The two are not linked. I’m just going to deal with them in one post, rather than two.
They are linked by this quote, in a small way:
“Idealism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem – John Galsworthy”.
To start with, I don’t have a horse in either of these races; they just struck me as interesting examples of their kind. They are, of course, controversial at the moment.
Wikileaks -
I first came across this site in 2008, on the recommendation of a colleague, and couldn’t believe what I saw. It seemed entirely incongruous to me that a site was able to post scanned copies of documents (official and secret) on the web without some kind of judicial retribution being visited upon them. But they have continued to operate, occasionally losing their web-presence to domain controllers or to a lack of funds, but only very briefly.
They have recently come to prominence (and highlighted on these pages) with their distribution of the video of an American apache helicopter dealing with suspected insurgents. More recently they have been allegedly in receipt of 200,000 documents from a US military insider (although they appear to deny this, or claim they don’t think they have.. it’s not clear) which is said to provide a great deal of potentially awkward information about American diplomacy with Middle Eastern states.
Wikileaks has framed itself as a public regulator of governments and public bodies (they seem to have a particular thing about scientologists incidentally). And their activities can be captured by Richard Aldrich’s phrase ‘regulation by revelation’. But to what extent does wikileaks perform a public good, or a threat to the security of the governments it exposes?
Well, the cop-out answer is that it depends on the issue. The targeted challenge to their activities is whether internal Parliamentary and equivalent oversight of government activities have failed(?), and whether the regular media has also failed in this oversight role – I think particularly to the NY Times and its reports on rendition etc, and Dana Priest’s reports about the so-called ‘ghost flights’. For wikileaks to be given widespread support, don’t both of these questions have to be answered negatively?
The wikileaks people have managed to persuade the Icelandic parliament to pass a law making Iceland a haven for journalistic freedom .. Iceland is having a somewhat difficult two years with the rest of the governments of the west; are we actually in some kind of conflict with Iceland that we don’t know about?
The founder of wikileaks, Julian Assange, is said to be in fear of arrest by US authorities particularly as the website is said to be about to release video footage of the death of a good number of Afghan citizens. What seems to be missing from the public reporting of this issue is detail about wikileaks, and what their political agenda is. In the David vs Goliath struggle that wikileaks portrays itself in being in.. it would be nice to know whether we’re wise to give David a fair go. What’s more is that there appears to be a greater sensitivity within the mainstream press about protecting some state secrets that come into their hands; it would be interesting to see some analysis done on whether wikileaks has exercised responsibility (formalised, systematic responsibility) on this issue.
For me, I liked the site when I first came across it. Now it makes me uneasy, and I’m not sure I could say with confidence that its leaks are in the public interest.
Bloody Sunday
The outcome of the Bloody Sunday inquiry was clearly shocking for the British establishment, and David Cameron’s immediate and unqualified apology was a moment of statesmanship.
What lessons can be taken from the Saville Inquiry and for future judicial inquiries about war zones?
* That if the Widgery Report had been more open, and critical, then the recruiting Sgt effect might not have been so pronounced – so, can we say that a more front-foot approach to public relations would have been more effective?
* That inquiries nearly 40years after the events, whilst morally and legally defensible, are highly problematic when it comes to issues of memory and memorialising?
* What time limitations – if any – should be placed on judicial actions? And can the context of the time be taken into account, or can the attitudes of the present day be mitigated? Is trying someone in today’s context fair – they couldn’t have known this context at the time.
* Was Saville only possible in the context of the Good Friday Agreement? Could it have been done at the height of ‘the troubles’? And whatever the answer to that question, we should begin to cross-reference South Africa’s truth and reconciliation commission, with the current renewed spasm in Israel-Palestine, and with our own theatres in Iraq-Afghanistan. If peace has to break out before truth and reconciliation, then securing the peace has to occur with very little reconciliation at all. And I would refer people back to the opening quote of this piece: ‘Idealism increases in direct proportion to one’s distance from the problem’. We can all happily criticise from the comfort of our offices, or our homes, but the human condition is shaped by the immediacy and reality of the moment. How we blend idealism with the harshness of reality is something we have struggled with, as a species, for all of our various civilisations. These equations are often power equations, and they move with time. The harsh reality is that is reasonableness is a movable feast; pity those engaged in operational theatres (both for us and against us, but mostly for us) today.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 20 comments… read them below or add one }
Wikileaks: they aren’t just doing leaks; they edited the Apache footage (for instance) and entitled the piece “Collateral Murder”. That’s not a leak, that’s an agenda.
