It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
The cache of classified U.S. military reports on the Iraq War as yet unreleased by WikiLeaks may be more than three times as large as the set of roughly 76,000 similar reports on the war in Afghanistan made public
According to one of the sources, the Iraq material portrays U.S. forces being involved in a "bloodbath," but some of the most disturbing material relates to the abusive treatment of detainees not by Americans but by Iraqi security forces
WikiLeaks is said to have an additional 15
Article 51: Protection of the Civilian Population
1. The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations. To give effect to this protection, the following rules, which are additional to other applicable rules of international law, shall be observed in all circumstances.
2. The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
3. Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this Section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:
1. those which are not directed at a specific military objective;
2. those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or
3. those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:
1. an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
2. an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
6. Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited.
7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations.
8. Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians, including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in Article 57.
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Oh goody, more material for the Obama administration to use for political gain.
Hurry up will ya wikileaks, the elections will be soon.
Originally posted by hippomchippo
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Oh goody, more material for the Obama administration to use for political gain.
Hurry up will ya wikileaks, the elections will be soon.
How does this in any way help Obama?
The reports go all the way to december of 09.
Barack Obama today said the disclosures about the mishandling of the Afghanistan war contained in leaked US military documents justified his decision to embark on a new strategy.
But he went on to say that the material, which catalogues a series of blunders, revealed the challenges that led him to announce late last year a change in strategy that involved sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
www.guardian.co.uk...
In a statement, the White House said the chaotic picture painted by the logs was the result of "under-resourcing" under Obama's predecessor, saying: "It is important to note that the time period reflected in the documents is January 2004 to December 2009."
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Originally posted by hippomchippo
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
Oh goody, more material for the Obama administration to use for political gain.
Hurry up will ya wikileaks, the elections will be soon.
How does this in any way help Obama?
The reports go all the way to december of 09.
Oh I don't know, maybe something like this...
Barack Obama today said the disclosures about the mishandling of the Afghanistan war contained in leaked US military documents justified his decision to embark on a new strategy.
But he went on to say that the material, which catalogues a series of blunders, revealed the challenges that led him to announce late last year a change in strategy that involved sending an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan.
www.guardian.co.uk...
And maybe this...
In a statement, the White House said the chaotic picture painted by the logs was the result of "under-resourcing" under Obama's predecessor, saying: "It is important to note that the time period reflected in the documents is January 2004 to December 2009."
Just maybe, eh?
Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
reply to post by hippomchippo
The current regime has found it beneficial to constantly blame everything on the former, it helped them win support in winning the election, and it may help them now. Obama was opposed to war and warned that when he was president he would see that any and all war crimes would be prosecuted, but apparently it is better to build a convenient case in the news media via controlled leaks to wikileaks.
It is simply a controlled leak to wikileaks intended as a political ploy for the Obama administration, and for an overall antiwar agenda.
Recent high profile leaks are clearly intended to be anti-USA anti-war, and portray the former administration as war criminals.
I would bet you that the ultimate sources are within the current Obama administration. Impossible to prove, but I believe it to be true.
wikileaks and Assange could either be co-operating with an agenda, or a part of it. Hard to say for sure either way.
I know what wikileaks isn't and that could be dangerous to anyone who attempts to leak sensitive materials to them.
In my opinion, of course.
[edit on 27-7-2010 by Fractured.Facade]