Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
WikiLeaks says It Won't be Threatened by Pentagon
STOCKHOLM — WikiLeaks will publish its remaining 15,000 Afghan war documents within a month, despite warnings from the U.S. government, the organization's founder said Saturday.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange gives a seminar at the Swedish Trade Union Confederation headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden, Saturday Aug. 14, 2010. WikiLeaks will publish 15,000 documents from the Afghan war within weeks, Assange told reporters in Stockholm, saying "We proceed cautiously and safely with this material." although U.S. Pentagon says the information would be more damaging to security and risk more lives.(AP Photo / Bertil Ericson / SCANPIX) The Pentagon has said that
secret information will be even more damaging to security and risk more
lives than WikiLeaks' initial release of some 76,000 war documents.
"This organization will not be threatened by the Pentagon or any other group," Assange told reporters in Stockholm. "We proceed cautiously and safely with this material."
In an interview with The Associated Press, he said that if U.S. defense officials want to be seen as promoting democracy then they "must protect what the United States' founders considered to be their central value, which is freedom of the press."
"For the Pentagon to be making threatening demands for censorship of a press organization is a cause for concern, not just for the press but for the Pentagon itself," the Australian added.
He said WikiLeaks was about halfway though a "line-by-line review" of the 15,000 documents and that "innocent parties who are under reasonable threat" would be redacted from the material.
"It should be approximately two weeks before that process is complete," Assange told AP. "There will then be a journalistic review, so you're talking two weeks to a month."
Wikileaks would be working with media partners in releasing the remaining documents, he said, but declined to name them.
The first files in WikiLeaks' "Afghan War Diary" laid bare classified military documents covering the war in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010. The release angered U.S. officials, energized critics of the NATO-led campaign, and drew the attention of the Taliban, which has promised to use the material to track down people it considers traitors.
That has aroused the concern of several human rights group operating in Afghanistan and the Paris-based media watchdog Reporters Without Borders, which has accused WikiLeaks of recklessness. Jean-Francois Julliard, the group's secretary-general, said Thursday that WikiLeaks showed "incredible irresponsibility" when posting the documents online.
WikiLeaks describes itself as a public service organization for whistleblowers, journalists and activists.
"There are no easy choices for our organization," Assange said. "We have a duty to the people most directly affected by this material, the people of Afghanistan and the course of this war which is killing hundreds every week. We have a duty to the broader historical record and its accuracy and its integrity. And we have a duty to our sources to try and protect them where we can."
Assange told the AP that while no country has taken steps to shut down WikiLeaks, some have been gathering intelligence on the organization.
"There has been extensive surveillance in Australia, there has been surveillance in the United Kingdom, there has been the detainment of one of our volunteers who entered the United States a week and a half ago. But he was released after four hours," Assange said. He didn't give details of that incident.
In addition to speaking at a seminar, Assange was in Sweden to investigate claims that the website was not covered by laws protecting anonymous sources in the Scandinavian country.
Assange confirmed that WikiLeaks passes information through Belgium and Sweden to take advantage of press freedom laws there. But some experts say the site doesn't have the publishing certificate needed for full protection in Sweden.
Assange said two Swedish publications had offered their publication certificates to WikiLeaks, "but we will soon be registering our own this week."
He declined to disclose what other countries house WikiLeaks' technical infrastructure.
- Posted in
170 Comments so far
Show AllWith our gov'ts attempt at classifying any document as Top Secret: National Security Interest; I applaud Wikileaks for their courage and curse our MSM for being so pliant with the MIC. Something like 45-50% of our budget is tied to military spending and war related items. You'd think that would garner deeper discussion than mere reporting the line-by-line cost of this giant boondaggle now destroying our economy. You'd think that but you'd be wrong. So it goes.
What's with Julian's new do? Trying to look more "mainstream?" I liked the natural platinum better.
Double post deleted
Julian cleans up nice.I'll bet he has some nifty disguises.He needs a few body doubles.He's the man!
peace
I don't know why, but i just thought of the "Yes Men".
I love this guy.