Peace vs truth & reconciliation: without wanting to seem pedantic, there are two meanings of “peace” I see being conflated here: the absence of shooting, and long-term stability. While it might be said that the absence of shooting is needed for a T&R activity to happen, it could equally be said that T&R activity, formal or otherwise, is needed in order to achieve long-term stability.
Excellent blog.
Fancy the content I have seen so far and I am your regular reader of your blog.
I have added http://kingsofwar.org.uk/ in my blog http://news-updations.blogspot.com/.
I am pleased to see my blog in your Blogroll.
Hope to see a positive reply.
Thanks for visiting my blog as well !
Waiting for your reply friend !!!!!
Wikileaks does walk the line between acceptable and unacceptable leaks and anyone in that position is likely to stray across at some point however they have performed a useful function and, on the whole, should be tolerated. Their release of edited footage of the Baghdad helicopter shhoting has been criticised as editorialising though it should be noted that they have also relkeased the raw footage as well.
In free societies we trust our military to hold themselves to high standards and expect the state to have in place measures to ensure this is so, when these standards are not met and, rather than being open and honest about any failings, extremely serious matters are swept under the carpet it is to society’s benefit that there are those willing to bring evidence of possible wrongdoing to public light.
Had there been such a leak of evidence about Bloody Sunday it is doubtful whether successive governments would have been able to sustain their adherence to the findings of the Widgery report for so long.
It is unlikely, IMHO, that a Saville type process could ever have taken place whilst a shooting war was still going on though it would have been possible to bring in an outside police force to conduct an investigation as happened in Operation Countryman in the 1970s.
In considering the length of time that has passed since Bloody Sunday we should remember that the enquiry started twelve years ago some twenty six years after the events took place. Whilst unusual it is not unheard of for judicial proceeding to consider matters that old and to hear evidence from eyewitnesses, it is up to the court to decide in each individual case whether that evidence is reliable or not. Whether such proceedings should take place should be determined principally by the severity of the alleged offence, few jurisdictions apply any limitation on homicides or other heinous crimes and none may apply to to war crimes or crimes against humanity.
The Saville enquiry demonstrates that there are events distant in time that still require some form of redress and that the harm those events cause only accumulates over time. How many deaths can be attributed to the failure to properly investigate the shootings and to make public those findings?
Today there is an ever expanding number of sources of evidence as the cases of the killings of Neda Agha-Soltan in Tehran and the Baghdad shooting of the Reuters journalists and their companions show. In the future it will be increasingly unlikely that such incidents will go unrecorded. As a consequence of increasing scrutiny governments and their military forces will have to be seen to act appropriately and openly or face levels of public discontent that may make continuing such operations impossible.
Just wanted to say that I think this is a really good reply. I will consider a further reply!
The real problem with Wikileaks is that we were sold a wrong bill of goods- and are beginning to feel somewhat upset at this fact. Like yourself and everyone else, I was given the image of Wikileaks as a David of freedom of information against the Goliath of secrecy and draconian information regulation. But this image is nonsense.
As I said last time this came up, Wikileaks is an agenda based news service- they deal only in information THEY want to distribute. They never seem to “leak” any that could be critical of some political based group they support, but prefer to only leak information which fulfils their agenda. In this way they appear no different to any biased political newsgathering organisation.
