Wikileaks - torture claims

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:38 am

Wikileaks: UN calls for US to investigate torture claims revealed in leaked reports
The United Nations has called for the US to investigate whether its officials knew about alleged torture and other ill-treatment of detainees held by Iraqi security forces.

Manfred Nowak, the UN's special rapporteur on torture, told the BBC the US President Barack Obama had an "obligation" to carry out an independent and objective investigation.

"There is an obligation to investigate whenever there are credible allegations torture has happened – and these allegations are more than credible – and then it is up to the courts," he said.

"It is then up to the courts on the one hand to bring the perpetrators to justice and also on the other hand to provide the victims with adequate reparation for the harm they have suffered."

It follows the release of almost 400,000 secret US military logs, by the Wikileaks website, which suggest US commanders ignored evidence of torture by the Iraqi authorities.

The classified documents, which comprise the largest leak in US history, also suggest:

* Iraqi forces systematically beat and tortured prisoners, including women and children.

* A US gunship crew killed two insurgents on the ground even though the pilots had reported that the men were trying to surrender.

* The US kept records of civilian deaths, despite previously denying it. The death toll was put at 109,000, including more than 15,000 deaths that were previously unrecorded.

* Two Iraqis complained of being abused by British troops in June 2008 but no formal investigation was carried out.

* Hundreds of civilians, including women and children, were killed at US military checkpoints after the invasion in 2003.

* British soldiers repeatedly came under attack from US forces in a series of 'friendly fire' incidents.

* Iran supplied chemical weapons to Iraqi militias for attacks against civilians and US targets.

The US has criticised the release of the documents by the whistle-blowing website.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, condemned "in the most clear terms" the leaks of any documents putting Americans at risk.

The Pentagon warned that releasing secret military documents could endanger US troops and Iraqi civilians.

"By disclosing such sensitive information, Wikileaks continues to put at risk the lives of our troops, their coalition partners and those Iraqis and Afghans working with us," said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary.

He said the documents were "essentially snapshots of events, both tragic and mundane, and do not tell the whole story."

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange told al-Jazeera television that together with public interest lawyers in the UK, the website had "produced papers for a lawsuit for 40 wrongful killings in Iraq".

He later told a news conference in London that they were seeking to create the "maximum political impact possible" through their latest release.

"This disclosure is about the truth," he said. "We hope to correct some of that attack on the truth that occurred before the war, during the war, and which has continued on since the war officially concluded."

He added: "While I am not sure we have achieved the maximum possible (political impact) I think we are getting pretty close."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/8082544/Wikileaks-UN-calls-for-US-to-investigate-torture-claims-revealed-in-leaked-reports.html

by **TexasBlue** Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:46 am

His statement of it having "maximum political impact possible" wasn't too bright on his part. Because that's what this is about. As if the guy actually cares about the findings.

On one hand, it's wrong as hell (US point of view) and on the other, it's a gross mishandling of the war on our part.

The Wiki founder could've done this in a less spectacular and dangerous way.

by The_Amber_Spyglass Sat Oct 23, 2010 5:49 am

My only concern was if this might impact on any military disciplinary procedure against individuals or public court case against any regiment or the US military in general. If it harms the possibility of a fair trial then this person is being incredibly irresponsible toward those he/she is seemingly trying to support.

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:10 am

TexasBlue wrote:His statement of it having "maximum political impact possible" wasn't too bright on his part. Because that's what this is about. As if the guy actually cares about the findings.

Why wasn't it too bright? What do you see as being negative in wanting to create the maximum political impact? I assume by that comment that he means he wants this issue to be widely acknowledged so that it can't be swept under the carpet. You appear to be suggesting that Assange has some ulterior political motive - what do you think that is? Wikileaks will release information with regards to illegal behaviour across the world, they haven't just targeted the US. It states in their maniesto that their aim is to expose oppressive regimes, and to act as a platform for people of ALL REGIONS to publish information pertaining to the unethical behaviour of governments and organisations.

