• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wikileaks: Secret Iraq War Death Toll Set at 285,000

Orion said:
The U.S. undermined itself when it a) withheld information that it knew could turn public opinion against the war; and b) had lax enough security that thousands of documents were able to be leaked in the first place.

Freedom of the press sucks, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

So if you do not lock up your valuables securely, it's your fault when they are stolen?

There are procedures to determine when classified material is no longer sensitive and should be available to the public. If you have problems with the procedure, the proper thing to do is change it, not just do whatever you want with classified documents.

To me, it does not matter what the documents say at this point(since I have not read them I cannot judge the content), but the way they where released is simply wrong, and I hope we prosecute successfully any one we can in connection with this. These types of things cannot be allowed to happen.
 
Orion said:
How about something far more basic than that? Allow the international press free access to the war zone. That's what war correspondents do. They take the risks and go into dangerous areas to let the world know what is happening. But oops, we already let them do that in Vietnam, and look what happened: people stopped supporting the war.

I don't expect the government to divulge its classified operations. I expect it to honour BASIC public access to the region so that it can do its own fact collecting.
Click to expand...

Entirely different issue, which in no way justifies any of this.

And yes you DO expect the government to divulge its classified operations. You said so yourself when you said the US "undermines" itself by NOT doing so.

Are you still trying this line of argument? Please.
Click to expand...

It's apt, and you haven't shown how it isn't.


The press has restricted access to both Afghanistan and Iraq, by order of the U.S. It's for their "safety". :roll:
Click to expand...

Go off a different subject again if you like, but I have to wonder why you choose to instead of addressing the actual points.
 
Last edited:
Orion said:
instead of covering up some pretty horrible details of war that we are paying for out of our pockets.
Click to expand...

What "we" are you referring to -- in italics, no less?
 
Orion said:
I'm not really interested in the intentions of the group.
Click to expand...

You're not bothered by the intentions because those intentions are aligned with your own goals. If that weren't the case, I would wager you'd pay more attention to what they were doing and why.

They don't seem to be altering the information, but simply making it available. If the information itself is damning then it's not because of any organization's agenda; it's because the info. itself is true.
Click to expand...

So you're saying that as long as someone releases accurate information, it's not possible to do it in a way that is designed to push one point of view or another? You know that's not true.

Moreover, you keep missing the point - it's not that they're publishing lies, its that they're actively seeking to encourage people to leak classified information for the purpose of undermining our country. That's a big ****ing deal, whether you want to admit it or not.

You can hide behind the guise of heinous actions all you want, just like your leaders are, but it doesn't change the fact that the raw details are about to be known.
Click to expand...

And again with the overly flowery statements that don't actually mean anything.

And as a person (not a Canadian), I don't take pleasure in knowing the brutalities of war. It actually makes me angry, especially when the basic facts are watered down and the press is denied autonomous access to war zones so that the government can continue to manufacture consent on the home front.
Click to expand...

And what the **** does that have to do with the propriety of leaking classified information?

Assonge may be a dirt bag but his information is gold.
Click to expand...

You think it's gold because it helps your goals. As someone who is concerned about the safety, security and status of my country, I don't.
 
Orion - when you come home, do you list for your family every conceivably bad thing that you did that day? When you meet someone new, do you immediately hand them a list of all your flaws and misdeeds?

Do you think that you're "undermining yourself" by not disclosing those things to the public?
 
More than that, do you routinely catalog for your family the bad things that your friends do?
 
RightinNYC said:
I am somewhat disgusted by the amount of support that is being offered for people who are doing everything in their power to undermine the US.
Click to expand...

How does "evidence of state sanctioned torture by the Iraqi government" and "evidence of Iraqi government death squads" undermine the U.S.? Mind you, they would be going bat**** insane even if that is all Wikileaks released. Rhetoric being used now was also used when Wikileaks showed a video of a helicopter attack that killed two Reuters journalists. We have all seen public videos the military puts out of successful military operations that are trumpeted as successes for freedom and democracy. This video revealed no more about procedure than what was already publicly available, yet it was because of this video that Bradley Manning was arrested.