They editorialise either via the ‘quick’ method (the biased and sometimes factually inaccurate introductions to the documents they present) or via the slower more blatant method (carefully editing out extracts of video to prevent anything but THEIR version of it from being seen). The fact that sometimes they will reveal unadulterated source material and other times they will refuse to reveal it, only giving their doctored version (until pressurised to do so), damages any pretence of standing up for freedom of information surely?
They will continue to wave flags for freedom, and allow people in ‘bad’ regimes to leak information to them (I use the childish term ‘bad’ because frankly from what we can tell, this is an accurate description of their political understanding of the world)- this will mean they will happily allow stuff from Iran or Indonesia be leaked out, getting praise from some well meaning journo somewhere, and use THIS praise to hide the fact that according to this bunch America is a “bad” country.
I also worry about their political agenda.
I’m with Ed on the wikileaks issue – their partisanship was clear from their editing and their presentation of the issue.
Also, I’m not sure why you described them as “suspected insurgents” – it is question begging in that it is presuming exactly that which the US denies and which seems clear from the video.
I just wanted to duck this particular naming issue. I think they probably weren’t insurgents in the strict sense, but I can see how and why they were attacked by US Forces. I watched the video once, and decided to make my own judgments in that ‘real-time’ rather than afterwards and at leisure. So, on reflection not, but in real-time yes.
I noted with a smile your (unintended?) oxymoron “…which seems clear from the video.”
This makes the point quite well in this era of electronic communication (and the plethora of software to expertly edit or even doctor it). We, especially those who espouse critical thinking and objectivity as is so often done on this and other academic fora), should be more circumspect in endorsing or otherwise validating such things unless we have (reasonably) satisfied ourselves as to the context of BOTH the event ostensibly portrayed and, as this case so nicely demonstrates, that of the person or group posting it and/or advocating it as the “truth” of the matter.
:-) .. it was deliberate. As you suggest, it reflects the insecurity of our knowledge on this, but also more widely. The how we know what we know questions remain salient!
Cincinattus Jr.
I agree we should be critical. However, I’m a little unclear on the meaning of the rest of your post, but maybe that’s just me being dense. Are you suggesting there was a conspiracy to edit/doctor the video to make it show something which it did not originally show?
I was not speaking specifically to that post but more generally that we should be careful before making conclusions based on information so easily manipulated and especially when posted on sites that clearly have other agendas beyond mere “neutrally” posting information for the readers/viewers to interpret for themselves.
As to the post in particular, IIRC, there has been some mention made of selective editing of the video. This of course may or may not substantively affect the evidentiary aspects of the video but clearly, as so poignantly demonstrated by the immediate emotional reactions on this forum and others (that struck me in that usually many of those posting on here and similar sites, in true academic fashion, tend to be rather emotionally detached from the subject matter, no matter how evocative otherwise), the manner in which information is presented (editing etc.) can have a pronounced effect on the way many then evaluate it substantively and “legally.”
Cincinattus Jr.,
You seem to be saying we should be wary of selective editing as it can alter our interpretation of the footage. Well, yes, I agree.
Sorry old man–I know you are busy so I will try hard to condense my posts for you in future–although I am paid by the word so I have an inherent conflict of interest.
Cincinattus Jr.,
If you could – for I am a bear of very little brain, and long words bother me.
Cincinattus Jr.,
Echoing Edward: well I’m not sure who would disagree with you on that. Of course we should be critical about such things.
My original point was that the US video showed armed men in an area in which US forces were operating and engaging insurgents. To claim they were “suspected” insurgents is to presume exactly what was in question without evidence or argument. I watched both videos and read the US military report that Gunrunner linked and as far as I could determine, they were correctly classified as insurgents — according to my understanding of ROE* — and legitimately killed.
*I’m certainly no expert on these things and more than willing to be educated on it.
Thanks-I better understand your point now. If I may, having worked on ROE issues for the bulk of my “adult” life both in and out of uniform let me suggest that your statement “To claim they were “suspected” insurgents is to presume exactly what was in question without evidence or argument.” indicates a possible misunderstanding of the way ROE are developed and applied in general and in this particular case.
