• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Huge Wikileaks releases

J. Abizeid

J. Abizeid

Well-Known Member
BBC News - Huge Wikileaks release shows US 'ignored Iraq torture'
22 October 2010
Huge Wikileaks release shows US 'ignored Iraq torture'

Some suspected insurgents held in Iraqi custody suffered abuse, according to the leaked records
Wikileaks has released almost 400,000 secret US military records, which suggest US commanders ignored evidence of torture by the Iraqi authorities.
The documents also suggest "hundreds" of civilians were killed at US military checkpoints after the invasion in 2003.
And the files show the US kept records of civilian deaths, despite previously denying it. The death toll was put at 109,000, of whom 66,081 were civilians.
The US criticised the largest leak of classified documents in its history.
Speaking to reporters in Washington earlier, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she condemned "in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organisations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk".
But Mrs Clinton did not go into specifics on the disclosures.
'Well-chronicled'
The US army field logs describe the apparent torture of Iraqi detainees by the Iraqi authorities, sometimes using electrocution, electric drills and in some cases even executing detainees, says the BBC's Adam Brookes, who has spent several hours examining some of the files.
The US military knew of the abuses, the documents suggest, but reports were sent up the chain of command marked "no further investigation", our correspondent adds.
One document shows the US military was given a video apparently showing Iraqi Army (IA) officers executing a prisoner in the northern town of Talafar.
"The footage shows the IA soldiers moving the detainee into the street, pushing him to the ground, punching him and shooting him," states the log, which also names at least one of the perpetrators.
In another case, US soldiers suspected army officers of cutting off a detainee's fingers and burning him with acid.
A Pentagon spokesman told the New York Times that when reports of Iraqi abuse were received, the US military notified "the responsible government of Iraq agency or ministry for investigation and follow-up".
The documents also reveal many previously unreported instances in which US forces killed civilians at checkpoints and during operations.
In one incident in July 2007, as many as 26 Iraqis were killed by a helicopter, about half of them civilians, according to the log.
Another record shows an Apache helicopter gunship fired on two men believed to have fired mortars at a military base in Baghdad in February 2007, even though they were attempting to surrender. The crew asked a lawyer whether they could accept the surrender, but were told they could not, "and are still valid targets". So they shot them.
The helicopter - with the callsign "Crazyhorse 18" - was also involved in another incident that July in which two journalists were killed and two children wounded.
The documents also appear to show that the US military falsely claimed that there were no official statistics available on the death toll in Iraq. They give a total of more than 109,000 violent deaths between 2004 and the end of 2009.
Click to play


Click to play


Hillary Clinton: "We should condemn in the most clear terms the disclosure"
This includes 66,081 civilians, 23,984 people classed as "enemy", 15,196 members of the Iraqi security forces, and 3,771 coalition troops.
Iraq Body Count, which collates civilian deaths using cross-checked media reports and other figures such as morgue records, said it had identified around 15,000 previously unknown civilian deaths.
But the organisation also noted that the US military had not recorded any civilian deaths during its two offensives on the city of Falluja in 2004.
US defence department spokesman Geoff Morrell earlier said the "period covered by these reports has been well-chronicled in news stories, books and films and the release of these field reports does not bring new understanding to Iraq's past".
"However, it does expose secret information that could make our troops even more vulnerable to attack in the future," he added.
Wikileaks infuriated the US authorities in July by publishing more than 70,000 secret papers about the war in Afghanistan. Defence Secretary Robert Gates suggested it had blood on its hands.
The investigation into the Afghan leak has focused on Bradley Manning, a US army intelligence analyst who is in custody and has been charged with providing Wikileaks with a video of the July 2007 attack by the helicopter with the callsign Crazyhorse 18.

========================================================​
Analysis

Gordon Corera Security correspondent, BBC News
Wikileaks already has a track record for exposing the darker side of the Iraq conflict.
Earlier in the year, it released a cockpit video of an attack by a US helicopter in which a number of civilians were killed, including two journalists for the Reuters news organisation.
In July, it released 75,000 documents focused on Afghanistan which shed new light on the conflict.
The Pentagon claimed terrorists had been analysing those documents.
The last US combat brigades departed Iraq this summer. But the debate over what happened during the war and after remains.
The raw, leaked reports may reveal new, perhaps dark episodes of that story - and the disclosures are likely to prove highly controversial, not least for Wikileaks itself.
 