Julian had better hurry up and post the rest of his documents before the ol' USA, with the help of the rest of the white man's world and Google and their corp. dogs, completely shuts down the internet. However, I keep thinking that Assange or someone like him, being competent hackers and all and very net savvy, will have an alternate internet that we can all immediately and seamlessly log onto. This would be in a perfect world.
I don't see either of the 2 main political parties rising up to defend freedom of the press. In fact, Obama and the politicians are fighting freedom of the press because these documents just show what frauds they are in supporting these wars.
Freedom of the press in the msm IS DEAD in fascist police state amerika !
Indeed. And there's only one political party, not two.
If anyone deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, it's Julian Assange. He'll get it at about the same time that Elizabeth Warren is appointed the head of the newly formed consumer protection agency.
If obarry would OPEN his eyes and SEE that Elizabeth Warren's appointment would positively reverberate energy in the right direction. He really is hopeless.
That's exactly why he WON'T appoint her - he wants the complete opposite of the good that she would do.
Good for Julian Assange!
No one should need to feel threatened by the Pentagon.
they don't scare me - I played that game dodging their fucking draft.
they are a bunch of wankers.
US military officers swear an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The First Amendment of the US Constitution prohibits the US Government from actions "infringing on the freedom of speech" or "infringing on the freedom of the press". Thus, US military officers are sworn to defend the right of Wikileaks to speak freely and to publish freely.
EXTREMELY RELEVANT comment
but it took a grunt to do his duty.
well done Bradley Manning!
This has the excitement of a real life "Catch Me if You Can", only more important.
Do we know of anyone out there reading those documents and doing an intelligent summary of the most significant revelations? I know there is virtue in reading original sources, getting the texture and the details, but this is a lot to plow through.
Joe
Amy Goodman talks to Julian Assange himself about the leaks here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaatytN9EHk&feature=related
YouTube breaks it up into a 7 part interview.
Just started watching it, don't know if it is a good summary of contents yet, or just talking about the issues surrounding the leak, but Democracy Now! is usually pretty good at covering a topic.
People should make up their own minds about "Democracy Now!".
Here is a sampling of their coverage of 3rd parties during the last presidential election:
There was a "debate" where Nader and McKinney were supposed to debate McCain and Obama from afar with questions like:
"AMY GOODMAN: Ralph Nader, your response to Joe the plumber? "
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_third_party
allowing the two parties to set the (innane) agenda/topics for the debate, instead of staging an alternative debate, and not really allowing Nader or McKinney to give full responses.
In another interview Nader was asked questions like "AMY GOODMAN: What do you think needs to be in the Democratic platform? What isn’t there? What is there?"
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/28/ralph_nader_on_the_democrats_corporate
In another interview, every question was in terms of the two parties, for example:
"AMY GOODMAN: What do think of Chuck Hagel as a vice-presidential running mate—yes, the Republican senator—for Barack Obama, one of the names that’s being bandied about?"
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/18/ralph_nader_on_barack_obama_it
Same thing with McKinney:
"AMY GOODMAN: And what do you make of Senator Obama’s trip right now to Iraq and to Afghanistan, where he said the real war on terror was diverted?"
"AMY GOODMAN: Cynthia McKinney, I wanted to ask you about that New Yorker magazine cover, the one that showed Barack Obama in Muslim garb and that showed his wife, Michelle Obama, carrying a machine gun, with a flag burning in the fireplace. Your thoughts? "
"AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about a quote of Amiri Baraka, who was very critical of your run. He said the people who are supporting McKinney must know that this is an empty gesture, but too often such people are so pocked with self-congratulatory idealism that they care little or understand little about politics, i.e. the gaining momentum and use of power, but want only to pronounce to themselves mostly how progressive or radical or even revolutionary they are. Your response, Cynthia McKinney? "
"AMY GOODMAN: Are you concerned about helping McCain beat Obama? "
"AMY GOODMAN: And what kind of response have you gotten, Rosa Clemente, from the hip hop community, now that you’re nominated as a vice-presidential candidate? "
Hip Hop community?
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/7/21/first_all_women_of_color_presidential
(McKinney got way less coverage than Nader.)
