Wikileaks releases .4 mil documents

[Musician]

So I don't have much to say about this right now, but theres no topic so far when there should be, since this is possibly the largest leak in US history (in terms of sheer amount of data). Wikileaks has released the Iraq War Diaries. Apparently, the hawks are shitting themselves, and had already pre-emptively assembled a 120 man team to try and control the media fallout of the event, even before the documents were released.

The biggest information to be coming out of this, seems to be the revelation that the US has actively ignored reports of prisoner abuse by the Iraqi forces (which we arm and train). Those of you that have been following the Iraq war may be aware that gross violations of human rights have been occuring in Iraqi prisons for some time now. A few weeks back Amnesty International released a report detailing how around 30,000 iraqi prisoners are currently being held without trial, and at risk of torture. Many of them are tortured and brutalized until they sign confessions saying they're members of Al Qaeda, upon which they're convicted in front of an Iraqi Kangaroo Court and summarily executed. The torture methods include: "breaking of limbs, removal of finger and toenails, asphyxiation and piercing of the body with drills". The techniques are so physically strenuous that many times they lead to incidental deaths among the victims.

It will also be interesting to see if the documents mention anything about contingency or withdrawal plans. If it doesn't, it's pretty much proof positive that Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq.

[homor]

At 10/23/10 03:08 AM, Musician wrote: It will also be interesting to see if the documents mention anything about contingency or withdrawal plans. If it doesn't, it's pretty much proof positive that Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq.

Didn't he just draw back all US combat forces?

[Musician]

US combat forces are still in Iraq. The pentagon's (and Obama's) words are that they've been "rem missioned". So now instead of engaging in combat they're supposed to be engaged in training and assistance for the Iraqi army. But they are combat forces and they remain ready to re-engage in combat if need be. Obama did draw it down to 50,000 (IIRC) troops. But, the "drawn down" force is being supplemented with thousands of contracted mercenaries. So yeah

[yurgenburgen]

"ON STATION OBSERVED ACTIVITY AT A HOUSE WITHIN VICINITY OF THE POO."

I am going to assume/hope that "POO" is a military acronym that stands for something and doesn't just mean feces.

[Musician]

Al Jazeera has been doing some excellent reporting on this issue. They now have a section of their site dedicated to analyzing the files and reporting the more relevant parts.

[aviewaskewed]

At 10/23/10 07:29 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: I am going to assume/hope that "POO" is a military acronym that stands for something and doesn't just mean feces.

My personal guess would be POO means "Prisoner Of Occupation" or something similar. Since I believe the "war" part of this invasion has been officially over for some time.

[RP207]

At 10/23/10 03:08 AM, Musician wrote: The biggest information to be coming out of this, seems to be the revelation that the US has actively ignored reports of prisoner abuse by the Iraqi forces (which we arm and train). Those of you that have been following the Iraq war may be aware that gross violations of human rights have been occuring in Iraqi prisons for some time now. A few weeks back Amnesty International released a report detailing how around 30,000 iraqi prisoners are currently being held without trial, and at risk of torture. Many of them are tortured and brutalized until they sign confessions saying they're members of Al Qaeda, upon which they're convicted in front of an Iraqi Kangaroo Court and summarily executed. The torture methods include: "breaking of limbs, removal of finger and toenails, asphyxiation and piercing of the body with drills". The techniques are so physically strenuous that many times they lead to incidental deaths among the victims.

I find it surprising how the american interrogation methods have become similiar to those of the KGB. Also the methods are very similiar to the one I heard about from people who grew up during communism over here: starvation, discomfort, isolation, threats. Perhaps american democracy now ends just beyond its borders? Makes me wonder how free the american 'free world' really is now.

In any case if this is the state of affairs the leaks might be a good thing from the point of view that they'll help make the government more accountable for its actions abroad.

[poxpower]

That guy's gonna run into trouble eventually man....

[EclecticEnnui]

The big question is why; why has the US ignored these reports? I'm not a really political person, but was the US government just so bent on finding and punishing terrorists that the government didn't care about their human rights, even if they weren't really terrorists? If so, that's incredibly shameful.

