The Leavenworth Diary:
Double Agent Anthropologist Inside the Human Terrain System

by John Allison

The New Imperialism is the title of an annual seminar which I offer at Concordia University to advanced undergraduates. It is an unusual course, and given the content of past student evaluations, one that is extremely popular with participants who unanimously rated it as excellent on all levels. Part of the reason might be that there are no lectures, no tests, and no exams–and the other part is that the course is deeply engaging, dealing with central issues in world politics and international affairs and matters of critical public debate, about which anthropologists and sociologists ought to be fully familiar since they cannot and do not remain unaffected. What is required is participation in seminar discussions (which easily took us over our allotted time on several occasions), writing three short Op-Ed articles on issues related to the course content, and then one large research paper which participants work on for the duration of the semester, going through different stages of review and reconstruction. Having seen, from early on, that I would be receiving a batch of excellent papers, I asked the seminar participants if they would not want to put their output on the record, to publish their work. One option was to have all the papers online, on the seminar website. The other was to publish it like my Department also publishes an annual volume of student research, Stories from Montreal. They opted for the latter and I got busy creating something I had never planned to establish: a publishing entity, Alert Press (amazingly, the name was not taken). That was just the start–then came getting an ISBN, arranging for the National Library of Canada to do Cataloguing-in-Publication, getting a copyright certificate, and formally registering the Press. The printing would be done on demand, which is where the services of Lulu come in. Then there was the index–no proper book can go without one. That is, as some know, a particularly large expense which had to be out of pocket. Each of the papers had to be revised, edited, proof read, and re-corrected, references checked, formatting done for the book, providing images that are free under a Creative Commons License (up to the front and back covers of the book), and then indexed. Only the very best papers were included, which in this case means that only 14 of the initial 25 papers made the final cut. One or two opted out of the publication idea from the start–it is entirely voluntary, and not a course requirement. But it will be an annual feature. The work went months beyond the actual end date of the seminar. The result is what you see here, our first installment: The New Imperialism, Volume I: Militarism, Humanism, and Occupation.

I am extremely proud of all of the seminar participants, the great work they did, and the fantastic semester that they made, and I look forward to the next group coming in January. I am very happy to say that the majority of students I have worked with at Concordia are a delight: very committed, engaged, and bright.

About Volume 1:

Describing and theorizing “the new imperialism” in international relations, this volume presents anthropological and sociological viewpoints on the topics of militarism and militarization; humanitarian interventionism; the responsibility to protect; Canada’s role in the occupation of Afghanistan, and the establishment of what is effectively a protectorate in Haiti; the role of NGOs in the formation and management of a new global imperium; and, soft power. Specific case studies are also devoted to the U.S. Army’s Human Terrain System; the U.S. Army’s Africa Command (AFRICOM); torture and international law; Coca Cola in Colombia; the NATO war in Kosovo; cultural militarization and “militainment;” and, the rising militarism in Canadian public discourse.

The geographic scope of the volume includes Algeria, Afghanistan, Canada, Colombia, Ethiopia, Somalia, Iran, Kosovo, Kuwait, and the United States.

The work as a whole covers global events since the end of the Cold War.

The contributors to the volume, drawn from the research participants in the inaugural seminar on the New Imperialism at Concordia University in 2010, are: Corey Anhorn, Ricky Curotte, Justin De Genova, Zoe Dominiak, Cameron Fenton, Lesley Foster, Thomas Prince, Kate Roland, Mark Shapiro, Nageen Siddiqui, Miles Smart, Katelyn Spidle, Rosalia Stillitano, and Elizabeth Vezina.

More about the Book and How to Order:

The book comprises 242 pages, including 34 illustrations, a Preface and Introduction plus 14 chapters, and an Index.

The front cover, table of contents, preface, introduction, and index can be downloaded as one file (PDF, 5mb).

The paperback version can be purchased for $10.11 (US), not including shipping and handling (circa $6.99 US).

You can also obtain a free eBook version, if you prefer reading on a computer, and if you prefer free and immediate.

For libraries, a hardcover version is also available for $18.82 (US), not including shipping and handling.

The next volume will be out in less than a year’s time.

Who is more popular than Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, and the Chilean miners combined? And leading in votes for TIME Magazine’s 2010 Person of the Year award, ahead of Lady Gaga, and Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert? Julian Assange, for his work with Wikileaks.

But for those of you who think that Assange is an undeserving ass, at least you are in “good company” : Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain, who thinks the tea party movement should get the award, also thinks that Assange (who is Australian) is guilty of being “un-American” and a “creepy rogue Swedish guy.” M. McCain–surprise, surprise– “writes” for the The Daily Beast, which next to Gawker has been one of the leading online anti-Assange smear machines. What is Assange’s sin by the way? The documents he has published ”changed the way Americans view the war.”