And that's not really the same thing as having a system of classifying information, so I don't see the point.
Click to expand...

It boggles my mind. It is almost like people have forgotten about Watergate, forgotten about MKULTRA, and forgotten about all the other blatant abuses of authority committed by our government. What do you think they used classification for in these cases? "National security" is one of the oldest cop-outs used by abusive governments.

With good reason.
Click to expand...

Certainly to the people in authority it seems like a good reason. Just like someone might feel there is a good reason to bribe a rape victim to avoid public outcry.
 
Demon of Light said:
How does "evidence of state sanctioned torture by the Iraqi government" and "evidence of Iraqi government death squads" undermine the U.S.? Mind you, they would be going bat**** insane even if that is all Wikileaks released. Rhetoric being used now was also used when Wikileaks showed a video of a helicopter attack that killed two Reuters journalists. We have all seen public videos the military puts out of successful military operations that are trumpeted as successes for freedom and democracy. This video revealed no more about procedure than what was already publicly available, yet it was because of this video that Bradley Manning was arrested.
Click to expand...

If it was already public information, then what good is it? Why is anyone interested?



It boggles my mind. It is almost like people have forgotten about Watergate, forgotten about MKULTRA, and forgotten about all the other blatant abuses of authority committed by our government. What do you think they used classification for in these cases? "National security" is one of the oldest cop-outs used by abusive governments.
Click to expand...

So you think that "national security" is always a smokescreen?


Certainly to the people in authority it seems like a good reason. Just like someone might feel there is a good reason to bribe a rape victim to avoid public outcry.
Click to expand...

And, you know, ACTUAL good reason . . .
 
Demon of Light said:
How does "evidence of state sanctioned torture by the Iraqi government" and "evidence of Iraqi government death squads" undermine the U.S.?
Click to expand...

Because the "evidence" is part of classified documents that were released. People who don't like the US will seize on this information and blame the US for what Iraq did - just look at the people posting in this thread.

Rhetoric being used now was also used when Wikileaks showed a video of a helicopter attack that killed two Reuters journalists. We have all seen public videos the military puts out of successful military operations that are trumpeted as successes for freedom and democracy. This video revealed no more about procedure than what was already publicly available, yet it was because of this video that Bradley Manning was arrested.
Click to expand...

No, he was arrested because he broke the law and leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents to a group seeking to undermine the US.

It boggles my mind. It is almost like people have forgotten about Watergate, forgotten about MKULTRA, and forgotten about all the other blatant abuses of authority committed by our government. What do you think they used classification for in these cases? "National security" is one of the oldest cop-outs used by abusive governments.
Click to expand...

And it boggles my mind that some people can't seem to understand that just because governments have done some bad stuff, that doesn't mean that the government should never be allowed to classify anything.


Certainly to the people in authority it seems like a good reason. Just like someone might feel there is a good reason to bribe a rape victim to avoid public outcry.
Click to expand...

Not wanting diplomatic cables to be leaked = paying hush money to a rape victim. Yea, that sounds right.
 
To answer the question. I do not routinely catalogue what friends and family are doing wrong. But, I'm sure the Police will, and punish accordingly.
The one leak [which includes video evidence] that stands out for me is the Apache with the call sign, Crazy-horse who blatantly opens up on unarmed personnel. I know the coalition partners would have a hard time justifying 'engaging' unarmed personnel irrespective of events leading up to that point. The UK has pretty strict 'rules of engagement' basically no weapon you should not engage.
I can appreciate the US government stance on these events not showing the full context or story but, for me, this one example looks hard to justify under any circumstances. That said, we must also consider the human element, that being in the heat of battle events are not necessarily as black and white.

