical weapon white phosphorous and the horrific murders of thousands of civilians in Fallujah has been withheld, now that is needed to be put into the public domain.

http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/americas/us/war_crimes_fallujah.html

[Anonymous Coward]

heh

"We know terrorist organizations have been mining the leaked Afghan documents for information to use against us,"

Terrorist organizations like, human rights lawyers, charities, civil rights organisations, international war crime court and, investigative journalists.

Anyway lets see if these documents are any more interesting then the last set.

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, for the UK

Is there any chance a fine upstanding citizen might leak documents of present UK minister, advisers, party funders, ... , big donators, ... involvement in tax evasion and tax avoidance?

Or better still, perhaps the newly formed office for budget responsibility might leak the information formally and thoroughly itself?

(don't hold your breath on that one)

As for the WikiLeaks Iraq thing: it could be argued that the release of information while inflammatory at the time might also help the US to address the larger problems that improper actions by service personnel actually creates, created and is likely to create more profound risk to troops, civilians and US policy at large?

[g e]

Or maybe

UK.gov could grow a spine and, when the banks post a few billion profits (albeit not the usual 40+ billiion) they can seize it and give it us back.

[Thumbs]

November 5th

November 5th Parliament Square...Who's with me?

[Rogerborg]

"November 5th Parliament Square...Who's with me?"

I'm guessing a bunch of other anonymous pipsqueaks wearing the de rigueur V masks, waving damn cardboard placards and squawking "Down with this sort of thing!"

The revolution will not Web 2.0'd.

[Vladimir Plouzhnikov]

Interesting approach

Clinton condemns those who disclose the information but not those who killed or tortured civilians.

So, it's OK to commit war crimes but not OK to talk about them.

And the lawyer - "can't surrender to a helicopter"? - somebody please send him the photographs of the two civilians he killed so that he could see them in his nightmares till the day he dies.

[Ken Hagan]

Message for Mrs Clinton

Wikileaks is not the problem here. If it wasn't them, it would be someone else. In the 21st century, the cost of world-wide publication is almost zero and that means you are going to have just about everything leaked. To argue otherwise is to deny the existence of the internet. China's trying that and even with their strong-arm techniques they aren't having any luck. In a free society, the idea that a 100,000-strong army could keep secrets is just absurd.

If leaks like this damage US interests or put serving personnel at risk, you need to change the way you operate. If a similar leak causes similar damage in 10 years time, I think the US public will be justified in asking whether their government is being negligent, simply burying its head in the sand and persevering with a security model that depends on keeping secrets that can't be kept anymore.

[Graham Marsden]

the government...

"should condemn in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organizations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk."

Not to mention the careers of US politicians and high ranking officers?

And what when it's the US putting the lives of its partners or innocent civilians at risk...?

(PS The Pentagon has admitted in an internal letter that *NOBODY* has been harmed as a result of the previous set of documents published on Wikileaks)

[Anonymous Coward]

9/11 x 24

"should condemn in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organizations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk."

However, we really couldn't give a flying fuck (drones notwithstanding) about anyone else as evidenced by the extraordinary rendition of 66,081 civilian souls to their maker.

[Asgard]

400k!? Wow … Good, I've had enough.

We need to know what is being done in our name by our representatives. The military represent us in this country just as our government is suppose to represent us here. But after our government's latest deeply insulting moves to treat us all like their enemy as they seek to wipe out our freedom, privacy & liberty, (by adding continuous spying on all of us) we need Wikileaks more than ever to tell us what is really going on.

So after our government's latest huge increase in spying moves against us all, I have little sympathy left for any government, especially after suffering so much of their two faced lying behaviour directed at all of us. Yes Wikileaks is high profile, but don't ever forget the effect the US government has had, as they have repeatedly denounced and demonised Wikileaks in the media; resulting in making Wikileaks so much more high profile. But its profile is irelevant compared to the far more important fact and message that this huge leak shows once again, that our government representatives keep on lying to us all about what is really going on, yet even worse as this huge leak is showing, our own governments (not Wikileaks) are causing the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people!

We are witnessing tens of thousands of innocent people killed by our governments!, innocent people caught up in this war dying needlessly and its impossible for anyone to ignore the fact their grieving angry families will hate us all for the rest of their lives. So this perpetual war on terror isn't defusing the anger, its actually increasing the anger against our country!?! ... so why continue, when will it ever finally end?!

So on the one hand we have the perpetual war on terror and on the other, the endless moves to seek to eliminate our freedom, privacy & liberty in the name of this perpetual war on terror!