  • Advertisement
  • J. Abizeid

    J. Abizeid

    Well-Known Member
    The documents also suggest "hundreds" of civilians were killed at US military checkpoints after the invasion in 2003.
    And the files show the US kept records of civilian deaths, despite previously denying it. The death toll was put at 109,000, of whom 66,081 were civilians.
    The US criticised the largest leak of classified documents in its history.
    Speaking to reporters in Washington earlier, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she condemned "in the most clear terms the disclosure of any information by individuals and or organisations which puts the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk".
    But Mrs Clinton did not go into specifics on the disclosures.
    Hillary Clinton condemns the truth which puts the lives of United States and its partners’ service members and civilians at risk. Instead of indicting George W. Bush and the neo cons for their war crimes including putting the lives of United States and its partners' service members and civilians at risk.
    It is so true what Ralph Nader called them: One party with two heads (Republican and Democrat)
     
    J. Abizeid

    J. Abizeid

    Well-Known Member
    Iraq war leaks: No US investigation of many abuses - Yahoo! Finance=

    Iraq war leaks: No US investigation of many abuses

    Huge Iraq war leak shows US often failed to follow up evidence of Iraqi prisoner abuse



    FILe - In this Nov. 14, 2005 photo, Iraqi policemen show their bruises, allegedly caused by torture, as they are treated at Yarmouk hospital in Baghdad. The WikiLeaks website released nearly 400,000 documents, Friday, Oct. 22, 2010, that claim Iraqi forces mistreated, tortured and killed their captives as they battled a ruthless insurgency. (AP Photo/Khalid Mohammed)