Paul
 
gunner said:
To answer the question. I do not routinely catalogue what friends and family are doing wrong. But, I'm sure the Police will, and punish accordingly.
The one leak [which includes video evidence] that stands out for me is the Apache with the call sign, Crazy-horse who blatantly opens up on unarmed personnel. I know the coalition partners would have a hard time justifying 'engaging' unarmed personnel irrespective of events leading up to that point. The UK has pretty strict 'rules of engagement' basically no weapon you should not engage.
I can appreciate the US government stance on these events not showing the full context or story but, for me, this one example looks hard to justify under any circumstances. That said, we must also consider the human element, that being in the heat of battle events are not necessarily as black and white.

Paul
Click to expand...

This is off-topic, but if you're referring to the wikilieaks video, I don't think we saw the same things. I saw a helicoptor opening fire on people who were clearly armed.

The Jawa Report: Case Closed: Weapons Clearly Seen on Video of Reuters Reporters Killed in Iraq (UPDATED & Bumped Yet Again)
 
RightinNYC said:
Because the "evidence" is part of classified documents that were released. People who don't like the US will seize on this information and blame the US for what Iraq did - just look at the people posting in this thread.
Click to expand...

We put the government in power, gave it protection, and covered up its countless misdeeds. Like it or not, the U.S. owns what the Iraqi government did on our watch.

No, he was arrested because he broke the law and leaked hundreds of thousands of classified documents to a group seeking to undermine the US.
Click to expand...

He was arrested for releasing the video. All they had concerning the documents at the time was that he possessed them, not that he had leaked them. Let's not act like he would have gotten off fine if they could only prove he leaked the video.

And it boggles my mind that some people can't seem to understand that just because governments have done some bad stuff, that doesn't mean that the government should never be allowed to classify anything.
Click to expand...

Some things should be classified. However, a great deal that is classified should not be classified.

Not wanting diplomatic cables to be leaked = paying hush money to a rape victim. Yea, that sounds right.
Click to expand...

Well, that depends on the content. Of course, the analogy is legitimate either way. It is about concealing abuses to avoid consequences.

RightinNYC said:
This is off-topic, but if you're referring to the wikilieaks video, I don't think we saw the same things. I saw a helicoptor opening fire on people who were clearly armed.
Click to expand...

The beginning is not the real abuse, neither is it the reason Manning leaked the video. It is the part after that when a Good Samaritan's van is blown up killing him, all because he was trying to evacuate one of the wounded journalists. That, my friend, is a war crime.
 
Last edited:
Demon of Light said:
We put the government in power, gave it protection, and covered up its countless misdeeds. Like it or not, the U.S. owns what the Iraqi government did on our watch.
Click to expand...

And we also transferred sovereignty back to Iraq. Like it or not, we're neither responsible for nor able to do anything about the things that the Iraqi government chose to do after that.

He was arrested for releasing the video. All they had concerning the documents at the time was that he possessed them, not that he had leaked them. Let's not act like he would have gotten off fine if they could only prove he leaked the video.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. He was arrested because he stole classified information and leaked it to wikileaks. The fact that the arrest was not made until after the first video was published does not make a bit of difference.

Some things should be classified. However, a great deal that is classified should not be classified.
Click to expand...

What's your point? Unless you just want to quibble about where to draw the line, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Well, that depends on the content. Of course, the analogy is legitimate either way. It is about concealing abuses to avoid consequences.
Click to expand...

Not really. Rape is a serious felony committed by an individual person that serves no purpose for the state. Saying something confidential in a diplomatic cable is entirely legal, is performed by the state, and serves an important purpose in advancing the interests of the state. There is no way to analogize the two.

The beginning is not the real abuse, neither is it the reason Manning leaked the video. It is the part after that when a Good Samaritan's van is blown up killing him, all because he was trying to evacuate one of the wounded journalists. That, my friend, is a war crime.
Click to expand...

Another example of confusing intent and result. Unless you have the intent to lie, saying something that is inaccurate is not the same as "lying." Similarly, unless you have the intent to commit an unlawful act, firing on what you believe to be an unlawful combatant involved in evacuating insurgents from a battlefield is not a war crime.

Unfortunate result =/= war crime.
 
Last edited:
Councilman said:
I have no clue if what this clearly sick individual is about to leak is true or not, but it is obvious it puts our troops and those of our allies in danger and is not helpful in any way.

