@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:hightor wrote:My point would be that the smart, quasi-ethical thing to do would have been to only release the data that directly exposed a particular crime instead of just handing over access to hundreds of thousands of pages exposing diplomatic back chatter and domestic security concerns.
It would be the smart thing to do. It wouldn't be remotely ethical though because they would have hushed it up.
Nonsense. Exposing the identities of secret democracy activists so that they could be murdered (or otherwise silenced) by their dictatorships did not do anything to prevent anything from being hushed up.
izzythepush wrote:This is what a quick google search brings up. They are war crimes,
Mostly war crimes committed by the Iraqi government. You had referred to wrongdoing by the US.
We are not responsible for the acts of the Iraqi government, especially when we were pressuring them to not take the actions in question and they did it against our will.
And even with the war crimes committed by the Iraqi government, these traitors did not expose anything. Anyone who followed the news at the time already knew that the Iraqi government was kidnapping people and their tortured corpses were being dumped by the river. Releasing US documentation of these Iraqi crimes didn't tell anyone anything new.
Quote:According to the Iraq Body Count project, a sample of the deaths found in about 800 logs, extrapolated to the full set of records, shows an estimated 15,000 civilian deaths that had not been previously admitted by the US government. 66,000 civilians were reported dead in the logs, out of 109,000 deaths in total. The IBC has so far added a total of 3,334 of these previously unrecorded civilian deaths to its database from their ongoing analysis of the war logs. A list of these incidents, added as of 2 January 2013, has been published on the IBC website.
The Guardian stated that the logs show "US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers"; the coalition, according to The Guardian, has "a formal policy of ignoring such allegations", unless the allegations involve coalition forces.
As I noted above, the US is not responsible for crimes committed by Iraqis. We were pressuring the Shia majority to make peace with the Sunnis. It's not our fault they chose to massacre them instead.
Quote:Sometimes US troops classified civilian deaths as enemy casualties. For example, the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike by US helicopter gunships which killed two Reuters journalists along with several men thought to be armed suspected to be insurgents. They, including the journalists, were all listed as "enemy killed in action".
Not a war crime to list figures wrong on an internal list that no one was ever meant to see in the first place.
Quote:Wired Magazine said that even after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse incident came to light in 2004, abuse of prisoners or detainees by Iraqi security forces continued; in one recorded case, US troops confiscated a "hand cranked generator with wire clamps" from a Baghdad police station, after a detainee claimed to have been brutalized there.
As I noted above, the US is not responsible for crimes committed by Iraqis. We were pressuring the Shia majority to make peace with the Sunnis. It's not our fault they chose to massacre them instead.
Quote:One report analyzed by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism seems to show that "the US military cleared an Apache helicopter gunship to open fire on Iraqi insurgents who were trying to surrender".
This is the only one that even might be an American war crime. But it looks more like a situation that had never been encountered in international law before. As such, the blanket assertion that it was definitely a war crime seems overblown.
It sounds like something that lawyers need to sit down and draft new rules for. What exactly are we supposed to do when someone offers to surrender to an aircraft that is not able to capture them?