    Raphael G. Satter and Michael Weissenstein, Associated Press Writers, On Saturday October 23, 2010, 1:42 am EDT
    LONDON (AP) -- U.S. forces often failed to follow up on credible evidence that Iraqi forces mistreated, tortured and killed their captives in the battle against a violent insurgency, according to accounts contained in what was purportedly the largest leak of secret information in U.S. history.
    The documents are among nearly 400,000 released Friday by the WikiLeaks website in defiance of Pentagon insistence that the action puts the lives of U.S. troops and their coalition partners at risk.
    Although the documents appear to be authentic, their origin could not be independently confirmed, and WikiLeaks declined to offer any details about them. The Pentagon has previously declined to confirm the authenticity of WikiLeaks-released records, but it has employed more than 100 U.S. analysts to review what was previously released and has never indicated that any past WikiLeaks releases were inaccurate.
    The 391,831 documents date from the start of 2004 to Jan. 1, 2010, mostly by low-ranking officers in the field. In terse, dry language, they catalog thousands of battles with insurgents and roadside bomb attacks, along with equipment failures and shootings by civilian contractors.
    The documents describe a full gamut of a country at war: shootings at military checkpoints, contractors firing on Iraqis and savage acts committed on prisoners using boiling water, metal rods, electric shocks and rubber hoses. A group that counts casualties from the war said the files also document 15,000 previously unreported deaths.
    The United States went to war in part to end the brutality of Saddam Hussein's regime, but the WikiLeaks material depicts American officers caught in a complicated and chaotic conflict in which they often did little but report to their superiors when they found evidence that their Iraqi allies were committing their own abuses.
    In some cases, the reports show the U.S. military intervening to protect detainees, but in many others officers did not act on what their troops described as clear evidence of abuse.
    Allegations of torture and brutality by Shiite-dominated security forces -- mostly against Sunni prisoners -- were widely reported during the most violent years of the war when the rival Islamic sects turned on one another in Baghdad and other cities. The leaked documents provide a ground's eye view of abuses as reported by U.S. military personnel to their superiors, and appear to corroborate much of the past reporting.
    WikiLeaks said it provided unredacted versions of the reports weeks ahead of time to several news organizations, including the New York Times, Le Monde, The Guardian and Der Spiegel. It gave The Associated Press and several other news organizations access to a searchable, redacted database hours before its general release Friday.
    WikiLeaks was criticized for not redacting the names of informants in a July release of almost 77,000 documents from the Afghan conflict. This time, it appears to have removed the names of people, countries and groups from the searchable database.
    WikiLeaks declined to make unredacted files available to the AP, saying journalists wanting such a copy would have to lodge a request with the organization, which would respond within a "couple of days."
    The group describes itself as a public service organization whose mission is to "protect whistle-blowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public."
    WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange did not respond to an e-mail from the AP seeking comment but told CNN that the documents show "compelling evidence of war crimes," both by the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi government. Such comments from Assange have drawn controversy in the past.
    Assange rejected claims that his work was endangering anyone.
    The military has a continuing investigation into how the documents were leaked. An Army intelligence analyst stationed in Iraq, Spc. Bradley Manning, was arrested in connection with the leaking other classified material to WikiLeaks.
    Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell called the release "shameful" and said it "could potentially undermine our nation's security."
    He said about 300 Iraqis mentioned in the documents are "particularly vulnerable to reprisal attacks" and that U.S. forces in Iraq are trying to protect them.
    The documents appeared to be mostly contemporaneous -- routine field accounts that junior officers in units deployed across Iraq sent to headquarters within Iraq during the course of the war.
    The leaked documents include hundreds of reports from across Iraq with allegations of abuse. In a typical case from August 2006, filed by the 101st Airborne, U.S. forces discovered a murder suspect who claimed that Iraqi police hung him from the ceiling by handcuffs, tortured him with boiling water and beat him with rods.
    The suspect, detained at the Diyala provincial jail, showed evidence of abuse, including bruises on his wrists, back, and knees. The 101st notified the office of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, and the case was closed, according to the documents.
    In another case, U.S. soldiers inspecting an Iraq army base quizzed their Iraqi counterparts about a scab-covered detainee with two black eyes and a neck which had turned, in the words of the report, "red/yellow." The prisoner said he had been electrocuted. Iraqi officials claimed the man received the injuries while trying to escape, according to the report.
    In many cases, U.S. forces did not appear to pursue the matter because there was no allegation that coalition forces were involved. Many reports signed off with: "As coalition forces were not involved in the alleged abuse, no further investigation is necessary."
    Other reports describe American attempts to halt abuse by Iraqi officers.
    In one case, a U.S. State Department employee prevented a prisoner from being beaten, the documents show.
    One report describes U.S. troops finding evidence of torture at a police station in Husaybah, including large amounts of blood, a wire used for electric shocks and a rubber hose. It describes ensuing visits by the Americans, checking of detention cells and demands for records on every prisoner.
    "The detention cell officers have been counseled on the severe negative ramifications to relations with the coalition forces if human rights are not respected," it reads.
    As a general policy, U.S. forces in Iraq were supposed to take reasonable action to stop or prevent abuse. Morrell said U.S. troops are required to report any abuses they witness to their superiors and that U.S. policy has been to share that information with the Iraqi government "at the appropriate level."
    U.S. diplomats and military commanders in Iraq have said that U.S. and allied military forces in Iraq tried to deter abuse, although U.S. officials do not deny that torture or mistreatment has occurred.
    Amnesty International called on the U.S. to investigate how much its officials knew about torture when they handed over thousands of detainees to Iraqi security forces.
    Some of the reports released Friday are laconic, barely a line long: "Individual stated she was beaten and raped for not cooperating with IP (Iraqi police) investigator," one November 2007 report filed from Tikrit said.
    Others offer more a more detailed description of the abuse -- and evidence.
    U.S. Marines patrolling Husaybah found a man in the custody of Iraqi forces who said he was pulled out of a taxi, blindfolded, beaten and kept in a room for three days, one of the reports says. It cites medical documents and pictures of the man's injuries as evidence that his allegation of abuse is substantiated. "No further investigation is warranted," it reads.
    A "serious incident report" filed in December 2009 in Tal Afar said U.S. forces had obtained footage of about a dozen Iraqi army soldiers -- including a major -- executing a detainee. The video showed the bound prisoner being pushed into the street and shot, the Americans said. There was no indication of what happened to the video, or to the Iraqi major or his soldiers. The incident is marked "closed."
    The release of the documents comes at a pivotal time for the U.S. in Iraq as the military prepares to withdraw all 50,000 remaining troops from the country by the end of next year. The U.S. military had as many as 170,000 troops in Iraq in 2007.
    Violence has declined sharply over the past two years, but near-daily bombings and shootings continue.
    The situation has been exacerbated by growing frustration among the public over the failure of Iraqi politicians to form a new government. Al-Maliki is struggling to remain in power since his Shiite alliance narrowly lost the March 7 vote to a Sunni-backed bloc led by rival Ayad Allawi.
    Some of the documents focus on the actions of coalition troops. A report from February 2007 describes a combat helicopter being dispatched to destroy a truck carrying a mortar tube that had just been used in an attack. Two insurgents get into another truck and drive away, then attempt to surrender after they are fired on. When they attempt to drive away a second time, a military lawyer advises the helicopter that "They can not surrender to aircraft and are still valid targets." The helicopter opens fire, with a missile, driving the insurgents into a shack before opening fire again and killing them.
    The reports also document civilian contractors working for the military firing on cars that drove too close to their convoys, fearing the vehicles might be driven by suicide bombers.
    The documents also provided new details about one of the most contentious issues of the war -- civilian casualties.
    The U.S. military has recorded just over 66,000 civilian deaths, according to the documents posted by WikiLeaks. Iraq Body Count, a private, British-based group that has tracked the number of Iraqi civilians killed since the war began, said in a press release that it had analyzed the information and found 15,000 previously unreported deaths, which would raise its total from as many as 107,369 civilians to more than 122,000 civilians.
    The Iraqi government has issued a tally claiming at least 85,694 deaths of civilians and security officials were killed between January 2004 to Oct. 31, 2008.
     