I would like to hear that this person has been placed in prison or better yet just disappeared and if asked the Pentagon had no comment.

I believe there is a provision in Patriot Act II that allows for for people who are a danger to to held without charge virtually for ever and no one even gets to know where they are.

I normally oppose this whole idea but in this case I can make an exception.

When it is discovered who gave him the papers that person should face the death penalty.

Yes it's harsh and I don't give a damn, who thinks so.
Click to expand...

It takes two to tango and the wikileaks founder is just as guilty as the traitors who leak information.
 
RightinNYC said:
And we also transferred sovereignty back to Iraq. Like it or not, we're neither responsible for nor able to do anything about the things that the Iraqi government chose to do after that.
Click to expand...

We sure as hell can do something about it. Many of the detainees were caught by our forces and handed over to the Iraqis despite knowing these people would likely be tortured. The U.S. actively facilitated such incidents by failing to investigate them and trying to keep the abuses concealed. We gave that government protection in countless ways. Never mind that for most of that time we had military control of Iraq. Abuses by the Iraqi government now are not really our responsibility since we are no longer actively involved in the conflict, but these are incidents ranging from 2004 to 2009.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. He was arrested because he stole classified information and leaked it to wikileaks. The fact that the arrest was not made until after the first video was published does not make a bit of difference.
Click to expand...

The point is that he was arrested for a video that ultimately only served to expose a war crime.

What's your point? Unless you just want to quibble about where to draw the line, I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
Click to expand...

What I am getting at is that no one is suggesting that nothing be classified.

Not really. Rape is a serious felony committed by an individual person that serves no purpose for the state. Saying something confidential in a diplomatic cable is entirely legal, is performed by the state, and serves an important purpose in advancing the interests of the state. There is no way to analogize the two.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it depends on the content, however, attempting to cover up information that will damage one's credibility or status is the same no matter what information is being covered up.

Another example of confusing intent and result. Unless you have the intent to lie, saying something that is inaccurate is not the same as "lying." Similarly, unless you have the intent to commit an unlawful act, firing on what you believe to be an unlawful combatant involved in evacuating insurgents from a battlefield is not a war crime.
Click to expand...

Firing on an unarmed person evacuating another unarmed person who is wounded is a big no-no and yes, Virginia, it is a war crime.
 
Demon of Light said:
We sure as hell can do something about it. Many of the detainees were caught by our forces and handed over to the Iraqis despite knowing these people would likely be tortured.
Click to expand...

Link to these people in question being caught by us and turned over with the knowledge that they would be tortured? It sounds like you're just taking allegations about our actions in regards to other countries and assuming that's what happened here.

The U.S. actively facilitated such incidents by failing to investigate them and trying to keep the abuses concealed.
Click to expand...

If these situations were outside of our authority, it's absurd to argue that we facilitated them by failing to investigate. Iraq is a sovereign nation and has control over its own affairs. If an Iraqi police officer beats some guy in prison, there's not a ****ing thing that the US can do about it.

We gave that government protection in countless ways. Never mind that for most of that time we had military control of Iraq. Abuses by the Iraqi government now are not really our responsibility since we are no longer actively involved in the conflict, but these are incidents ranging from 2004 to 2009.
Click to expand...

And when did these particular incidents occur?

The point is that he was arrested for a video that ultimately only served to expose a war crime.
Click to expand...

No, he was arrested for breaking the law.

What I am getting at is that no one is suggesting that nothing be classified.
Click to expand...

You said that "people in authority" should not have the authority to determine what to classify. You said that individuals who want to publicize things are important because they can just override those decisions and publicize whatever they want. If that's not arguing against any system of classification, I don't know what is.

Like I said, it depends on the content, however, attempting to cover up information that will damage one's credibility or status is the same no matter what information is being covered up.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.

Firing on an unarmed person evacuating another unarmed person who is wounded is a big no-no
Click to expand...

Did you watch the same video that I did? This wasn't a bunch of unarmed civilians walking around and picking flowers, this was a group of insurgents carrying AK47s and RPGs.

and yes, Virginia, it is a war crime.
Click to expand...