On one hand, it's wrong as hell (US point of view) and on the other, it's a gross mishandling of the war on our part.

Aside from the assertions that this may be dangerous to US troops - something wikileaks have denied - why is it wrong? Last time wikileaks released information concerning US activity in Iraq & Afghanistan there was a lot of noise about how dangerous those actions would be - and whilst it has been stated repeatedly that wikileaks 'might' have blood on its hands, no proof of that has been forthcoming. Assange has stated that no dangerous information has been released - the documents have been censored to remove information which could cause harm to individuals. The Pentagon, Geoff Morel and Hilary Clinton have all stated that this action is dangerous - but they have given no indication, to explain how it will be dangerous, except for Morel who claims it gives info on how the US military operates but a US Department of Defense spokesman (also Morel?) has been quoted as dismissing the documents as "raw observations by tactical units, which were only snapshots of tragic, mundane events." All of which does sound rather like damage control.

I don't understand what you mean when you say it is a gross mishandling of the US's part in the war. If information has been hushed up - especially if that information is about the unethical behaviour of Coalition troops, I think we need to know about it.

The Wiki founder could've done this in a less spectacular and dangerous way.

How would you suggest? As the aim of wikileaks is to bring unethical behaviour to the attention of the world by publishing leaked documents - how else could they have done it? As for being dangerous, I am yet to be convinced that the action was dangerous - especially when measures have been taken to reduce the risk to individuals.

by **TexasBlue** Sat Oct 23, 2010 11:19 am

BecMacFeegle wrote:Why wasn't it too bright? What do you see as being negative in wanting to create the maximum political impact? I assume by that comment that he means he wants this issue to be widely acknowledged so that it can't be swept under the carpet. You appear to be suggesting that Assange has some ulterior political motive - what do you think that is?

Just what it is... a political hack job. The fact that he made the statement tells me it's political more so than humanitarian. JMO.

On one hand, it's wrong as hell (US point of view) and on the other, it's a gross mishandling of the war on our part.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Aside from the assertions that this may be dangerous to US troops - something wikileaks have denied - why is it wrong?

Because no matter what Assange says, people will be harmed in the aftermath of all this. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean that it won't later.

BecMacFeegle wrote:I don't understand what you mean when you say it is a gross mishandling of the US's part in the war. If information has been hushed up - especially if that information is about the unethical behaviour of Coalition troops, I think we need to know about it.

I guess i didn't make myself clear. That statement is the flip-side to my other one about the leak being wrong. The other side of the coin is that it was due in part of OUR gross mishandling of this war.

The Wiki founder could've done this in a less spectacular and dangerous way.

BecMacFeegle wrote:How would you suggest? As the aim of wikileaks is to bring unethical behaviour to the attention of the world by publishing leaked documents - how else could they have done it? As for being dangerous, I am yet to be convinced that the action was dangerous - especially when measures have been taken to reduce the risk to individuals.

I haven't quite come to a conclusion for this question. I find the whole thing a hatchet job despite everything else said. Maybe is just the bias of being an American and a military veteran.

by dblboggie Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:13 pm

All of this discussion is predicated on as yet inconclusive reports - we do not actually yet know the full story - we are, here, engaged in speculation given the sheer volume of material, but I will play along for the sake of argument.

I think it is one thing to look at these reports and express outrage or moral indignation at these allegations, while safely ensconced in a comfortable chair with a nice beverage at our side; to look at these things and make armchair judgments about what should or should not have occurred with only the barest of information at our disposal.

What were the actual situations on the ground in even one of these incidents? What were the circumstances? What events preceded these incidents? How many times had any of the personnel been shot at that day? How many road side bombs did those personnel barely skirt? How long had they been up? How long since they had a decent meal or a good night's sleep? What other battlefield stresses had they been subjected to?