[ArmouredGRIFFON]

At 10/24/10 12:48 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: My personal guess would be POO means "Prisoner Of Occupation" or something similar. Since I believe the "war" part of this invasion has been officially over for some time.

I just poo-ped.

Pardon my intrusion.

[Warforger]

At 10/23/10 03:10 AM, homor wrote:

At 10/23/10 03:08 AM, Musician wrote: It will also be interesting to see if the documents mention anything about contingency or withdrawal plans. If it doesn't, it's pretty much proof positive that Obama has no intention of leaving Iraq.

Didn't he just draw back all US combat forces?

Mostly, but replaced with "Contractors" which are the same thing but are also contractors and cost more to keep.

[SadisticMonkey]

What a hero

I have officially nominated him for Australian of the year

[unowned]

My personal guess would be POO means "Prisoner Of Occupation" or something similar.

or you could google something like "poo miltary term"

instead of looking ignorant quoting an already foolish post

[satanbrain]

Where are the condemnations and boycotts against iraq? where is goldstone? the human rights council? the UN?

[adrshepard]

At 10/23/10 03:08 AM, Musician wrote: So I don't have much to say about this right now, but theres no topic so far when there should be, since this is possibly the largest leak in US history (in terms of sheer amount of data). Wikileaks has released the Iraq War Diaries. Apparently, the hawks are shitting themselves...

I can't remember any "hawks" ever claiming that the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people themselves hold identical cultural attitudes towards punishment, violence, and the concept of due process as Americans. We hold it up as a democracy in intent only, not only because the government isn't perfectly established as the sole source of power in the country, but there's simply too much insecurity for it to function as an American-replica democracy at this time.

The biggest information to be coming out of this, seems to be the revelation that the US has actively ignored reports of prisoner abuse by the Iraqi forces (which we arm and train).

What choice does the US have? Each report is communicated to the relevant Iraqi office and that's all we can really do. The US doesn't have the authority to prosecute Iraqis for violations of their own country's procedures, and Iraqis want it that way. Do you think the only reason US troops are mostly restricted to their bases is because security is so much better, that active US support would make no difference? They want to manage their own country, the US wants the same thing, and making a stink over prisoner abuse is counter-productive to that goal.
We do not support the Iraqi security forces as instruments of oppression, intended solely to preserve a certain regime. You cannot deny the real threat from insurgents and terrorists that they have to deal with every day, and expecting them to operate within the same standards as our military is unrealistic.

[adrshepard]

At 10/24/10 11:46 AM, RP207 wrote: I find it surprising how the american interrogation methods have become similiar to those of the KGB. Also the methods are very similiar to the one I heard about from people who grew up during communism over here: starvation, discomfort, isolation, threats.

I have never seen any evidence of starvation at Guantanamo Bay that wasn't self-inflicted through hunger strikes. In fact, it's the force feeding that US forces do that has gained more publicity. If you know of anything, though, send a link.

The article you link to leaves out an interesting part of the issue: the prisoners at Guantanamo are not prisoners of war in the same sense that an American pilot would be if captured by the Soviets in a war. The quote from the doctor, "How did something used as an example of what an unethical government would do become something we do?" is critical. Is the treatment itself always unethical, or is it just because the subjects would be legitimate prisoners of war? Even the Soviets seemed to be making a distinction, since we can all imagine much more horrible means of torture than stress positions or sleep deprivation. If anything, American interrogation policy was much further away from the grey area.

[Musician]

At 10/25/10 02:50 PM, adrshepard wrote: What choice does the US have? Each report is communicated to the relevant Iraqi office and that's all we can really do. The US doesn't have the authority to prosecute Iraqis for violations of their own country's procedures, and Iraqis want it that way.

Well, for one thing the US needs to be conducting investigations into these claims of abuse. As for what you do after that, it's too soon to really say. I'm not a policy expert (and you certainly aren't either), so I couldn't tell you specifically how the US proceeds afterwards. I would guess that policies like human rights would be enforced the way they're traditionally enforced in international law. Through diplomatic measures, withholding of military aid, etc.