Students at Harvard University, however, do not need to be worried about being contaminated by the influence of the rogue Swedish un-American Australian: Gary King, director of the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard University says: “I have had a couple of students asking [Harvard] for permission to use the previous WikiLeaks data release, and last I heard they still weren’t allowed to touch it.” See the full story, leaked to Cryptome: “Leaked Documents Provide Bonanza for Researchers,” SCIENCE, VOL 330 29, OCTOBER 2010, p 575.

If Bradley Manning leaked the documents to Wikileaks, then he is one of the very few heroes in uniform who deserved to be thanked and celebrated. In “What We Learned from WikiLeaks,” Jonathan Schell in The Nation reflects on Manning who was deeply pained to learn of the arbitrary arrests of opponents of Iraqi prime minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and the brutal torture of Iraqis by their own government. (Remember that phrase? It’s one of the stated reasons U.S. propagandists used for justifying the invasion of Iraq.) In particular, the documents reveal the bloody activities of the Wolf Battalion, and how U.S. forces actively collaborated with it in sending them detainees to torture, many of them being killed. Faced with this, Manning allegedly told his spy/snitch, Adrian Lamo: ”That was a point where I was…actively involved in something that I was completely against.” Julian Assange, for his part, once wrote: ”Every time we witness an act that we feel to be unjust and do not act we become a party to injustice. Those who are repeatedly passive in the face of injustice soon find their character corroded into servility.”

EE: Report #8, 21 October—11 November 2010

Encircling Empire Reports is a selection of essays, blog posts, and news reports covering a given time period. They are intended to be useful for those interested in: ● contemporary and critical political anthropology ● public anthropology ● imperialism and imperial decline ● militarism/militarization ● the political economy of the world system ● hegemony and soft power ● counterinsurgency ● revolution ● rebellion ● resistance ● protest ● activism ● advocacy ● critique.

Previous issues are listed here.

[Special thanks to Kazi Mahmood, and Bill Jacobson]

The special focus this week is the monumental Wikileaks Iraq War Logs release, which transpired since the last EE Report, as well as materials on militarization and militarism, and the Canadian non-withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Our leading quote for this week comes from John Parker, on the topic of Wikileaks and the intellectual deficits of journalists embedded with the Pentagon:

“The career trend of too many Pentagon journalists typically arrives at the same vanishing point: Over time they are co-opted by a combination of awe — interacting so closely with the most powerfully romanticized force of violence in the history of humanity — and the admirable and seductive allure of the sharp, amazingly focused demeanor of highly trained military minds. Top military officers have their s*** together and it’s personally humbling for reporters who’ve never served to witness that kind of impeccable competence. These unspoken factors, not to mention the inner pull of reporters’ innate patriotism, have lured otherwise smart journalists to abandon – justifiably in their minds – their professional obligation to treat all sources equally and skeptically.”

WIKILEAKS’ IRAQ WAR LOGS

The big news since the last EE Report was the release of 391,832 secret records that cover the U.S.’ Iraq War between 2004 and 2009, now being hailed as the biggest leak of official documents in history (that might be questionable, but certainly the most publicly accessible leak of that size). The logs can be accessed here:

• Wikileaks Iraq War Diaries (main page)
• Diary Dig (Browse the diaries and make complex searches)
• War Logs (Browse the diaries, rate and comment the reports)
• Raw files, download as a torrent from Pirate Bay

Wikileaks teamed up with several news organizations, more this time than with the Afghan War Diary. You can find each organization’s dedicated pages below (Le Monde, at the time of writing, appeared to be the only one not to have a special Iraq War logs section), ranked in order of descending preference:

• The Bureau of Investigative Journalism—Iraq War Logs
• Al Jazeera—The Secret Iraq Files
• The Guardian—Iraq: The War Logs
• Der Spiegel Online International—Iraq War Logs
• The New York Times—The War Logs (includes Afghanistan)
• Channel 4 News (UK)—Iraq Secret War Files
• Iraq Body Count
• Le Monde—“Irak : l’horreur ordinaire révélée par Wikileaks”

These are some of the stories that came out about the release which we recommend:

1. United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights: “Iraq / Wikileaks: statement by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.”
2. Iraq War Veteran, Josh Stieber’s Letter to Congress: “An Iraq Surge Vet on Wikileaks: An Open Letter on the Needed Response to the Upcoming Wikileaks Report.”
3. Amnesty International USA: “Iraq’s Apt Pupils.”
4. Salon: Glen Greenwald, “The Nixonian henchmen of today: at the NYT” – but also read how NYT readers trounced the published smears about Assange, excellent commentary. In addition, more comments slamming NYT appear in Reddit, and CNN’s Atika Shubert, who wanted to do a personal character interview about sex allegations, prompting Julian Assange to walk out, gets torn to shreds by viewers on her Facebook page.
5. As a follow up, Greenwald has this striking article comparing international media with NYT’s coverage on the issue of torture, underplayed by the NYT: “NYT v. the world: WikiLeaks coverage.”
6. See the “The New York Times Torture Euphemism Generator!”
7. The Guardian: Pratap Chatterjee, “Iraq war logs: Wikileaks’ virtual memorial.”
8. The Guardian: “WikiLeaks Iraq war logs: Nick Clegg calls for investigation of abuse claims.”
9. The Independent: “Patrick Cockburn: Echoes of El Salvador in tales of US-approved death squads.”
10. The Telegraph: “Wikileaks: UN calls for US to investigate torture claims revealed in leaked reports.”
11. Associated Press: “WikiLeaks urges US to probe alleged rights abuses.”
12. Reuters: “Factbox: U.S. report to U.N. Human Rights Council.”
13. Agence France Presse: “Human rights campaigners voice disappointment with Obama.”
14. World Socialist Web Site: “Mounting evidence of British war crimes.”
15. The Telegraph: “Wikileaks Iraq war logs: key findings.” (See links within to further related articles.)
16. The Iraqi response? Their “Minister of Human Rights” appears in “Iraq has the right to sue WikiLeaks, says minister of human rights.”
17. One Israeli Knesset member’s response: “Ben Ari files UN complaint on US over Wikileaks reports.”
18. Raw Story: “Fox News editorial: WikiLeaks employees should be declared ‘enemy combatants’”
19. Jonah Goldberg: “All Quiet on the Black-Ops Front: Why isn’t Julian Assange dead?”
20. Stephen M. Walt: “In Defense of Wikileaks.”
21. Ellen Knickmeyer: “WikiLeaks Exposes Rumsfeld’s Lies.”
22. John Parker: “Lack of WikiLeaks coverage disturbing, but not surprising.”
23. Allen Moore: “Julian Assange: Life is Hard in a World Without Hippies.”
24. Journalism.co.uk: “Journalists across globe sign petition in support of WikiLeaks.”

THE CASE FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN

“Digging in for the Long Haul in Afghanistan: How Permanent Are America’s Afghan Bases?” by Nick Turse features some of his work on the construction of multiple permanent bases in Afghanistan—and we learn of Turse’s amazing new edited volume, with some of the best contributors one can imagine: The Case for Withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Here is one key extract from the article above:

Major General Kenneth S. Dowd — the Director of Logistics for U.S. Central Command for three years before leaving the post in June — offered this partial account of the ongoing Afghan base build-up in the September/October issue of Army Sustainment, the official logistics journal of the Army:

“Military construction projects scheduled for com­pletion over the next 12 months will deliver 4 new runways, ramp space for 8 C−17 transports, and parking for 50 helicopters and 24 close air support and 26 intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. This represents roughly one-third of the air­field paving projects currently funded in the Afghanistan theater of operations. Additional minor construction plans called for the construction of over 12 new FOBs and expansion of 18 existing FOBs.”

If Dowd offered the barest sketch of some of the projects planned or underway, a TomDispatch analysis of little-noticed U.S. government records and publications, including U.S. Army and Army Corps of Engineers contracting documents and construction-bid solicitations issued over the last five months, fills in the picture.  The documents reveal plans for large-scale, expensive Afghan base expansions of every sort and a military that is expecting to pursue its building boom without letup well into the future.  These facts-on-the-ground indicate that, whatever timelines for phased withdrawal may be issued in Washington, the U.S. military is focused on building up, not drawing down, in Afghanistan.

IS CANADA WITHDRAWING FROM AFGHANISTAN?

No. See “Afghan plan includes up to 1,000 troops,” and “NATO says 900 trainers needed for Afghan forces.” The Prime Minister promised to respect Parliament’s will (not to mention that of the majority of Canadians), that after two extensions of the Canadian mission, there would not be a third, and the “military mission” would end. Then came the weasel words as the U.S. ratcheted up pressure on Canada to stay—it became a “combat mission” instead, that would end, but a “military training mission” would take its place. In the meantime, the B Team to the ruling Conservatives, euphemistically known as the “Liberal Party of Canada,” has apparently signed on to the deal. The Canadian peace movement has of course reacted—see the Canadian Peace Alliance’s “A Better War is Not Possible. Don’t Extend It. End It.”

THE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF MILITARISM

“The Pentagon is the largest single consumer of oil in the world, using one-quarter of the world’s jet fuel. Yet the military’s use of energy and contribution to global warming is rarely discussed. Barry Sanders tackles the relationship between militarism and environmental destruction in his recent book The Green Zone: The Environmental Costs of Militarism. Sanders is a prolific author and was, until his retirement a professor of the history of ideas and English at Pitzer College in Claremont, California.”