As a former soldier, such speculation as we are engaged in here leaves just a tiny bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Of course it is wrong to condone torture; every civilized human realizes this (or should). And we should do all we can to see that things such as these "reports" allege do not take place - as much as is humanly possible. But we don't know all of the actual facts surrounding any of these allegations. We do not know any of the extenuating circumstances surrounding even a single one of these alleged incidents.

Assange has just dumped nearly half a million pages of information onto the web and now the world is racing to condemn America before even a fraction of the material has been examined or absorbed or viewed in the entirety of the context in which these reports were made.

So sure, we can make blanket statements about what should or should not be done or condoned in an active war zone - I'm sure all of us here have immense personal experience with the horrors of being in a war zone, especially with an enemy that does not play by the rules and could literally be anyone the eye falls upon.

Personally, I refuse to leap to judgment on this matter.

I think what Assange did is wrong, I think his sources acted illegally and should be found and prosecuted. I think Assange's motives are suspect at best. There is much evil happening in the world today. Brutal dictators who oppress, murder and starve their people with cushy seats at the U.N., there are dishonest leaders of nations whose personal greed is the cause of many deaths and much suffering. There is all sorts of evil and injustice in the world around us.

But there is one nation, despite all it's best intentions (and we will never, ever, get it 100% right or always do the right things), that seems to be the SOLE focus of people like Assange.

Indeed, I see a political agenda here, but I do not for a second think that has anything to do with real justice.

by BecMacFeegle Sat Oct 23, 2010 12:44 pm

dblboggie wrote:I think it is one thing to look at these reports and express outrage or moral indignation at these allegations, while safely ensconced in a comfortable chair with a nice beverage at our side; to look at these things and make armchair judgments about what should or should not have occurred with only the barest of information at our disposal.

I'm not sure anyone has done that. So far the discussion has centred mostly on whether it was right for Assange to release the information at all - or summarising the content of these reports. I certainly have not been casting judgement.

What were the actual situations on the ground in even one of these incidents? What were the circumstances? What events preceded these incidents? How many times had any of the personnel been shot at that day? How many road side bombs did those personnel barely skirt? How long had they been up? How long since they had a decent meal or a good night's sleep? What other battlefield stresses had they been subjected to?

As a former soldier, such speculation as we are engaged in here leaves just a tiny bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Of course it is wrong to condone torture; every civilized human realizes this (or should). And we should do all we can to see that things such as these "reports" allege do not take place - as much as is humanly possible. But we don't know all of the actual facts surrounding any of these allegations. We do not know any of the extenuating circumstances surrounding even a single one of these alleged incidents.

I absolutely agree with you, and anyone who tried to suggest that war is easy and that people don't make mistakes in such an intense situation are idiots. But that is no reason for trying to ignore this information. For us to even be able to consider the implications of these reports, they had to be released in the first place. Now they have been, we can begin to look at the surrounding issues.

Assange has just dumped nearly half a million pages of information onto the web and now the world is racing to condemn America before even a fraction of the material has been examined or absorbed or viewed in the entirety of the context in which these reports were made.

I think it's important to note that the information is not just about 'America', it contains information on the coalition forces. Some have condemned, of course they have, but if the Coalition forces have acted badly, now is the time for them to defend themselves - if they have not, now is the time for them to prove it. So far, I have not heard any suggestion that the information contained in those reports is inaccurate - I have however seen a scramble to condemn Assange for releasing it at all, with no clear indication of how this information could cause anyone to be in danger, nor any evidence to show that anyone's life was placed in danger on the previous occasions that such information has been released.

So sure, we can make blanket statements about what should or should not be done or condoned in an active war zone - I'm sure all of us here have immense personal experience with the horrors of being in a war zone, especially with an enemy that does not play by the rules and could literally be anyone the eye falls upon.

If there are problems on the ground for the troops, that needs to be addressed. How is pretending these incidents did not occur the best way to proceed.