But whatever the path is it's clear that the current policies are completely unacceptable (not to mention tremendously hypocritical), and that any future solution begins with gathering information. Something that the US military has systematically blocked through Frago 242, presumably because the US doesn't care about human rights, as long as there's an authoritarian government in place that can guarantee the safety of their oil assets (and the US's permanent military presence).

They want to manage their own country, the US wants the same thing, and making a stink over prisoner abuse is counter-productive to that goal.

No, I don't think you understand the situation. Diplomatic action against a government that violates human rights isn't an infringement on Iraqi sovereignty. It's a policy that the US is obligated to follow (under international law), as the occupying power, exerting effective control over Iraq. Nobody is forcing us to provide guns and training to government death squads, and the fact that we continue to do so, despite the well known abuses that said supplies are used for, is immoral, illegal, and unjust.

I'd like to call you back to a statement you made in our last discussion, since it demonstrates your outstanding hypocrisy:

Hamas is a group that has deliberately and proudly killed innocent people, and yet the strengthening of their organization doesn't bother you? Do you stand for anything or is it just "nonviolence and peace at any price?

This is precisely the stance you've taken in this argument. That we shouldn't stick our nose into allegations of Iraqi abuse, because that might threaten the "stability" of the country or something stupid like that. Well, ok. But recognize that you're not just condoning a group that has actively tortured and murdered people without charge (probably innocents, or those guilty of petty crimes like theft): you're proactively seeking to strengthen their abuses, through continuing to provide said group with financial, political, and military support.

So the stance you are taking (the one you always take), is the preservation of abstract US interests, at any cost. And of course this policy has horrifying consequences, which you obviously don't recognize as a result of your profound moral failings.

[Chris-V2]

At 10/25/10 12:23 PM, satanbrain wrote: Where are the condemnations and boycotts against iraq? where is goldstone? the human rights council? the UN?

Considering the amount of influence the US have over the UN, keeping their mouth shut. But I like how badly you're paralleling these events with the injustice of slappaing the wrists of the Israeli government.

There's another release being prepared, the US are very eager to have Wikileaks shut down. The documents are another embarassment which has shown that the War On Terror has been a (argueably tactical) massacre that will fuel another centuary of poverty and conflict in the Middle East.

[poxpower]

btw having to investigate into these matters... what a load of bullshit.

That means the taxpayers would have to pay investigators to go after people who were paid by taxpayers to go out and do vile shit.

Yay, nobody wins except the lawyers.

[adrshepard]

At 10/25/10 04:00 PM, Musician wrote: Well, for one thing the US needs to be conducting investigations into these claims of abuse... I would guess that policies like human rights would be enforced the way they're traditionally enforced in international law. Through diplomatic measures, withholding of military aid, etc.

So even though sanctions (because talk without threats does nothing in these cases) would directly work against what we have spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions to achieve, you think our "moral obligation" trumps all other considerations.

But whatever the path is it's clear that the current policies are completely unacceptable (not to mention tremendously hypocritical), and that any future solution begins with gathering information. Something that the US military has systematically blocked through Frago 242, presumably because the US doesn't care about human rights, as long as there's an authoritarian government in place...

I don't think you could call Iraq an authoritarian country. Iraq is struggling to form a coalition precisely because there is no centralized, strong power in control. Prisoner abuse and human rights violations are bad, yes, but their existence doesn't always mean the same thing. Are they the result of a deliberate, organized strategy of oppression, or do they stem more from general corruption, poor discipline, weak central authority and law enforcement?
I think it's the latter. The Iraqi government has already investigated these sorts of reports before, the Iraq Constitution contains provisions protecting human rights (as opposed to legal justifications
for their violation, and the recent leaks have led some Iraqi politicians to call for investigations. This kind of oppression is obviously not what the central government or the Iraqis want, so these problems should decline as the government and law grows stronger.

They want to manage their own country, the US wants the same thing, and making a stink over prisoner abuse is counter-productive to that goal.

No, I don't think you understand the situation. Diplomatic action against a government that violates human rights isn't an infringement on Iraqi sovereignty.