MILITARIZING ASIA: THE CREATION OF A REGIONAL NATO BY THE U.S.

Written by Rick Rozoff, “Southeast Asia: West Completes Plans for Asian NATO,” the article gives us a detailed overview of plans for a U.S. coordinated military pact in Asia, an Asian extension of NATO, that would seem to relieve the need for direct U.S. intervention in future conflicts. This seems to be motivated by a realization of the fact that “for the first time in half a millennium the founding members of NATO in Europe and North America are confronted with a planet not largely or entirely under their control.”

As Vance and Ertel make clear in their lawsuit, in 2006 they were “indefinitely detained without due process of law in a United States military compound located on foreign soil. They were not charged with any crime, nor had they committed any crime” (p. 1). They were denied access to an attorney and were subjected to abuse. They specifically point to Donald Rumsfeld for instituting a series of unconstitutional policies that would deprive anyone deemed to be an “enemy combatant,” even if American, any of the rights inherent to due process.

So what started the ball rolling against Vance and Ertel and why were they targeted? They were whistle blowers, the details of which are produced from pages 11 through 24 of their lawsuit, and on page 27. Their revelations implicate independent American military contractors who set up a corrupt weapons trade in Iraq, and even a State Department employee who simultaneously had business dealings with one such private entity, Shield Group Security. Vance and Ertel also uncovered the “beer for bullets” program (p. 20), organized by American contractor Josef Trimpert, where Trimpert would use SGS money to buy imported liquor, which was then given to U.S. troops in exchange for weapons and ammunition, which were then sold locally.

As Vance and Ertel stated, “while working as civilians with privately-owned companies operating in Baghdad,” they “came into contact with political, financial, and operational information,” that they “considered to be suspicious and potentially indicative of corruption. Fulfilling what they “believed to be their patriotic duties as American citizens,” Vance and Ertel ”reported these irregularities to employees of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘FBI’), the State Department, and other federal government officials. Both Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel undertook this reporting for their country, even though they knew full well that the disclosures could result in serious, if not deadly, retaliation by those on whom they were informing” (p. 5). However, it seems that the information they uncovered could have implicated U.S. personnel in corruption. As Vance and Ertel found, falling under suspicion by “certain low-level bureaucrats in the federal government” who “apparently came to believe, quite incorrectly, that Mr. Vance and Mr. Ertel might have even more information,” those employees “set out to extract it from them.” Because those low-level bureaucrats “hoped to discover information useful to their personal and professional agendas, and because Defendant Rumsfeld imbued them with unchecked authority to detain and interrogate even American citizens as they please,” those officials decided to arrest Vance and Ertel. They held Vance “incommunicado for three months,” and Ertel “incommunicado for over one month,” in order to engage in “torturous interrogations, which revealed only that Plaintiffs were innocent civilians who had already volunteered everything they knew to the federal government” (pps. 5-6).

The case seemed so preposterous that even some of the American soldiers who were their captors were surprised to learn that these two detainees, Vance and Ertel, imprisoned with Iraqis labeled as “security internee” and “enemy combatant,” were actually Americans. This puts an end to simplistic assertions that this treatment could never be meted out to American citizens–it can and it has.

One of the striking things brought forth in the lawsuit by Vance and Ertel is that once they had severed ties with SGS, they were effectively stranded outside the “Green Zone,” and kept within this SGS compound–and when they called the U.S. Embassy for help, and troops were sent to “rescue” them, that is when they were taken into custody by their “rescuers” and then brought first to Camp Prosperity and then Camp Cropper. Eventually they were submitted to the same kind of abuse that some might have thought had been reserved for Iraqi “terrorists” only. The further irony is that they were being accused of the very activities about which they leaked information, that corrupt American contractors at SGS were involved in an illegal weapons trade that likely benefited insurgents.

Had this all been just the word of Vance and Ertel, some might have sought to dismiss their claims. However, the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs contain a document that lends weight to their claims. That document states that two American civilians were being held captive in a compound and were rescued by coalition forces, and that a large weapons cache had also been found. These two Americans are identified as employees of Shield Group Security, held by SGS against their will. The document also states that the weapons cache belonged to SGS–there is no mention of any suspicion that wrongly connected Vance and Ertel with that stockpile, like their later accusers would allege. SGS is classed in the document by the U.S. Embassy as a “bad employer.”

Perhaps even more shocking and unbelievable is that anyone would dare to argue that the Wikileaks disclosures were a “bad” thing, when such critical information about various crimes–as must be disclosed, and prosecuted–is now receiving attention. Arguing against the leaks is arguing to cover up crimes.