After the election Nader was further humiliated by having to debate an ignorant African studies professor who looked down her Princetonian nose at Nader, http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/5/independent_presidential_candidate_ralph_nader_discusses
Ask yourself if Amy Goodman was treating either McKinney or Nader like they were real candidates?
(BTW here is what the princeton professor had to say about Obama: "I think one of the important things to remember, though, in this election is that it was important for some part of the left to get a win. My niece is eighteen years old. She has now voted in her first election, and she won. And something very powerful happens when citizens engage in their government, and they actually get a response. Part of what’s important about Barack Obama’s story is that he’s both an African American community activist with an ethic of service to the community, but he’s also the grandson of the greatest generation, of a World War II veteran and a Rosie the Riveter, because that generation believed that the government was in a social contract with its people, that you would sacrifice for your nation, but your nation would then provide for you the opportunity for education, for housing, for reasonable retirement and healthcare. And so, when Barack Obama brings together that ethic of community service from African American urban life and that grandson of the greatest generation, I think the potential here for progressive politics is not just about hope. I think there’s some very real potential here for progressive politics. ")
Indeed, Goodman did not treat them like real candidates.
If she did, she would have asked them some real questions, instead of asking them easy soft questions:
what do you propose to do, if you become president, and you find congress blocking everything you do?
Where do you disappear to, when there are no presidential elections?
What have you done to build up an alternative at grassroot level?
Why do you stand for the presidency, and congress first?
"Where do you disappear to, when there are no presidential elections?
What have you done to build up an alternative at grassroot level?
Why do you stand for the presidency, and congress first?"
Actually, those would be pretty easy to answer for both Nader and McKinney. In addition, you have phrased them in an insulting way which betrays your dislike of them.
And the other questions? What do you propose to do, if you are elected, and congress blocks everything you do?
And no, I don't dislike them. I dislike the fact that despite your claims, they would not be able to answer the other questions easily. Where was the alternative during the Mass senatorial election? All the talk of 3rd parties, where was it? Nowhere to be seen. The alternative is only seen once every 4 years, at presidential elections. After that, a magical disappearance.
They aren't serious candidates.
All of this is besides the point (Although I agree with you that bottom up is better than top down, and there need to be 3rd party candidates starting with the lowest level elected official first).
The question is whether Amy Goodman supports the peace candidates or the war candidates, and in the last election cycle she did a hit job on the only two who were even interested in promoting peace.
Even if you were to have the leisure to read 90,000 documents, there are tons of other documents out there that would probably shed significant light on them and the incidents they purport to cover. For example, documents kept by the ISI, the CIA, government officials, diplomats, the U.N., eyewitness accounts etc.
One of the problems is that these documents are not contexualized, not authenticated, and are possibly leaving out some of the worst abuses. All of it is from the perspective of the U.S. military, which is arguably not giving a complete and unbiased picture!
Still, there is obviously some value to them.
But the fact that virtually no one has the time or inclination to spend their lives reading all of them means that the MSM can take what they find useful from them, and that can be dangerous in and of itself.
"U.S. military, which is arguably not giving a complete and unbiased picture!"
In internal documents, not intended for public consumption, operational objective truth prevails. That's why redaction in released formerly classified documents occurs.
I find your final rationalization for spinning Wikileak's release of documents as being a loss for truth, particularly bizarre.
"But the fact that virtually no one has the time or inclination to spend their lives reading all of them means that the MSM can take what they find useful from them, and that can be dangerous in and of itself."
That's like saying, if a treasure trove of classified documents detailing government involvement in 9/11 was released through Wikileaks, you would point out the danger of releasing such, because the MSM might get a chance to spin it. Where exactly does that flawed logic lead?
Field soldiers don't know Pashto or any of the other languages spoken in Afghanistan. They bring with them their U.S.-colored cultural glasses in the way they view the culture and behavior of Afghanistanis. In addition, they are brainwashed with myriad other things that the army finds useful to keep them fighting. Their "insurgents" could be kids with an Afghan farm tool. We have no idea. They are unlikely report they raped and killed the women and children. They are unlikely to openly admit they made "operational" mistakes if they can be covered up. Maybe if they didn't have a reason to kill, they'd make one up. Who knows?