Again, it's a question of whether it's deliberate or not. If it is deliberately ignored in some cases, then the key is whether the consequences of enforcement are more damaging than doing nothing.

I'd like to call you back to a statement you made in our last discussion, since it demonstrates your outstanding hypocrisy:

Hamas is a group that has deliberately and proudly killed innocent people, and yet the strengthening of their organization doesn't bother you? Do you stand for anything or is it just "nonviolence and peace at any price?

This is precisely the stance you've taken in this argument.

Not at all.

So the stance you are taking (the one you always take), is the preservation of abstract US interests, at any cost. And of course this policy has horrifying consequences, which you obviously don't recognize as a result of your profound moral failings.

If you learned anyhting from the last time we argued, it should have been that pretending your morality is superior to mine gets you nowhere.

[Musician]

At 10/25/10 06:37 PM, adrshepard wrote: Iraq is struggling to form a coalition precisely because there is no centralized, strong power in control.

Not within the legislative branch. There are, however, centralized powers present within the Iraqi security forces. For example: the ministry of interior, and the ministry of defense. Two rigid, heirarchical organizations, responsible for the policing and military defense of iraq respectively. These are the organizations that have been most correlated with the recent abuse, as the torture occurs at their facilities, and hundreds of their members have been accused of conducting/authorizing torture. They also happen to be the groups the US is funneling tons of weapons and training resources into. Yay

Are they the result of a deliberate, organized strategy of oppression, or do they stem more from general corruption, poor discipline, weak central authority and law enforcement? I think it's the latter

The evidence doesn't support that narrative. Take for example, the incident at Al Rusafa Detention Center. Secret torture prison, being run in a highly organized fashion, with a clear intent, and tons of allegations being made towards high ranking officials, including the prime minister. It makes no sense for that situation to be the result of a few rogue officers. Such incidents indicate high level involvement. Which is why comprehensive independent investigation, is so important to clarifying the situation.

Given the evidence that's available, which you clearly haven't researched, I can't imagine that this isn't a systemic issue. comprehensive denial of basic rights under international law isn't something that happens because 2 guards get a little too drunk and obnoxious. It's, generally speaking, the result of policy set right from the top of the chain.

So even though sanctions (because talk without threats does nothing in these cases) would directly work against what we have spent thousands of lives and hundreds of billions to achieve, you think our "moral obligation" trumps all other considerations.

There's no reason to believe that taking steps to address corruption within the government threaten's Iraq's stability. So you're being needlessly dramatic.

And it's more a legal obligation (though it is also a moral obligation) to address these issues. Since it's illegal for the US to continue turning over prisoners to the Iraqi government if there's reason to believe doing so will put them at risk of torture. As Amnesty International notes:

"Under international law, the USA is barred from transferring detainees to where they face torture or other serious human rights violations. The absolute prohibition on transferring detainees to a situation where they risk such abuses is part and parcel of the prohibition on torture and other ill-treatment itself. States' obligation not to torture or ill-treat detainees extends to the conditions to which detainees are released or transferred. A state cannot claim to be treating detainees humanely while knowingly handing them over to torturers, anymore than it can knowingly "release" detainees in a minefield and claim that their safety is no longer its responsibility."

[SmilezRoyale]

Obviously the federal government's abuses need to be regulated by some other federal agency, as this sort of behavior is inexcusable.

And another federal agency to make sure the governments secret documents don't get leaked again.

_______________________________-

It's a joke, a bad one. But this whole thing would be hilarious, if it weren't true.

[adrshepard]

At 10/26/10 12:55 AM, Musician wrote: Not within the legislative branch. There are, however, centralized powers present within the Iraqi security forces. For example: the ministry of interior, and the ministry of defense. Two rigid, heirarchical organizations, responsible for the policing and military defense of iraq respectively.