No, it's not.
 
The people at Wikileaks have absolutely no respect for the secrets they know nor for the consequences for their actions. I do not, under any circumstances, identify with the whistleblower model being bestowed upon them by defenders of Wikileaks.
 
Councilman said:
I would like to hear that this person has been placed in prison or better yet just disappeared and if asked the Pentagon had no comment.

I believe there is a provision in Patriot Act II that allows for for people who are a danger to to held without charge virtually for ever and no one even gets to know where they are.
Click to expand...

Right, because of course the right response to a threat to American security is to abandon American principals.
 
How come it's so ridiculously easy to get your hands on over 400,000 secret to top secret documents and files of the US army anyway?
They should find where the hole is and make sure it doesn't happen anymore, because one leaking soldier (or even 10) cannot possibly have an access to so many documents.
 
Last edited:
RightinNYC said:
Link to these people in question being caught by us and turned over with the knowledge that they would be tortured? It sounds like you're just taking allegations about our actions in regards to other countries and assuming that's what happened here.
Click to expand...

This is what has been reported by various news agencies reviewing the Wikileaks documents.

If these situations were outside of our authority, it's absurd to argue that we facilitated them by failing to investigate. Iraq is a sovereign nation and has control over its own affairs. If an Iraqi police officer beats some guy in prison, there's not a ****ing thing that the US can do about it.
Click to expand...

If you see someone getting beat up in alley you are not technically required to help, but that doesn't mean there is nothing you can do to help. Also, covering up the misdeeds of other is definitely facilitating them.

And when did these particular incidents occur?
Click to expand...

I just said. :confused: This is all stuff coming from the Wikileaks data.

No, he was arrested for breaking the law.
Click to expand...

So was Rosa Parks, that does not mean the arrest has no political motivation.

You said that "people in authority" should not have the authority to determine what to classify. You said that individuals who want to publicize things are important because they can just override those decisions and publicize whatever they want. If that's not arguing against any system of classification, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

I am arguing against the notion that "people in authority" should have sole discretion over what people should or should not know. I also argued against the notion that "random people" deciding that something should be released is an entirely bad thing. There is a reason there are protections for whistleblowers in many legal systems. Sometimes random people deciding something shouldn't be kept secret are the only way you find out about the abuses of people in authority.

Did you watch the same video that I did? This wasn't a bunch of unarmed civilians walking around and picking flowers, this was a group of insurgents carrying AK47s and RPGs.
Click to expand...

Not the wounded journalist, who never carried a weapon, nor the man who came upon the scene as he was taking his children to school and tried to save the life of said journalist. They were fired on despite having no weapon and despite the fact it was only a man trying to evacuate a wounded person. It does not matter whether it involves a civilian or a medical professional, firing on people for only tending to the wounded is a war crime.

Apocalypse said:
How come it's so ridiculously easy to get your hands on over 400,000 secret to top secret documents and files of the US army anyway?
Click to expand...

I don't think these were secret of top secret. Maybe some were secret, but as I understand they were fairly low on the level of classification.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
So your absolute that American lives will be lost with the release of these documents is based on the possibility of content that may or may not be contained in the documents?
Click to expand...

Are you absolutely sure that American lives won't be lost, because of the release of these documents? Your right to know doesn't outweigh the safety of American personel.

No I don't think this guy is qualified to do so. I would rather these document be released with all personal and tactical information stripped out. If I was him I would do just that before releasing the documents. The only information that should be released is the overview analysis of the impacy of operations. That includes death tolls, reason for death, resuces, succesful transitions of securiy forces, etc.
Click to expand...

That's brings us back to where we started from: he isn't qualified to segregate that information.
 
Laila said:
Almost 300,000 deaths caused indirectly/directly by our invasion into Iraq?

I think I'm going to be sick.
Click to expand...

Most of which were caused by your own people. I would be sick, too. Are you just as sick at the 300,000 people that Saddam murdered and torchered during his reign?

Oh, let me guess; that's different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom