The Web Braces for Biggest Wikileaks Dump to Date

[ddt]

How was the coalition supposed to stop the Iraqis from torturing other Iraqis? Should we have kidnapped the torturers and taken them to America for trials? We did report the torturing to the Iraqis' bosses, but we were not in political control of the sovereign country. And we were not there to investigate civil crimes.

A sovereign country has effective control over its territory. When 100,000 foreign soldiers are there to provide that security, you're not a sovereign country, so that argument fails.

Trying to downplay torture as just a "civil crime" is disingenuous, it's a crime against humanity. Doing nothing about it makes you complicit.

The solution is very simple: since the Iraqi government won't prosecute, the ICC has jurisdiction. So, kidnap them, drop them in The Hague on the doorstep of the ICC together with the evidence. Judges don't care how the suspects got in their custody. Let the ICC then sort it out.

 

[Sabrina]

of what value or merit do you consider the STRATFOR perspective, and why should anyone else, US citizen or not, attribute similar value or merit to their considerations?

STRATFOR has considerable experience with intelligence issues, which you'd know if you'd looked at their website. I'm not saying they're a definitive authority; I simply wanted people to take a look at it from the perspective of people who actually deal with intelligence and can disseminate information on an unclassified level to assist in that goal. Speaking from my own perspective as someone with experience in the intel field, I happen to think that the gentleman who wrote the article I quoted has quite a few good points to make, not the least of which is that technically the Pentagon's position on the Wikileaks latest release of information was a tad overdone and also the point out the commentary on the current standards for classification in this country and the issues that the current leak will create for that situation. Did you read the article?

 

[foxholeatheist]

I was at work today and somehow came upon a link to a guardian.co.uk link that had a google map of some of the information on the released documents. I guess the idea was to create a visual of the numbers killed in Iraq.

I have to say, it was a little chilling looking at the images. I haven't watched a war movie or even looked the photos I took over there since coming home. But to see, even if it's straight down the very streets that you walked and fought in less than a year ago, the map and more importantly, the satellite imagery really brought back a lot of memories and emotions.

There were little red dots and each one was some incident or death. Each one you click on will give some details about the incident, deaths, WIAs, Coalition or Iraqi, what type of attack, that kind of thing. I actually came across several that I think I may have been a part of, however the units involved and the numbers of wounded and killed were usually off from my memory.

The NCO in me is screaming "You freaking jackasses!! You gave the enemy, present or future, a blueprint of our vulnerabilities! Not to mention our route names and the units involved!"

My more sensible side reasons that there is little likelihood of Iraq boiling over again like Afghanistan has and much of our route names are well known. Much of this information is widely available. I can't decide if there is a decent chance of fighting another insurgency, but if that chance is low then this would be rather low value intelligence.

I'm much on the fence on this one.

 

[Trakar]

STRATFOR has considerable experience with intelligence issues, which you'd know if you'd looked at their website. I'm not saying they're a definitive authority; I simply wanted people to take a look at it from the perspective of people who actually deal with intelligence and can disseminate information on an unclassified level to assist in that goal. Speaking from my own perspective as someone with experience in the intel field, I happen to think that the gentleman who wrote the article I quoted has quite a few good points to make, not the least of which is that technically the Pentagon's position on the Wikileaks latest release of information was a tad overdone and also the point out the commentary on the current standards for classification in this country and the issues that the current leak will create for that situation. Did you read the article?

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions, and your own claims and assertions. Personally, I see nothing terribly new or exciting in the author's piece, and since he is not available for follow-up, there really isn't much there. However, since you are here and open to discussing your considerations and opinions regarding the issue at hand, I would be interested in hearing more about your personal understandings and thinkings with regards to the revealed reports or the long bemoaned obsession with classification and secrets.

 

[Sabrina]

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions, and your own claims and assertions. Personally, I see nothing terribly new or exciting in the author's piece, and since he is not available for follow-up, there really isn't much there. However, since you are here and open to discussing your considerations and opinions regarding the issue at hand, I would be interested in hearing more about your personal understandings and thinkings with regards to the revealed reports or the long bemoaned obsession with classification and secrets.

I'll state what I can; however bear in mind that I do possess a security clearance and may be incapable of giving much more than generalities. What exactly were your questions or concerns in regards to those issues?