In addition these were digital reports without a digital signature. There is no way of telling whether they came from the field soldiers in question, or whether they were devised or altered elsewhere and at another time. In a modern army, there is no excuse for this kind of digital sloppiness, and I wonder if this is their operating procedure.
I didn't say it was a loss for truth, but just that it was not any sort of "objective truth."
As for the treasure trove theory....it wasn't a treasure trove. I am still waiting for the documents that would implicate Bush, Cheney, Obama, their generals, Halliburton, Blackwater et al. and the DoD. What you have is endless low level detail about the rank and file soldiers in the field. Doesn't make for interesting reading like the Pentagon papers.
The problem with leaking it to the media first (as opposed to releasing it directly to the public first) is that they somehow get to control how the story evolves, relying on people's inability to follow up. It's not an argument not to release it, but releasing it through the media (esp. the pro-war media like NYT and Der Spiegel) seems to heighten this problem.
Black-Bush should give his Nobel Peace Prize to Julian Assange.
Where is "HARDBALL' on this issue? Matthews promoted the Iraq war by constantly interviewing Pentagon propagandists, then thanking them ' for your service'.Hey Chris, why do you NEVER interview the truth tellers. You promo this fascist empire as much as the neocon Zionists. Maybe that is why you are still on the air and Phil Donohue is not.
Yes, Mr. Gibbs the Pentagon needs to be eliminated and called what it is: THE ILLEGAL WAR, MURDER AND TORTURE DEPARTMENT. If that disclosure is done by Wikileaks, it is about time. I hope Wikileaks finally exposes their multi-billion $ racket for what it is; a racket that needs to quit hiding behind national security, patriotism, boogy men, lying, deceit, nihilism and all the rest of its extraordinary evil deeds! " War is a racket. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket ". General Smedley Butler USMC.
“Behind the ostensible government sits enthroned an invisible government owing no allegiance and acknowledging no responsibility to the people. To destroy this invisible government, to befoul the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of today.” President Theodore Roosevelt - 1906
They (the ruling elite) decide who will run for president and who will win. The last one that bucked them was JFK, who moved to wind down Vietnam war. They killed him, & LBJ's first move was to cancel JFK's 'wind down' orders, and to send even more troops in. Military is a huge scam.
"Why of course the people don't want war... That is understood. But, after all, it is...always a simple matter to drag the people along... All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
—Hermann Goering (in testimony at the Nuremberg Trials where he was convicted of war crimes & crimes against humanity)
I've read that the CIA was started at the end of WWII with nazi intelligence, who just picked up over here where they left off in Germany - "Project paperclip"
The truth will set us free.
Too bad for the oligarchy - these days are marking the end of the world as they've come to know it!
I used to have some doubts about Julian Assange, but he looks better and better to me the more he stands up to Empire.
Yes Wikileaks, keep on kicking Amerikkka's butt!
"It should be approximately two weeks before that process [WikiLeaks II] is complete," Assange told AP. "There will then be a journalistic review, so you're talking two weeks to a month."
Julian Assange
August 14, 2010
-------------
"We write to alert you to the likelihood that Israel will attack Iran as early as this month. This would likely lead to a wider war."
Obama Warned Israel May Bomb Iran
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
August 3, 2010
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2010/080310c.html
-------------
Hmm ... 1) False-flag* event, 2) Israel hits Iran, 3) WikiLeaks II is diffused/smothered ...?
* “In 1953, the U.S. and British-orchestrated Operation Ajax used "false-flag" and propaganda operations against the formerly democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d'etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag)
While the US media is busily occupied with a full speed ahead promo for still another war, this one against Iran, old fashioned reporters digging for the news are left to the likes of Julian Assange. Meanwhile the US wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc., continue, rarely, barely, and timidly, reported on by our media
Thank goodness that some people have the will to fight the evil that the USA has become..
"... The release angered U.S. officials, energized critics of the NATO-led campaign, and drew the attention of the Taliban, which has promised to use the material to track down people it considers traitors."
**************************
What a strange thing for the Taliban to say!