Update: For more on the lawsuit by Vance and Ertel, see the following report from March 2010:

Related reports and web sites:

1. “Former U.S. Detainee in Iraq Recalls Torment” (Michael Moss, The New York Times, 18 December 2006)
2. “The Story of Prisoner 200343” (Joel Roberts, CBS News, 18 December 2006)
3. “My Name Used to Be #200343” (David Phinney, Inter Press Service, 07 April 2007)
4. “Donald Vance: 2007 recipient of the Ridenhour Truth-Telling Prize” (The Ridenhour Prizes)
5. “Illinois Judge Refuses to Dismiss Rumsfeld Lawsuit” (08 March 2010)
6. “Donald Rumsfeld on Trial” (Now Public, 31 August 2010)
7. Donald Vance (Wikipedia)

Another irresponsible posting of stolen classified documents by Wikileaks puts lives at risk and gives adversaries valuable information.
2:19 PM Oct 23rd via web
Retweeted by 100+ people

The U.S. government, which has no end of lectures on human rights directed at other states, and even tries to gloss its occupations as humanitarian endeavors (surely by now everyone has heard that the brutality of counterinsurgency in Afghanistan is all about saving little girls and protecting their school books), suddenly goes silent over some of the most damning revelations, in fine detail, about its human rights violations. When the state spokespersons are not saying that the Wikileaks release is “irresponsible,” “stolen,” and the documents “classified,” they are saying there is nothing new here. Nothing new? Then that makes the question even more compelling: why have you failed, for so long, to act to prosecute the obvious cases of war crimes committed by your troops? That confirms that higher ups in the Pentagon and the U.S. Government have been fully aware of the crimes–nothing new–and chose not to act and, indeed, even tried to cover up those crimes by not disclosing this information.

The same logic is applied to the person accused of leaking the documents, Bradley Manning. The emphasis in the state’s rhetoric is on his alleged “criminal” actions. Yet, one might think that if documentation of war crimes is found, that for moral reasons, and in line with international humanitarian law, and concern for the laws of war, that such information must be released. Knowing the details, having the information, and then refusing to disclose it is the same as concealing that information and covering up a crime, which is a crime itself. If anything, one not only has a right to disclose such information, it is one’s duty–and no war crimes tribunal will say otherwise. This is especially true when higher ups claim full knowledge–the “nothing new” chorus line–and clearly refused to do anything about it. Let’s look at the alleged transcript of Bradley Manning’s online chat with Adrian Lamo, and we’ll see these themes and concerns repeated–here are some extracts:

• if you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time… say, 8-9 months… and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do?
• crazy, almost criminal political backdealings… the non-PR-versions of world events and crises

Not only is a soldier not required to obey an order whose execution would constitute a war crime (and that soldier becomes responsible for a war crime if he executes the order), a soldier cannot be required to conceal evidence of war crimes. If disclosure of war crimes itself becomes a criminal act–then that effectively negates and nullifies the various treaties and conventions to which the U.S. is a signatory. It would be bad faith, to say the least, to sign on to conventions about crimes of war, and crimes against peace, only to have a backup apparatus that makes commitment to such conventions fully impossible, and even criminal.

As for putting “lives at risk,” one would think that if people are (a) concerned about the safety of civilians, and, (b) that troops not be put in harm’s way…that the only logical position would not be one that is anti-Wikileaks, but one that is anti-war. Putting lives at risk is mere rhetorical hygienic tissue for the Pentagon–that is one of the things that is routinely the least of its concerns. It is in the business precisely about putting lives at risk. Yet states, including those with long careers in war-making (such as the U.S.), sign onto such conventions in order to cover their actions with legitimacy, to don the cloak of civilization.

So why does the U.S. government even bother to proffer such manifestly nonsensical positions? Who does it think it will convince and impress, when around the world only condemnation of its actions in Iraq, and praise for Wikileaks, has been resounding? The answer is no one apart from the already converted. The emphasis of the state is on monopolizing violence, and monopolizing claims to the legitimate use of violence. When the state’s spokespersons have to emphasize the key themes of legitimacy–inverted as criminality, irresponsibility, and disclosure of classified materials–that means such positions are no longer assumed to be taken for granted: they no longer go without saying because they come without saying, to borrow Bourdieu’s phrasing. These notions now must be stated because we have entered the realm of orthodoxy, one opposed by Wikileaks heterodoxy. And when ideas become orthodox, they are no longer hegemonic, the state is in trouble.

So instead of addressing the issues–because the state cannot–what the Mullens do is to try to convert the challenge into one of pompous defense of the rights of state versus, presumably, leftists with an anti-American agenda–but by no means conceding a basic issue of human rights. The intent here is to deny justice. Supporters of the imperial state get all the reassuring cues they need from the Mullens of the situation (indeed, he was frequently “retweeted”)–everything is OK, we are right, just talking about what’s in the documents is tantamount to treason; the criminals are Wikileaks, and not those who sprayed unarmed civilians with helicopter cannon fire.

