| WikiLeaked cable leads to homecoming for U.S. troops
 Troops are coming home from Iraq despite the best efforts of the Obama administration to keep them there. "We're relieved to know all the troops will be home at the end of the year. This would not have been possible without the courageous actions of Wikileaks and the alleged participation of Bradley Manning" says Executive Director of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Jose Vasquez.
Until their abrupt reversal a few weeks ago, the Obama administration had been working hard to maintain between 8000 and 20,000 troops in Iraq after the current Status of Forces agreement was set to expire at the end of this year. Fortunately, the Iraqi government refused to renew the judicial immunity, under which the U.S. Armed Forces had been operating.
Read more...
Establishment news outlets have largely ignored the reason for this sudden change of plans. A few weeks before the negotiations between Washington and Baghdad reached an impasse, WikiLeaks released a cable providing clear evidence that U.S. forces had been engaged in a cover up of the heinous execution of civilian non-combatants following a raid of a suspected insurgent stronghold.
“A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a 5-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.” (link) There were disagreements between reports from the Iraq government, the American government, and those of a U.N. special raporteur, whose unclassified report and questions to the U.S. embassy in Baghdad were published through WikiLeaks. The embassy cable supported stories told by villagers who witnessed the attack,
“Throughout the early investigation, U.S. military spokesmen said that an al Qaida suspect in Iraq had been seized from a first-floor room after a fierce fight that had left the house he was hiding in a pile of rubble.
But the diplomatic cable provides a different sequence of events and lends credence to townspeople’s claims that American forces destroyed the house after its residents had been shot.” (link) All of the executed, the article reports, had been handcuffed and shot in the head prior to the building coming down. The cable contradicted the U.S. government’s position, and exposed the military’s and the administration’s unwillingness to investigate documented war crimes. This information created a political crisis in Iraqi politics that made it unacceptable for the Iraqi regime to continue allowing U.S. forces to operate outside of any accountability to human rights law. The Iraqi government was forced to draw a line in the sand that the Department of Defense would not cross. That is why the war is coming to a close. Our government’s well-crafted, amply-financed public relations spin campaign was ultimately no match for the stark reality of what is actually happening on the ground to the people of Iraq.
This decision can be celebrated by Iraqis and Americans alike. Since 2006, Pew research polls have shown a majority of American citizens oppose the war, which has been extremely costly both in terms of domestic dollars spent and plummeting opinions of U.S. policy abroad. Criticisms of the war have not come only from civilians. A Zogby poll in March 2006 found that 72% of US soldiers in Iraq said the war should be ended within a year. A military-commissioned study in 2009 found that a majority of troops deployed to Iraq reported low morale, and other studies have shown up to a third of returning U.S. Iraq War veterans to suffer from depression and/or PTSD.
Our government has a duty to act openly. Insisting on legal immunity for all troops does nothing to sustain respect for ethical soldiers, but instead helps shield irresponsible leaders. Truth and transparency are essential to public debate and decision making. In an analysis of the cable’s impact on the negotiations over whether to extend the U.S. military presence in Iraq, Salon reporter Glenn Greenwald writes, “whoever leaked those cables is responsible for one of the most consequential, beneficial and noble acts of this generation.”
We cannot claim to have a democratic system of government so long as 99% of the public is kept in the dark. We have to know what people in power are doing in order for us to have any chance of holding them accountable. Stand up for those who have had the courage to inform the public of information that they have a right to know. Join the struggle to free WikiLeaks whistle-blower Bradley Manning – not only to secure his freedom, but for the freedom of us all. |
Bradley Manning supporters face judge Four supporters of accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower PFC Bradley Manning appeared today before a judge in Manassas, Virginia, to face charges stemming from their arrests in March outside of a Marine military brig in Quantico, Virginia. These supporters were arrested along with many others who are outraged at the abusive confinement conditions to which PFC Manning was subjected during the eight months he was held at the Quantico Pre-Trial Confinement Facility. They were detained after military officials reneged on their offer to allow flowers to be placed at an Iwo Jima Memorial located at the entrance to the base.
Among those arrested attempting to lay flowers were veterans and family members of veterans, including Daniel Ellsberg, the “Pentagon Papers” whistle-blower. Instead of accepting their charges and paying fines, these four supporters pleaded not-guilty and chose to assert their First Amendment rights inside the courtroom.
Read more...
Speaking before her scheduled appearance today, retired U.S. Army Colonel Ann Wright explained why she felt obliged to speak out:
“I felt the pre-trial conditions of solitary confinement and nudity that PFC Bradley Manning was subjected to in the Quantico brig for many months were outrageous and that public action by veterans and citizens to show their concern for the rights of this soldier was necessary.” Following sustained public pressure, Bradley Manning was moved to a military prison in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He is no longer being held in solitary confinement. Military officials have denied speculation that the recent announcement of the impending closure of the confinement facility at Quantico was a result of widespread condemnation of the mistreatment.
Circuit Court Judge Mary Grace O’Brien dismissed the charge against Col. Wright of “remaining at place of riot or unlawful assembly after warning to disperse,” finding insufficient evidence. Various minor traffic-related charges were upheld against the other three defendants. The defendants testified that they were compelled to directly petition the Quantico military detention center, because PFC Manning was being subjected to severe mistreatment in violation of his constitutional rights and international standards of human rights.
The Commonwealth Attorney, arguing on behalf of the state, claimed that the defendants should be found guilty because they were engaging in civil disobedience. Drawing parallels to the civil rights movement, the Commonwealth Attorney argued that the defendants should accept their punishments instead of challenging them. Speaking in his own defense, Mr Obuszewski, a long-time peace and justice activist from Baltimore, Maryland, clarified that the demonstrators at Quantico were engaging in “civil resistance” and not “civil disobedience.” He noted that civil disobedience typically refers to deliberately breaking a law that one considers to be unjust, and that they found nothing inherently unjust about the normal application of traffic laws. Civil resistance, on the other hand, entails the use of direct action to challenge unjust abuses of power. Demonstrators had engaged in civil resistance by shutting down the entrance to the Marine base for several hours.
In announcing her findings, Justice O’Brien concurred that the case “does bring in larger questions” about the motivations of the demonstrators. Although she agreed that these larger issues are relevant, she felt that they “would not be appropriate for me to consider.”
The guilty parties were each ordered to pay fifteen dollars in fines and court costs.
|
|
|
|