Certainly the suggestion in your statement (if I read it correctly) is that the military’s “claim” (and ultimate “justification” for the incident) that the individuals were “suspected insurgents” can be questioned and debated as to its “correctness,” “fairness,” “wisdom,” “legality” and the like. Obviously that is exactly what is being done here and elsewhere.
When you shift, however, to the forces involved in the context of the ROE they develop and use, while some of this debate even occurs (believe it or not) among the military members responsible for the ROE as they are drafting them and even as they are implemented and used, in the end, it is often impossible as a practical and tactical matter, to have ROE that are so nuanced as to account for all the possible points of view and scenarios that may occur in the real world.
We have seen bad things happen where this is tried (turgid and dense pages of legalistic prose that no one, much less a rifleman in the heat of a battle can understand and apply) in that effective ROE must be as concise and understandable as possible for them to have their desired effect and this in turn will necessarily require judgments to be made by the commander(s) as to how “protective” they may be in a relative sense of noncombatants. In some cases, this means that ROE will make certain assumptions (ideally based on reasonable intelligence and adequate understanding of the local culture etc.) that broad (and yes some would say after the fact in an academic discussion such as this, overbroad) classifications of people, things and places will be made in terms of being “deemed hostile.”
Obviously, this approach opens the door to possible abuse or lack of due care by military forces and as a consequence there are specific restrictions on how broadly such assumptions can be made and on what bases, as well as restrictions on what level of command can authorize such assumptions. This is yet another of the sometimes regrettable and frustrating realities of combat, and especially in COIN situations where the insurgents by doctrine and design commingle with the noncombatant indigenous population and on occasion will “set up” the COIN force in an effort to entice it to attack non-combatants to undermine other “hearts and minds” aspects of the COIN effort.
Cincinattus Jr.,
Thanks, your professional insights are very interesting and I can see the problems and tensions that would come from trying to create adequate ROE. So, according to your understanding of ROE — and in light of the videos and linked reports — were the people killed justifiably classified as targets?
Without appearing to beg your question, but I suppose this does make my point as well, I cannot say as I do not have access to the applicable ROE for that incident. I can only rely on, as any of us on the “outside,” the publicly available documents that shed at least some indirect light on the ROE, which, subject to the “good offices” of Wikileaks and its ilk, at least parts of which are usually classified to prevent our enemy from knowing all the rules by which we fight.
Having reviewed the unedited footage it appears that the helicopter crew correctly identify that some of the men were armed with what appear to be assault rifles. However during this period much of residential Baghdad relied on neighbourhood militias for protection from criminal gangs and inter-ethnic conflict; furthermore it is not clear that anyone outside the U.S military knew that armed civilians could be targeted under those circumstances.
It is also clear is that the helicopter crew identified some member or members of the group as having RPGs.
What weapons each person is identified as carrying is not clear, in particular what the the Reuters staff were assumed/misidentified as having, n.b.the crew must have identified them as being combatants otherwise they could not have fired upon them within the terms of the RoE current at that time.
The later shooting appears a lot more clear cut; civilians dismount from a van type vehicle, there is no claim that they are armed at any point yet permission is given to engage. it is at this time that the two children inside the van are also injured. Reviewing the various RoE material I cannot see the justification for this.
The statement released by the Multi National Corps the following day claims all those killed bar the two journalists were insurgents and the only mention of wounding is to one insurgent, the children are not mentioned.
One point that has not been mentioned is the range at which the engagements took place;from the video it appears that the time from the discharge of the first round (using the round count on the display not the audio) to the first impact is a little over three seconds. At the quoted muzzle velocity of 805 m/sec this implies a range of 2000 to 2500 metres, more than the quoted effective range of 1500 metres but well within the maximum range of the M230. It is reasonable to ask whether the crew could have made a positive identification at that range, even with the imaging equipment available.
The later engagement with the M230 takes place at a much closer range, within 1000m. I cannot estimate the range at which the Hellfire the attacks on a building took place, these also resulted in civilian casualties.