So I can't help thinking the power hungry two faced lying people in power secretly want this perpetual war to continue, as its giving them the endless excuses they need to continue with their extremely ever more Orwellian push towards total control over their own people, i.e. all of us!. This war evidently isn't making the anger against our country reduce, its actually increasing the anger against us all and so increasing the risk of reprisals. It feels like we are stuck in a self perpetuating feedback loop. War creates fear of reprisals, so they hit out with more war, creating greater fear of reprisals. So when do they finally say enough and finally end this?! ... I guess the answer is becoming increasingly; when they have finally wiped out our freedom, privacy & liberty and turned the world into their police state! :(

So we need sites like Wikileaks more than ever, as we desperately need to be told what is really being done in our name, by our two faced lying manipulative power hungry representatives in ever increasing power over all of us!

[Anthony Shortland]

hmmm

From what I've read in the media so far, there isnt a whole lot of earth shattering stuff in here (again).

The only thing that surprises me is how much Iran stuff there was - and if Iran has been such a bad guy in all this, then why havent the US government released this earlier considering how much they seem to be trying to convince the world action is needed against Iran?

So, I then went and googled wikileaks conspiracy...

which possibly explained why those missing weeks in Fallujah are still ... missing.

[Anonymous Coward]

I googled too ...

... and found the usual bunch of right-wing extremists complaining that the world is mentally ill for not supporting US imperialism and using words like "jewification".

Here's my hint for the week: if you use words like "jewification" you are mentally ill.

[Chris 244]

Really, tried to surrender?

Suggest you read the report. Two men driving a truck with a mortar in the back "tried to surrender" only after they took accurate fire, bailed, hopped into another vehicle, drove off and came under fire again. With the Apache holding position, the two hopped back into the 2nd truck and drove off. When fired upon again 4 minutes later they bailed again, and hid in a shack. Which was then fired upon 17 minutes later with the men still inside. Last time I checked surrender=/running away and hiding.

Lots of events in both Iraq and Afghanistan are worthy of outrage. This isn't one of them.

[arkhangelsk]

Hadn't read the report yet, but

The average soldier of a "civilized nation" is expected to surrender only after exhausting all other combat and escape options.

If you disqualify these men on the basis you described, you will disqualify virtually all soldiers with the slightest fighting spirit.

Admittedly, the whole concept of surrender is a bit wierd and IMO sometimes overly demanding of soldiers in a close fight. First Side A and B are in a deathmatch and then in the heat of it B surrenders and A is supposed to lay down the grief of his 3 buddies that got killed and not only stop shooting, but pick B's guys up, bandaid them .. etc.

But call me unsympathetic to the well-supported US forces (especially a Apache) fighting a bunch of ragtags, but they clearly don't qualify for the "close" part. And in any case, that's the expectation of a so-called "civilized nation", so no dice.

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Sir

Regarding surrender, the fact your enemy might not have any honour shouldn't mean that you abandon yours. One of the reasons that, historically, warriors have occupied the highest echelons of society. That and the fact they could just kill you of course.

[Muckminded]

Me So Ornery

I understand the disgust and glee that people have in pointing at us (Americans) as egotistical gluttons of empire. We deserve it as much as any nation who has ever made pretense of control over other sovereign nations. Oh, hello UK. Hello Russia.

A cheap shot, I know. And not one that defends our foreign policy or aberrations of military conduct. Unfortunately, I am too tired and uninterested now to defend policies that run opposite my own way of thinking simply because they happen to be promulgated by my government.

If only we could be more austere.

[g e]

To be fair...

In the UK we're taught about how our predecessors murdered and slaughtered and used their power for their own ends, e.g. Henry VIII and Cromwell for a start... And don't forget the East India Tea Company.

Our history books don't say we brought freedom to x, y, & z and it was bloody but ultimately glorious, etc, etc and I don't remember them being written like that back when I was at school, either.

[Eddy Ito]

That's CYA to you

Is this the change to a more open government that everyone was thinking about in the last election? Just goes to show that pols are only interested in covering their own arses. Hell, the administration is probably more concerned this will hurt their chances in the election but really they shouldn't worry and I'm sure there will soon be some, "it didn't happen on our watch" BS.

Geoff & Hillary, the grenade is for you to hold in your mouth. Be careful when you start flapping your gob, you never quite know when that spoon will fly off.

[Matt Bryant]

Is that it?

All that hype, froth, wailing and gnashing of teeth, and this is the best Wikileaks can do? Will George Soros be asking for his money back? So, now that they've probably exhausted the signals that they got from Manning, what has Assange and co got to hold over for the mid-term elections?

[g e]

It's not the best

Wikileaks, afaik, aren't trying to score points or improve on their last release. They're just releasing what they've been given.

The hype is coming from the Pennergarn and the neocons

[Destroy All Monsters]

Brain on floor??

Oh it's just Matt.