    revolution425

    revolution425

    Well-Known Member
    and you still have Lebanese sheering for the Americans. every country they interfered with in the region was brought nothing but death and destruction. Lebanon is next unfortunately.
     
    J. Abizeid

    J. Abizeid

    Well-Known Member
    I like to invite out members on this forum who seem to be so concerned about human right only in Iran to say something here….
     
    FPM4EVER

    FPM4EVER

    Legendary Member
    I like to invite out members on this forum who seem to be so concerned about human right only in Iran to say something here….
    well you won't find any in here ! cz according to them : this is all a part of the syrian-iranian axis of evil conspiracy .......... you will see
     
    General-Specific

    General-Specific

    Member
    I like to invite out members on this forum who seem to be so concerned about human right only in Iran to say something here….
    USA is all about freedom of speech and democracy, Iran is all pure evil.

    you can't compare.
     
    Danny Z

    Danny Z

    Legendary Member
    I like to invite out members on this forum who seem to be so concerned about human right only in Iran to say something here….
    "Releasing these documents will jeopardize our troops"
    bi kell wa2e7a, that's the only thing they see out of these documents! They don't see that those troops are the reason why the documents are released and if the troops hadn't been where they're not supposed to be they wouldn't be in jeopardy. Oh and why will this jeopardize the troops if the troops hadn't done something wrong?
     
    RED_FOX87

    RED_FOX87

    New Member
    I like to invite out members on this forum who seem to be so concerned about human right only in Iran to say something here….
    if somebody criticizes iran it does not mean that he supports the U.S or its violation of human rights .at least those who support the U.S dont claim that they represent everything moral and descent

    different sides of the same coin. they both want one thing and thats power they dont care who they kill or what they do in order to achieve their goals

    and for gods sake stop using that font
     
    Libnene Qu7

    Libnene Qu7

    Super Ultra Senior Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I like to invite out members on this forum who seem to be so concerned about human right only in Iran to say something here….
    Two wrongs don't make a right. So American and Iraqi troops using inhumane torture and killings makes Iran free and democratic? What's your point??

    And as Oxy said, please change your eye-torturing font.
     
    J. Abizeid

    J. Abizeid

    Well-Known Member
    if somebody criticizes iran it does not mean that he supports the U.S or its violation of human rights .at least those who support the U.S dont claim that they represent everything moral and descent

    different sides of the same coin. they both want one thing and thats power they dont care who they kill or what they do in order to achieve their goals

    and for gods sake stop using that font
    Two wrongs don't make a right. So American and Iraqi troops using inhumane torture and killings makes Iran free and democratic? What's your point??

    And as Oxy said, please change your eye-torturing font.
    How do you feel about the human rights in GAZA?
    And are the same guy by any chance?
     
    FBM

    FBM

    Active Member
    How do you feel about the human rights in GAZA?
    And are the same guy by any chance?
    If Israel is violating human rights, does that give Iran (and the arab world) the right to do the same thing? :biggrin:
     
    RED_FOX87

    RED_FOX87

    New Member
    How do you feel about the human rights in GAZA?
    And are the same guy by any chance?
    How do u feel about the human rights in Darfur

    Inno shu u like going around in circles , u are like the rest of us so spare us . Everybody has a view of something and he only reads and posts the articles that back up his views
     
    J. Abizeid

    J. Abizeid

    Well-Known Member
    How do u feel about the human rights in Darfur

    Inno shu u like going around in circles , u are like the rest of us so spare us . Everybody has a view of something and he only reads and posts the articles that back up his views
    Or his agenda…
    Thanks, you made my point.



