Journalists killed in Iraq + Wikileaks

[Top_Cat]

Leaked war video is real, says unnamed official | News.com.au

A little surprised this hasn't got more press or comment. Greenwald from Salon comments on how common this sort of thing is, not just with Iraqis but journo's in general;

Iraq slaughter not an aberration - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Pretty horrifying nonetheless.

What's really interesting, though, is that Wikileaks, who first leaked the vid, are (unsurprisingly) considered to be a security risk by US Army Intel;

http://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf

More details here in Greenwald's column and NYT;

The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com
Army Sees Document Web Site as a Potential Threat - NYTimes.com

So, I put it to you CW.net, is Wikileaks' speech protected or illegal? Should they be shut down and/or blocked as a few governments have tried to do? As far as I'm aware, there's no plans to kill them off in the US but is that a function of free speech or have they just not leaked anything really damaging yet?

[andyc]

It's exactly the sort of website that's needed. One can see it being right near the top of Conroy's blacklist for websites, too.

Find it a bit odd that governments are so concerned with shutting it down, when perhaps they should be concerned with a) not violating human rights, etc. in the first place, and b) ensuring the information isn't leaked to begin with.

[pasag]

Originally Posted by andyc

One can see it being right near the top of Conroy's blacklist for websites, too.

Pretty sure it is. WAC.

[Uppercut]

LOL that the government's reaction to a leaked video showing the slaughter of unarmed civilians is to criticise the site hosting it.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by andyc

It's exactly the sort of website that's needed. One can see it being right near the top of Conroy's blacklist for websites, too.

Find it a bit odd that governments are so concerned with shutting it down, when perhaps they should be concerned with a) not violating human rights, etc. in the first place, and b) ensuring the information isn't leaked to begin with.

Yes, well, those 'roo attacks must be kept under wraps, lest it hurt tourism.

[silentstriker]

If you're going to go to war, these things are going to happen, unfortunately. Not a whole lot you can do about it (aside from not going for unnecessary wars obv.).

[Shri]

Can't wait for the nwo theories to pop up now. Yipppeeeee!

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

If you're going to go to war, these things are going to happen, unfortunately. Not a whole lot you can do about it (aside from not going for unnecessary wars obv.).

Yeah and there are some interesting parallels with the Balibo 5. The arguments the US are using to defend themselves are almost identical to those the Indo army did.

[James90]

Originally Posted by silentstriker

If you're going to go to war, these things are going to happen, unfortunately. Not a whole lot you can do about it (aside from not going for unnecessary wars obv.).

Could not attempt to destroy a van that turns up to help the wounded.

[Uppercut]

Originally Posted by James90

Could not attempt to destroy a van that turns up to help the wounded.

Haha indeed. What's happening to those involved? Any news on that?

[Athlai]

Dunno supposedly near a battle that was taking place and suspicion of RPGs (long lens cameras!) any 'enemy' activity is probably going to be harshly dealt with. Terrible though, absolutely dreadful.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by James90

Could not attempt to destroy a van that turns up to help the wounded.

If they got a report of possible RPGs, and they waited too long to hit them, and some US soldiers died, you'd have a ****storm too. If you're in the position where you have to make that call, you're have to do it based on the best information you have. It's the fog of war, you're not going to have perfect information. Your statement implies they knew it was a van that was turning up to help the wounded and they fired anyway.

[James90]

My absolute hatred of war or any killing for that matter will almost certainly lead me to see things from a different perspective to the soldiers in that position. As much as it hurts me to say so, it may not have been completely unreasonable for those particular people to act in the way they did. I just really struggle to see it.

Just listening to their commentary..."looks like about 15 bodies"...just can't find anyway to justify it. Them getting shot down is a better result than that for mine.

[silentstriker]

Originally Posted by James90

Them getting shot down is a better result than that for mine.

Not if you're the guy in the helicopter/airplane. Or the guys on the ground you're providing cover fire against. I am thinking what I would tell the guy holding the button if I was down there, and someone told me there might be a van full of people with RPGs coming towards me. Would I say, hold off a minute, let me go run out, double verify to make sure it's a bullet headed for my face and not something else? Some people might, but most wouldn't, and I certainly wouldn't. At that point, you're just going to be like 'waste those mother****ers' and keep them the hell away from me. That's just human nature, and part of war.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by James90

My absolute hatred of war or any killing for that matter will almost certainly lead me to see things from a different perspective to the soldiers in that position. As much as it hurts me to say so, it may not have been completely unreasonable for those particular people to act in the way they did. I just really struggle to see it.

You might were you in the helicopter.

Not defending it, per se. Just saying, as SS said, when you have no time to wait for the full and correct answer and have to act on what you have because the consequences for a delay might be far worse for you and everyone around you, it changes your behaviour somewhat.