So sure, we can make blanket statements about what should or should not be done or condoned in an active war zone - I'm sure all of us here have immense personal experience with the horrors of being in a war zone, especially with an enemy that does not play by the rules and could literally be anyone the eye falls upon.

Just because we don't all have direct experience of warfare does not mean that we don't get to hold the army to account for its actions if it behaves unethically. We must now wait and see as the implications of these leaked reports are analysed whether coalition forces have behaved badly. Just because I am not a soldier does not mean I don't get to have an opinion on this matter once all the facts have emerged, it doesn't mean I am clueless as to how war works. My dad was a soldier, and one of the things he said about one of the times he was in a conflict (in Borneo I think - jungle warfare, I guess) was that when asked if he had ever killed anyone, he said he didn't know. The conditions in that conflict were such that he honestly couldn't say whether he'd shot anyone or not. So I'm keenly aware that some people demand too much of soldiers - that they expect them to be perfect, that no civilian should be shot by accident, that no friendly fire should ever occur, that no one should die who isn't one of the 'bad guys', but it isn't like that. I understand that war isn't like that. But if things are happening that could be avoided, if soldiers are turning a blind eye to things they shouldn't, if casualties could have been avoided that weren't - then we need to know.

Personally, I refuse to leap to judgment on this matter.

I think what Assange did is wrong, I think his sources acted illegally and should be found and prosecuted.

So you reserved judgement for the actions of the Coalition forces, but you've already cast judgement on Assange and the source who wanted this published?

I think Assange's motives are suspect at best. There is much evil happening in the world today. Brutal dictators who oppress, murder and starve their people with cushy seats at the U.N., there are dishonest leaders of nations whose personal greed is the cause of many deaths and much suffering. There is all sorts of evil and injustice in the world around us.

But there is one nation, despite all it's best intentions (and we will never, ever, get it 100% right or always do the right things), that seems to be the SOLE focus of people like Assange.

You totally fail to acknowledge the other information that wikileaks has produced which relates to unethical behaviour all over the world. They won an award from Amnesty International for a piece they published about the situation in kenya. America has not been singled out in this release of information - it relates to the coalition forces and their activities. The actions of British soldiers are also criticised. So it's absolutely wrong to say Assange focuses on America. That is absolutely and demonstrably not true. America is not being singled out by wikileaks - but if the Coalition forces have behaved badly then that should not be covered up. Wikileaks have stated that their aim is to be a platform for the release of information about unethical behaviour by governments and companies around the world - they would be hypocrites if they ignored the actions of Coalition forces.

Indeed, I see a political agenda here, but I do not for a second think that has anything to do with real justice.

On what basis?

by Guest Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:19 pm

dblboggie wrote:I think what Assange did is wrong, I think his sources acted illegally and should be found and prosecuted. I think Assange's motives are suspect at best. There is much evil happening in the world today. Brutal dictators who oppress, murder and starve their people with cushy seats at the U.N., there are dishonest leaders of nations whose personal greed is the cause of many deaths and much suffering. There is all sorts of evil and injustice in the world around us.

But there is one nation, despite all it's best intentions (and we will never, ever, get it 100% right or always do the right things), that seems to be the SOLE focus of people like Assange.

Indeed, I see a political agenda here, but I do not for a second think that has anything to do with real justice.

Wikileaks never hosted files that might be damaging to non-American interests? I suggest you should visit the site and see for yourself. I don't disagree with you, the US is a shining influence in global politics, there has never been a better world's policeman then the US and those who want an counterbalance to American global hegemony are fools - but that don't mean the US is at all above criticism.

Yes, I know it has been said that these files are without context or frame of reference, it might not appear so awful upon a closer inspection. However it already proves certain things, like the occupying forces WERE keeping a body count and that there clearly was violations of the Geneva convention, I'm not sure how helicopters firing upon clearly unarmed civilians signalling surrender cannot ever be, whatever the context.

by Guest Sat Oct 23, 2010 2:40 pm

dblboggie wrote:All of this discussion is predicated on as yet inconclusive reports - we do not actually yet know the full story - we are, here, engaged in speculation given the sheer volume of material, but I will play along for the sake of argument.