    (Folllow up from another post)
    http://forum.tayyar.org/f8/nuclear-...on-israel-alike-44104/index3.html#post1145779
    Talking about human rights in Iran in the pursuit of a political agenda is a disgrace. It’s like raising money for your sick child so you can take the money and go get drunk.
    Politicians have no right to discuss human rights; they are the ones responsible for such injustices.

    Let Human right agencies say what they have to say and they’ll tell you GAZA, the largest prison on earth is where we should start. Not to forget, KSA, Egypt and even Lebanon where masters rape their foreign maids and drop them of the balcony to shut them up.
    Which bring us back to Iran, a nation that has been systematically raped for the past 60 years by the so called “civilized western world” because it has something the world wants, and now the world wants to drop it of the balcony and pretend it’s a suicide…
     
    J. Abizeid

    J. Abizeid

    Well-Known Member
    If Israel is violating human rights, does that give Iran (and the arab world) the right to do the same thing? :biggrin:
    Find me one instance where I defended human rights violations?
    I care more about human rights than anyone else. Those who don’t get it is because they don’t want to get it. And that’s why I find it criminal to use people’s suffering for political gains.
     
    nonsense

    nonsense

    Legendary Member
    Ok, well, god bless wikileaks!...until they leak something about him/her! :biggrin:

    On human rights and Iran...let's not pick at it beyond what it is. JA mentioned using HR for a political agenda, and that's unfortunately how Iran is most often handled in the media.

    There is no doubt Iran has a lot of HR issues, I would think it ranks down there with a bunch of others. I'd read Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and believe them. No excuse is good enough, but their history with the west in the 20th century shows how the drop settled under the shah and since then.

    Two things not to like on topic:
    1. Some people will defend Iran blindly and hold it as a platinum standard
    2. Some people will attack Iran using its HR record for purely political reasons or seething hatred.

    Either way, its sad.
    Though it is reassuring that a lot here don't seem to fall for this BS, I think.

    Let us first work on improving ourselves.

    Oh and one more thing, don't argue for the sake or arguing please...it is too time-consuming for every poster to state their entire view on everything in every post they make.

    Cheers!
     
    J. Abizeid

    J. Abizeid

    Well-Known Member
    Ok, well, god bless wikileaks!...until they leak something about him/her! :biggrin:

    On human rights and Iran...let's not pick at it beyond what it is. JA mentioned using HR for a political agenda, and that's unfortunately how Iran is most often handled in the media.

    There is no doubt Iran has a lot of HR issues, I would think it ranks down there with a bunch of others. I'd read Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and believe them. No excuse is good enough, but their history with the west in the 20th century shows how the drop settled under the shah and since then.

    Two things not to like on topic:
    1. Some people will defend Iran blindly and hold it as a platinum standard
    2. Some people will attack Iran using its HR record for purely political reasons or seething hatred.

    Either way, its sad.
    Though it is reassuring that a lot here don't seem to fall for this BS, I think.

    Let us first work on improving ourselves.

    Oh and one more thing, don't argue for the sake or arguing please...it is too time-consuming for every poster to state their entire view on everything in every post they make.

    Cheers!
    Thank you Mon General,
    I fully agree with your verdict!:thumbup:
    Are you sure you are a General not a Judge?:cheers:
     
    Frisbeetarian

    Frisbeetarian

    Legendary Member
    Surely, be it instigated or supported by the U.S, we all know that torture and abuse has been ongoing in Iraq. Now i must say that i can't really tell if Mr.Assange is working for the U.S government and this whole thing is a ploy to GET these documents to come out or. Why you ask? To create sectarian strife in Iraq.
     
    Abou Sandal

    Abou Sandal

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    if somebody criticizes iran it does not mean that he supports the U.S or its violation of human rights
    If somebody criticizes you for using Iran's human rights record (sometimes for inventing one), for a political agenda, this doesn't mean that he supports whatever Iran might be doing in this field.

    Fair enough?

    Now read back the post you quoted and give it credit for what it means, instead of trying to find some escape route, especially when the post emphasized clearly on the word "only".

    Then, and only then, and since you are here, and since obviously, we would love to get some benefit of your presence, feel free to give us some of your few thoughts, about the US revealed atrocities.
     
    Top