What's in it for the Taliban? How does it benefit them to finger Wikileaks? If WL is useful to them as they say, would they flaunt its usefulness? It doesn't seem likely. ["They hate us for our freedoms." GWB] If it is not, why not take a page from AQ. Set the USerpent to feeding on itself (as it has so accommodatingly in the past, after 9/11 and every time OBL released his latest promo-video). Effect?
Keep US-NATO in Afghanistan, which Taliban needs...or it becomes the enemy.
Maybe I'm stretching, but it makes more sense than taking the statement at face value.
Mike F -
I had the same initial reaction. Why would the Wikileaks posting "draw the attention of the Taliban, which has promised to use the material to track down people it considers traitors"? Note there is no source attributed to this snippet about the unidentified Taliban officials who supposedly are vowing to use the leaked documents to track down Afghan locals that the Taliban considers to be treasonous collaborators.
As in Vietnam, the Taliban in Afghanistan have an enormous human intelligence advantage due to their links to the indigenous population. Do you really think the Taliban needs to spend time and energy deciphering redacted US military after action reports to figure out who is or once was working with the Americans, NATO and the Karzai government? Why would the Taliban give much credence to such questionable material, given their own resources on the ground among the locals?
In the aftermath of the Wikileaks posting, we know it is true there was an angry reaction from some US intelligence, military, and political officials (including Barack Obama) because they commented publicly in the mainstream media about how the whistleblowing supposedly undermined US national security interests. We also know it is true that many antiwar political groups, journalists, and bloggers cited the leaked material as further proof that continuing the war in Afghanistan was futile, immoral, illegal, and wrong. Some of that energized criticism appeared right here on Common Dreams.
But who, speaking on behalf of some Taliban faction, from what location disclosed or undisclosed, supposedly promised to use the leaked documents to take revenge? Indeed, what would be in it for the Taliban to crap up the propaganda windfall that Wikileaks had handed to them upon a silver platter?
I don't take it at face value either. More likely, its psy ops spin.
Bill from Saginaw
Julian is the real world version of Mr. Universe from the film Serenity. I say keep up the good work, Julian!
This article provides nothing new about wikileaks. Part of their strategy is to stay in the news as often as possible however.
Here are some previous items for discussion I've collected about Wikileaks:
*There is a controversy over wikileaks's funding.
**First, who is funding them?
(Interestingly, we know for sure the infamous Adrian Lamo who turned in Manning is helping to fund them: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/02/wikileaks-force/ )
**Second, how are these funds being used?
http://cryptome.org/0001/wikileaks-mess.htm
(the above link has additional links, some of which explain why these questions are important)
**Here is how Daniel Schmidt dismissed the notion they were being funded by the CIA.
"Schmitt says that Wikileaks has fed the speculation that it is CIA-funded. "There's nothing better than half of the world thinking we are CIA," says Schmitt. "As long as the right half believe this. It might encourage some people to submit material.""
http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2009/10/start/exposed-wikileaks%27-secrets?page=all
(Any ideas why a whistleblower would be heartened by believing they were leaking to a CIA front organization?)
*There is also the curious way that the DoD has responded to wikileaks
http://cryptome.org/0002/dod080510.htm
and, the way the MSM (to whom the latest leaks were first leaked to) has run with it. The leaks so far haven't exactly spurred on peace.
*So many strange things that there is an argument that making wikileaks and Assange seem like popular heros serves other interests,
"For our many War Machinists across the political spectrum, getting this mythological message out via "critical" stories in "liberal" publications will be much more effective than dishing up another serving of patriotic hokum on Fox news or at a presidential press conference."
http://bit.ly/avfGPM
I would like to supply some background on this controversy of cryptome.org vs wikileaks.org. For those of you who are interested there is a video interview with the cryptome guy who was a founding member of wikileaks and is now very critical of them. In this video at 2:13 this guy states that wikileaks has joined up with the Dept. of Defense and at 2:31 he states and this is a quote:"wikileaks basically sells stolen information." To me this cryptome guy is a senile, jealous competitor with a personal grudge.
WikiLeaks now a 'bombshell factory', too much into PR'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvBstohTYA8
Competitor? How so?
Also, where does the grudge come from?
I am curious.