I think it is one thing to look at these reports and express outrage or moral indignation at these allegations, while safely ensconced in a comfortable chair with a nice beverage at our side; to look at these things and make armchair judgments about what should or should not have occurred with only the barest of information at our disposal.

What were the actual situations on the ground in even one of these incidents? What were the circumstances? What events preceded these incidents? How many times had any of the personnel been shot at that day? How many road side bombs did those personnel barely skirt? How long had they been up? How long since they had a decent meal or a good night's sleep? What other battlefield stresses had they been subjected to?

a crimes is a crime is a crime.. there is No, If, And or But.. there are no get out of court cards just for being in the American military.. if there are any mitigating reasons, they should be given to the court at the point of punishment.

dblboggie wrote:As a former soldier, such speculation as we are engaged in here leaves just a tiny bit of a bad taste in my mouth. Of course it is wrong to condone torture; every civilized human realizes this (or should). And we should do all we can to see that things such as these "reports" allege do not take place - as much as is humanly possible. But we don't know all of the actual facts surrounding any of these allegations. We do not know any of the extenuating circumstances surrounding even a single one of these alleged incidents.

yes we do.. we have known torture was common place from soon after the invasion. [as I have said many times, I was part of the anti-war movement.. this kind of information was exposed near enough daily.. but as the evidence did not come from the military it was always dismissed and the movement was attacked] in fact torture by or on behalf of America as been a constant thread through out the 9 years of "war on terror" Bush had a world wide network of torture camps

dblboggie wrote:Assange has just dumped nearly half a million pages of information onto the web and now the world is racing to condemn America before even a fraction of the material has been examined or absorbed or viewed in the entirety of the context in which these reports were made.

it is not the world racing to condemn on un-known information but the information now coming out proves what was always known and reported on... America can no longer get away with dismissing it.

dblboggie wrote:So sure, we can make blanket statements about what should or should not be done or condoned in an active war zone - I'm sure all of us here have immense personal experience with the horrors of being in a war zone, especially with an enemy that does not play by the rules and could literally be anyone the eye falls upon.

Personally, I refuse to leap to judgment on this matter.

there are a whole range of laws covering "what should or should not be done or condoned in an active war zone" and it is those laws which you and I should be demanding be kept.. and those who do not keep them [for what ever reason] should be held accountable.

dblboggie wrote:I think what Assange did is wrong, I think his sources acted illegally and should be found and prosecuted. I think Assange's motives are suspect at best. There is much evil happening in the world today. Brutal dictators who oppress, murder and starve their people with cushy seats at the U.N., there are dishonest leaders of nations whose personal greed is the cause of many deaths and much suffering. There is all sorts of evil and injustice in the world around us.

no you can not belittle the importance of this material by claiming others "Brutal dictators who oppress, murder and starve their people with cushy seats at the U.N".. as it also belittle all the good work in bringing the criminality of other nations and other conflicts into the open

dblboggie wrote:But there is one nation, despite all it's best intentions (and we will never, ever, get it 100% right or always do the right things), that seems to be the SOLE focus of people like Assange.

Indeed, I see a political agenda here, but I do not for a second think that has anything to do with real justice.

No it is not "there is one nation, despite all it's best intentions" as others have tried to remind our readers, debaters.. the information released covered America's partners as well.

by Sponsored content

Wikileaks - torture claims

Wikileaks - torture claims

Re: Wikileaks - torture claims

Re: Wikileaks - torture claims

Re: Wikileaks - torture claims

Re: Wikileaks - torture claims

Re: Wikileaks - torture claims

Re: Wikileaks - torture claims

Re: Wikileaks - torture claims

Re: Wikileaks - torture claims

Re: Wikileaks - torture claims