[Matt Bryant]

RE: Brain on floor??

<Yawn> Complete non-argument with zero intelligence? Oh, that would be Destroy All Monsters. Maybe it takes all his concetration to hold onto his moral hobbyhorse, or maybe those that do all the thinking for him were just too busy to help out. Please, Destroyed All Mental Capacity, try and formulate a comment on what your views (and note, we want YOUR own views) are on the "partnership" between Wikileaks and the Open Society Institute, another Soros political vehicle. Then try and explain how the pre-relese hype you and your ilk were sprouting, how this second set of leaks were going to somehow portray the Allied forces as some uber-SS-Gestapo nasties, have proven to be just hot air?

[Sir Runcible Spoon]

Sir

I honestly believe that the politicians are well aware that we are constantly providing new material that 'terrorists' can use as recruiting material, because without an enemy the military money machine grinds to a halt.

Isn't it fortunate for them that the country of 'terror' can never be quelled? A never ending supply of baddies to blame and to generate lots of military funding.

War is big business apparently, whoda thunk it?

As long as the most driven people in society are the ones prepared to screw everyone else over for a profit this situation will NEVER change, and the honest people of the earth will be forever under their boot. It's all just so depressing </Marvin>

<joke>I think we should create schools that identify this particular personality trait and then neuter them before they have a chance to propogate, at least that way we could eventually breed this trait out of the gene pool.</joke>

[Henry Wertz 1]

Wow, 4x as big non-sensitive leak!

So some flack now says: "We know terrorist organizations have been mining the leaked Afghan documents for information to use against us, and this Iraq leak is more than four times as large." and goes on to make it sound like a big deal.. while just a few days ago, someone at the Pentagon said about the previous leak: "The review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure."

So.. anyway.. leaking documents isn't too cool, but neither is the general whitewashing of the various wars the Pentagon is involved in, covering up civilian casualties and misconduct to make these (I think) pretty cleanly-fought wars sound squeaky-clean.

[serviceWithASmile]

return the stolen materiel?

"The only responsible course of action for WikiLeaks at this point is to return the stolen material and expunge it from their Web sites as soon as possible."

How exactly would one go about returning a data file?

Or did someone actually send a physical truckload of paperwork to mr Assange for him to spend months in a room scanning?

The world needs to know!

[JaitcH]

But is it secure or are there back doors?

There should be a sunshine law that requires all documents relating to military actions be released no later than 5 years after their creation unless the military can satisfy a normal court of their risk to ongoing military action.

The financial backers of these operations, aka taxpayers, are entitled to judge whether the use of their money was for good or evil.

These documents show that the Pentagon, and their various mouthpieces scattered across the US government, only had it's shortcomings and failures to hide - which should never be kept secret.

Everyone who decried the release of these documents should be ashamed of themselves.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want anybody to know about something you're doing...

...then you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, right? Go WikiLeaks!

[Destroy All Monsters]

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Never misses a chance to show her true colours, innit.

[neverSteady]

Documents are more dangerous than guns

Or at least that's the impression the US Gov seems to want to give. I am ashamed that my government (UK) continues to support this madness.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Saddest Part

The saddest part of this, is that it will be received by a giant collective 'meh' by the majority of the US public. Sigh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is anyone genuinely surprised ...

that the democratically elected representatives of the people (aka the government) who wield a large taxpayer-funded stick (aka the armed forces) seem to have forgotten that their job is supposed to be to serve the people rather than the other way around?

[James Woods]

im for it

How long do these 'wars' have to go on before the country is completely broke from funding them?

We should have a birds eye view of exactly what is going on when we're paying for it.

We appear to be doing nothing but occupying these other countries.

You can't use the phrase "we are over there so they aren't over here". Those people have no method of getting over here, they are in caves for god sakes.

It's all for the military-industrial complex and although wikileaks is very shady it's the only thing we have to show what our money is going for other than to support military contractors.

Anyone need a reminder of the pallots of money shipped over there to 'pay the contractors" in iraq?

Why did we need to ship money to Iraq to pay the contractors when those contractors are all from the US and europe. Well you know the answer to that question of course.

90% of the 'terror" threats we have seen here have been orchestrated by our own government to scare the people and to turn us into a giant police state.

Fort Hood - all the warning signs existed, he was even talking to a US agent.

Underwear bomber - forced on the plane by our government without proper documentation.

Or we can venture outside of the country to the mumbai attacks where the captured ?mastermind? was a pawn placed there and all drugged out to scapegoat who masterminded that.

[Matt Bryant]

RE: im for it

Wow! You really have over-dosed on the Koolaid! Please do yourself a big favour and just try doing a little research of your own rather than just spewing such idiocy.