Did you look at the video? - - you sure replied fast. Are you looking for a fight or something? According to the Cryptome guy both sites are involved in "diminshing the amount of secrecy around the world". I don't know what the guys problem is but it appears to me that he is upset that Wikileaks is getting more publicity and fame than him and they had some kind of a falling out - - what we used to call "an ego trip". Perhaps you have something to add to the discussion.
Well, I've heard him talk about wikileaks many times before, and he didn't seem senile (Advice for young bucks: not every geezer is senile). And, his rationalizations seemed plausible. You still haven't told me what the grudge might be about. On the other hand, you could be right; I wish someone would point to something other than innuendo though.
Just because they are running sites doing similar things doesn't mean they are competitors. Originally there was cryptome, and then wikileaks came along (after the word wiki was popularized) and wanted to crowd-source the analysis in the manner of wikipedia. Our friend in the U.S. Ministry of Truth, Cass Sunstein talks approvingly about wikileaks in his article "Brave New Wikiworld" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301596.html
Some people intentionally steer conversations away from that which matters and to the trivial, some do that just because that's how they are, and some do it because they are hoping to move people away from the stuff that worries their bosses, to minimize the damage.
Extra extra read all about it!
USA WAR CRIMES ON FILM at:
http://collateralmurder.com/
Same with eyewitness testimony here:
Iraq massacre eye-witness story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kelmEZe8whI
How dare the corporate news media cooperate with the pentagon in their filthy coverup! How dare they skip this and tell us all about fires in Russia, a new tax in Korea, and Obama's swim in (all better now) Gulf instead.
Yes WAR CRIMES BY US ARMED FORCES: they're nothing new, but getting them on film is and they need to be prosecuted. No Nation is Above the Law. Not even the biggest bully of them all - the USA. Did Bush,Cheney & Rumsfeld approve of them? We know they like torture. Should they be put on trial for war crimes along with Gates and the top Generals?
No Justice = No Peace
Apparently, cryptome is an old guy - who wouldn't join the consensus. A piece that didn't fit. He wants attention and gets it by trying to make trouble. IMO - he's best ignored!
What consensus?
fit where? What are you talking about?
What makes you think he wants attention? How is he trying to make trouble?
You ask a lot of questions? Do you have anything whatsoever to add to this discussion? Or let's put it this way: you apparently have nothing to add to this discussion. Why are you asking so many questions? What are you trying to express? What are your real views on this subject? What are you doing? Who are you? What is your motivation? Can't you figure out simple things? Why do you question things that are obvious? Why do you not take a look at the source material? Why do you respond without thinking? Do you think it is clever to ask endless questions? Do you believe that you are adding to this forum? What is the purpose of your simple minded questions? Is there a pattern in your attitude that we see here? Are you a retarded lawyer? Are you a Harvard graduate? Are you an intellectual? Are you just trying to clarify the situation? How are you trying to clarify the situation? Why do you want to defend the cryptome guy? Do you resent Assange? Are you the envious type? Are you senile? What are you doing? Are you offended by my response? Can't you make a simple declarative statement? How do you feel about having your motivations called into question? How do you feel about questioning of your questions?
Have I hit a nerve?
With all due respect, those questions are trivial to me. I don't have the time for that. Some people intentionally or unintentionally steer conversations away from the important and to the trivial. Maybe you work for the gov't or wish you did - sorry, i don't care.
I'm totally delighted with the fact that some very good people via Wikileaks are taking a stand for the countless defenseless women, children, and men - who the US Military apparently thinks are so insignificant that they can be put to death whimsically, regularly and with impunity.
Justice leads to peace.
Go Wikileaks!
Let me ask you this: who are YOU and ekzile working for?
This is not about personalities. I'm like millions of others who are sick and tired of senseless wars that are justified with lies and greed. You on the other hand seem to be looking for drama, and maybe hoping to downgrade the topic to trivial bs.
Everyday women and children are brutally killed by US forces. Those are war crimes.
War crimes are illegal.
They need to be brought to the attention of the people, they need to be investigated, & prosecuted. Over and over again til there are no more. The USA must learn to respect the rule of law. That is the bottom line.
Thank you!
http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html