Mullen’s tweet is the sweet sound of the imperial state falling to pieces. The following videos are different instances of statements attacking Wikileaks, primarily by Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, but also Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The video at the bottom–from when Wikileaks released the Afghan War Diary–is well worth watching in full. Morrell gives us a display that rivals anything ever delivered by Donald Rumsfeld, to the extent that it is utterly implausible, untenable, absurd, and wildly unhinged. It is worth watching, ethnographically, straight into his eyes, of someone choking and gasping for credibility, clutching at straws, and making a complete ass of himself.

Pentagon and Iraq Condemn Wikileaks | Assange says Wikileaks Iraq War Logs are over redacted, almost making a “travesty” of the documents

The Pentagon Reply: Geoff Morrell

Hillary Clinton: “We should condemn the disclosure of classified documents…”

Geoff Morrell’s Bizarre Press Conference in August, after the release of the Afghan War Diaries:

October 22nd, 2010  |  by admin

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism sent two letters – which listed a number of significant allegations regarding U.S. forces and U.S. defence policy – to the Department of Defense Press Office at the Pentagon, so as to provide an opportunity to respond in the interest of fairness.

Among the specific questions the Bureau asked the Pentagon to respond to were the following:

- We allege that the U.S. Government handed over detainees to Iraqi authorities, knowing of concerns that torture was rife in Iraqi detention facilities.

- We have concerns that allegations of detainee abuse by Iraqi authorities reported to U.S. forces were not properly investigated.

- On February 22 2007 a U.S. lawyer advises Crazyhorse 18’s Command Unit that Anti-Iraqi Forces could not surrender to an aircraft and were still valid targets. However, we have found four occasions in the data when people were allowed to surrender to aircraft. What is the DoD’s response to this?

- We have found over 300 alleged cases of detainee abuse by U.S. soldiers after Abu Ghraib in 2004.

- Contained within the files are intelligence reports alleging strong links between Syrian intelligence agents and al Qaeda. What is the DoD’s position on such reports?

The U.S. Department of Defense’s response is as follows:

“We strongly condemn the unauthorised disclosure of classified information and will not comment on these leaked documents other than to note that ‘significant activities’ reports are initial, raw observations by tactical units. They are essentially snapshots of events, both tragic and mundane, and do not tell the whole story. That said, the period covered by these reports has been well-chronicled in news stories, books and films and the release of these field reports does not bring new understanding to Iraq’s past.

“However, it does expose secret information that could make our troops even more vulnerable to attack in the future. Just as with the leaked Afghan documents, we know our enemies will mine this information looking for insights into how we operate, cultivate sources, and react in combat situations, even the capability of our equipment. This security breach could very well get our troops and those they are fighting with killed.”

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms. Navanethem Pillay. Image via Wikipedia

Republished from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism

October 27th, 2010  |  by admin

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay has called for an investigation into allegations of abuse and murder of Iraqis within detention centres, following the publication of the Iraq war logs.

The High Commissioner also called for all alleged abuses against Iraqi civilians by U.S. troops to be properly investigated.

The statement follows revelations by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that the U.S. handed over more than 9,000 detainees to Iraqi authorities despite knowing of hundreds of reports of torture by Iraqi Security forces.

The military files leaked to the whistleblowers website, Wikileaks, show that U.S. troops reported more than 1,300 claims of torture by Iraqi authorities.

Related article: Obama administration handed detainees despite reports of torture

These reports detail complaints of brutality reminiscent of Saddam Hussein’s regime. They include accounts of detainees being whipped with cables, chains, wire and pistols and being burnt with acid and cigarettes. Some accounts describe people having electric shocks to their genitals, fingernails ripped out and fingers cut off. In other cases, the documents report men being sodomised with bottles, hoses and raped.

U.S. troops were still recording allegations of abuse by Iraqi Security Forces as they started to withdraw, logging 112 instances in 2009.

Commenting on the revelations the High Commissioner said:

“The information adds to concerns that serious breaches of international human rights law have occurred in Iraq, including summary executions of a large number of civilians and torture and ill-treatment of detainees.

“The U.S. and Iraqi authorities should take necessary measures to investigate all allegations made in these reports and to bring to justice those responsible for unlawful killings, summary executions, torture and other serious human rights abuses, in line with obligations under international human rights law, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to which both the US and Iraq are parties.”

Wikileaks gave access to nearly 400,000 military files to key media organsations including the Bureau, the Guardian, the New York Times, Der Spiegel and Le Monde.

Related article: Torture widespread in Iraqi detention facilities

October 27th, 2010  |  by Yuba Bessaoud

A series of reports contained in the leaked U.S. logs reveal that troops handed over detainees to a feared Iraqi police interrogation squad, despite knowing the torturous methods they employed.