But they don't have any political power. Some of their members are influential, perhaps, but nothing they do has any policy-setting importance. The distinction you have to make is between political prisoners, deliberately chosen because they threaten some government body's power, and normal prisoners, some of whom are actual criminals while others have been incarcerated wrongly for any number of reasons involving corruption, discrimination, or a general indifference to filtering out the innocent. In the first case, there is an authoritarian system at work, using security forces to protect the power of some group. The second shows a much more haphazard, broken system in which it's difficult for leaders to get control of their subordinates. After all, an authoritarian regime worries first about enlisting the support political leaders and institutions like the courts and military. Only when those loyalties are secured does it make sense to suppress grassroots revolutionary movements, since they are much less likely a threat than some rival faction.

Are they the result of a deliberate, organized strategy of oppression, or do they stem more from general corruption, poor discipline, weak central authority and law enforcement? I think it's the latter

The evidence doesn't support that narrative. Take for example, the incident at Al Rusafa Detention Center. Secret torture prison, being run in a highly organized fashion, with a clear intent, and tons of allegations being made towards high ranking officials, including the prime minister.

I don't see any allegations or evidence involving the prime minister or anyone else in the article you posted, or in any of the articles I've read about that. Also, when I say "organized", I mean organized on a national level. Routine torture at a single prison or a few prisons isn't enough to conclude it was approved or tolerated by the Iraqi government.

It makes no sense for that situation to be the result of a few rogue officers. Such incidents indicate high level involvement.

I don't know how you can come to that conclusion without being familiar with the bureaucratic structure of Iraqi prisons. I'm certainly not, but I have doubts that al-Maliki or anyone in his administration would have to sign-off on individual prison policy, or personally set the policy himself. It's much more reasonable to think of it as an extended chain of command that depends on individual effort and vigilance at each level.

There's no reason to believe that taking steps to address corruption within the government threaten's Iraq's stability. So you're being needlessly dramatic.

What steps haven't we taken yet? I refuse to believe that corruption has never been brought up in Iraqi-US discussions until now. You want something concrete though, which can only end badly.
Demanding an international investigation could only worsen cooperation between Iraq and the US. Iraqis want to take care of their own affairs, and probably would get irritated at the notion of some suits from an ivory tower lecturing them about morality and justice after the nasty situation Iraqi civilians have endured for the past eight years. Certainly the Iraqi government wouldn't humiliate itself by proclaiming it couldn't investigate the issue itself.
Cutting military or financial aid would bring most of the same problems as an international investigation and would bring its own dangers. An emboldened insurgency would see division in its enemies, the fearful populace would start clinging to local militias as civilians doubt the abilities of the national security forces even further, and US combat assistance would almost certainly be refused out of pride alone, even if it were necessary.
This isn't drama, it's serious shit, and when you talk about undermining the forces we have spent the nearly a decade trying to build and strengthen, you should be aware of the potential consequences.

And it's more a legal obligation (though it is also a moral obligation) to address these issues. Since it's illegal for the US to continue turning over prisoners to the Iraqi government if there's reason to believe doing so will put them at risk of torture. As Amnesty International notes...

I'd imagine that "risk" is the key word. There isn't a country in the world which hasn't had cases of prisoner abuse in its prisons, so obviously there must be more criteria for denying transfer than "it has happened before." I'm sure there are a bunch of legal explorations into what constitutes an unacceptable risk of torture and what makes it so, but I really don't feel like to spending hours investigating them.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 10/25/10 05:22 PM, poxpower wrote: btw having to investigate into these matters... what a load of bullshit.

That means the taxpayers would have to pay investigators to go after people who were paid by taxpayers to go out and do vile shit.

Yay, nobody wins except the lawyers.

Having the truth exposed may make it more difficult for an Iraq to happen again

[Jon-86]

At 10/29/10 03:25 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Having the truth exposed may make it more difficult for an Iraq to happen again

I doubt that. Nobody ever takes note of previous wars when entering new ones. Right now in the UK its coming up to remembered day and you have that hijacked slogan "lest we forget" meaning remember the atrocities of WW1&2 and make sure it never happens again.

War is about killing people, soldiers are conditioned and trained to kill people. If they dont their not effective at what they do so dont be surprised when they are sent to some place and kill lots of things! I'm just surprised every man, woman and child in Iraq hasn't turned against the US for the amount of people they have killed.