"....We appear to be doing nothing but occupying these other countries....." Yes, that's why we're asking them to hold elections, build up their infrastructure, police and armed forces, right? And that's why we're withdrawing our forces, because we're "occupying" the country by leaving? By that measure, your brain is fully "occupied" and you can't be the complete airhead you come across as.

".....You can't use the phrase "we are over there so they aren't over here". Those people have no method of getting over here, they are in caves for god sakes....." Please try discussing that point with the families of the 9/11 victims. Or the July 7th victims, or the Madrid bombing victims. And please don't do any research into Bin Laden's background - his family are waaaay beyond filthy rich and connected to the Saudi royal family - and the massive amounts of cash he has spent on his "jihad". As one option for 9/11, AQ actually considered BUYING their own US charter airline and aircraft for the attack, but in the end they decided it was simply more EFFICIENT to hijack flights.

".....Anyone need a reminder of the pallots of money shipped over there to 'pay the contractors" in iraq?...." Boy, you really are stupid! ANY contractor in a warzone will require cash for local expenditure but will not want the local currency as it is liable to be massively devalued. Instead, they will want an internationally wanted currency like dollars, which are shipped by the pallet-load all over the World on a dialy bassis as part of normal currency transactions. As an example, I've been to Egypt, the Lebanon and Bahrain this year, and I took US dollars as I knew that the locals would happilly accept them at a better rate than the official exchange one. All the countries in the Mid-East are desperate for foreign currency, we pay all our contractors working there in US$ (prefered over GBP even by UK companies). The US administration working in Iraq had to pay thousands of contractors in US$, I'd be amazed if they had to ship anything less than a C-130 load a week. Next time someone tries to build a big conspiracy out of a single fact, please try and think of the simple explanation that would expose how stupid that whole conspiracy idea is.

"....Why did we need to ship money to Iraq to pay the contractors when those contractors are all from the US and europe. Well you know the answer to that question of course....." Evidently you didn't, you just accepted whatever claptrap was told you as gospel. Please try and develop the ability for independent thought.

".....90% of the 'terror" threats we have seen here have been orchestrated by our own government to scare the people and to turn us into a giant police state...." Please, just stop, you're embarrassing yourself. Please go and seek professional help NOW, your paranoia - whilst comic - is probably not good for yout longterm health.

/pitying

[bugalugs]

@ACThe enemy of my enemy

Who is the US arming at present ?

That would be Saudi Arabia.

http://article.wn.com/view/2010/09/13/Saudi_Arms_Deal_Advances/

( shivers )

[Anonymous Coward]

We're not laughing anymore.....

I remember this joke going about at the time of the Iraq War:

A man walks into a Washington coffeeshop, sees George Dubya and Dick Cheney at a table covered in paperwork. "Hey fellas what you up to?" he says to them.

"We're planning the invasion of Iraq." replies Dubya.

"Whoa! Isn't that a risky proposition Mr President?" says the dude.

"Well son, we think the casualties will be 2 million Iraqis and a blonde with really big tits." muses George W.

"But Mr President, why a blonde with big tits?" stammers the guy.

Dick Cheney turns to Dubya and interrupts "See George? I told you nobody would give a fuck about a couple of million Iraqis."

Why Paris? Cos even she can see that keeping your mouth shut when you are in it up to your eyes means you just suffocate slowly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hillary Clinton....

Is full of shit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fixed that for you

"condemn in the most clear terms any organizations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk."

I condemn the US government and army. There you go Hillary.

[David Lucke]

You can't surrender to a helicopter

You CANNOT surrender to an aircraft. Can't be done. Physical impossibility. To accept the surrender you have to take them into custody, and the chopper couldn't land, had no restraints, didn't have enough crew to safely apply the nonexistant restraints, had no ability to take them anywhere even if they could be restrained , had no way of communicating with them, etc, etc, etc. There weren't any nearby troops to take them into custody either, since the nearest troops, the ones these guys were lobbing mortars at (no, Vladimir Plouzhnikov, they were NOT civilians, try learning to read) , were still busy fighting other insurgents.

The only available options were a) kill them, or b) let them go, so they could go back to lobbing mortars tomorrow. The lawyer who advised them to go for "a" was 100% correct, this was entirely legal. As Chris 244 said earlier "Lots of events in both Iraq and Afghanistan are worthy of outrage. This isn't one of them."

[Andus McCoatover]

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear.

'Nuff said. Except, it's the US gummint, where they appear to jump at their own shadows.

Don't mind that, but why do they have to piss themselves at the same time? Seen how they "adjust their dress*" as they approach the pentagon/whitehouse podium??

*http://www.armyofmom.com/2006/11/which-way-do-you-dress-sir.html