A number of files make reference to U.S. interactions with the Wolf Brigade, a Ministry of Interior battalion known for savage practices and a distinct uniform of red berets, sunglasses and balaclavas.

In one report from Fallujah in western Iraq dated December 14 2005, a military interrogator threatened a detainee with transfer to the “Wolf Battalion” as a means of getting him to talk.

December 14 2005
[The officer] threatened the subject detainee that he would never see his family again and would be sent to the wolf battalion where he would be subject to all the pain and agony that the wolf battalion is known to exact upon its detainees.

Two months earlier on November 2, a report from the ‘Thunder Squadron’ of the Armed Cavalry Regiment based in Baghdad details the arrest of five Iraqis with fake identification in a car featuring on the ‘BOLO’ (be on look-out) wanted list. The individuals were, the report claims, “turned over to the Wolf Brigade”.

The logs also show that U.S. troops investigated claims by detainees of abuse at Wolf Brigade hands. On December 13 2006 a report detailing the medical examination of three detainees all claiming to have been beaten with a baseball bat by Wolf Brigade officers.  The PA – ‘physician assistant’ – confirmed that each man’s wounds were consistent with their description of the weapons used against them.

The logs also contain intelligence reports of counter-attacks and reprisals against the brigade. On one occasion from January 2007 the decapitated head of an officer from the brigade was found, but no body was located. “A wire was run through the ear with the corpse’s ID attached to the wire,” states the report.

Republished from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism

October 23rd, 2010  |  by Angus Stickler

On February 22 2007, a U.S. helicopter engaged a group of insurgents involved in a mortar attack upon coalition forces, near Baghdad.

After firing a series of 30mm rounds, the crew of the helicopter – callsign “Crazyhorse” – radioed to their command, stating the insurgents “wanted to surrender”. The response was blunt: “CRAZYHORSE cleared to engage … Lawyer stated they cannot surrender to aircraft.”

The Apache crew killed the men.

February 22 2007
CRAZYHORSE reports AIF [Anti-Iraqi Forces] got into a dumptruck headed north, engaged and then they came out wanting to surrender…
CRAZYHORSE cleared to engage dumptruck. 1/227 Lawyer states they can not surrender to aircraft and are still valid targets.

It is one of the reports of most concern.

According to Claude Bruderlein, director of Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research at Harvard University, what is reported in the files about this incident would be a clear breach of international law.

“This idea that you cannot surrender to a helicopter is ridiculous, absolutely unacceptable,” he told the Bureau. “Surrendering is a fundamental principle of the law of armed conflict and you can surrender to aircraft. You cannot attack those that surrender.”

Bruderlein, a former special adviser to the UN Secretary General, cites the allegations as being a clear breach of article three of the fourth Geneva Convention, drawn up in 1949 following the second World War. It states “that non combatants and members of the armed forces who have laid down their arms, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely” and prohibits “violence to life and person”.

According to the files, despite knowing the insurgents wanted to surrender, the crew not only opened fire with a Hellfire missile, but when it missed they actively chased them down to a shack where they had taken refuge. With the approval of their command unit, they opened fire again , killing both.

February 22 2007
CRAZYHORSE reports engaged and destroyed shack with 2x AIF …
CRAZYHORSE continued to observe for approx 20 minutes … CRAZYHORSE is off station to refuel and rearm.

According to Bruderlein, if the allegations are correct, both the crew of the helicopter and the officer who cleared them to engage, would be guilty of war crimes. The lawyer who offered the legal advice would, he believes, not be guilty.

“Those who use force have the responsibility of their use of force, and the chain of command is the one that’s responsible for the decision. It’s not the lawyer. However, to have a legal adviser expressing the view that the principle doesn’t apply to helicopters is ridiculous.”

Other surrender kills
The Bureau has found another file in the war logs that relates to leaked footage of an Apache helicopter opening fire on a man, who appears to be trying to surrender. The log makes no mention of the fact the man appears to be trying to give himself up:

31 July 2004
After positive identification from UAV “Big Gun 74″ gven authorisation to engage the vehicle. The vehicle engaged and destroyed … 1 X KIZ on side of road. Cleared site and reported: several RPGS, 1X AK-47, 1X 82MM mortar tube with several rounds, 1X tripod. MP and EOD on site.

The video clearly shows the man leaving his car, his hands behind his head.

No legal precedent
There is no legal precedent stating that an enemy combatant cannot surrender to aircraft. According to Bruderlein, once a combatant surrenders they are protected. He says any argument that a helicopter does not have the ability to capture is irrelevant.

“The protection of those who surrender is not linked to the capacity to capture. If you say “well I don’t have the capacity to capture, so you simply kill them all” – this is the end of the principle. As soon as they don’t represent a threat, they are protected.”

A trawl through thousands of files in the war logs has found evidence that other helicopter gunships had the ability to, and accepted, offers of surrender.

In one incident, just over a month prior to the Crazyhorse episode, coalition forces were reported to have engaged a group of insurgents planting an IED:

January 10 2007
LH05 [LIGHTENING HORSE] engaged the white truck with 8 rockets … The 2x LNs [Local Nationals] got out of the truck and surrendered to LH 05. Alternate QRF [Quick Reaction Force], responded and ­detained the 2x LNs.

In this case, there were troops on the ground who could detain the surrendering insurgents. But in other cases, when no troops were present, the helicopter crews stayed in position and waited until ground forces arrived.

Another Apache helicopter caused controversy in spring 2010 when Wikileaks released video footage of a helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed a dozen civilians, including two Reuters journalists.

Ramadi, Iraq (Feb. 20, 2005) – U.S. Marines and Sailors, assigned to 1st Marine Division, 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, search Iraqi vehicles and their occupants at a Ramadi, Iraq checkpoint. Marines and Sailors are currently conducting Operation River Blitz to limit the movement of insurgents by use of checkpoints in vital entry points to the city. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Shane T. McCoy (RELEASED)

Republished from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism

October 22nd, 2010  |  by Emma Slater and James Ball

It was lunchtime on September 6 2008 when a pickup truck travelling down a highway in Ninewah province, northwest Iraq, met a U.S. convoy driving in the opposite direction. The driver of the truck was elderly and had cataracts.

When the truck didn’t slow down, the soldiers in the convoy tried to get the driver’s attention. They shouted, waved and showed their weapons. But the driver apparently couldn’t see them and the truck still didn’t slow down. So the soldiers fired warning shots.

Realising he was under fire, the driver tried to stop the truck. But the brakes were poor and he lost control of the vehicle. When the vehicle didn’t stop, the U.S. soldiers fired at the driver. He was killed.

The allegations about the incident, reported in the secret war logs, are just one of hundreds of similar tragic cases where it appears Iraqi civilians approaching checkpoints or convoys were killed by U.S. soldiers.

September 6 2008
…they noted 3 x people in the vehicle, including 2 x Males and 1 x elderly man, who was the driver. The elderly man had wounds that appeared to be fragmentation from the vehicle and was KIA [killed in action] on the scene. They searched the vehicle and found nothing suspicious. The CF [coalition forces] questioned the remaining 2 x Males, who said that the elderly man driving had cataracts and was unable to see properly. Also, the brakes on the old vehicle were not functional. CF took the KIA LN [local national] to the Tal Uwaynat IP [Iraqi police]. SIR [serious incident report] sent up through CF channels BDA [battle damage assessment]: 1x LN KIA S2 ASSESSMENT: NOT REQUIRED REPORT STATUS: /CLOSED/

The U.S. war logs show that there were 13,963 incidents linked to convoys or at checkpoints across Iraq from 2004-2009. Most of them ended harmlessly, but when things went wrong it was civilians, more often than not, that got killed.

Through an extensive manual count, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism can reveal that 681, more than 80 per cent of those killed in similar incidents, were civilians. Fifty families were shot at and at least 30 children reported killed. In contrast, only 120 insurgents died in checkpoint incidents in the same period.

Including Iraqi Army and police deaths, 832 were reported killed in incidents at checkpoints and involving convoys.

The numbers that died in this type of incident got worse as the war progressed. In 2004, the war logs indicate there were 22 civilian deaths. By the following year this had increased to nearly 300.

Is it just shout… then shoot?
During the U.S. occupation, a large number of checkpoints were set up across Iraq, many manned by US troops. Soldiers stationed at these checkpoints were trained to deal with potential threats. A strict set of rules laid down a warning procedure called Escalation of Force (EOF), which all soldiers had to follow if they felt threatened.

Related article: One day in Iraq: 128 dead including three women and one child

According to an official manual issued by the U.S. military, an EOF begins with audible warnings such as horns and flash/bang devices, and visual aids such as lights and flares. If these fail, warning shots can be fired into the air or in the vicinity of the threat. The next step is to fire at the tyres and engine. As a last resort, soldiers are allowed to aim at the driver.

This procedure did not always work.

In one particularly tragic incident, it is reported that a U.S. Marine fired on a car that didn’t slow down. It was 3.30 in the afternoon, on June 14 2005 in Ramadi, a town to the west of Baghdad. The Marine had tried hand signals and waving, but still the car approached at high speed.

About 100 metres from the checkpoint, the Marine fired at the front grille of the car. The shots stopped the car but also killed seven people in the vehicle. Two were children.

The writer of the log seems to suggest the civilians involved were partly responsible for the deaths of the children, because they had placed them on the floor of the vehicle.

June 14 2005
At 1530D… a maroon 4-door Opel disregarded all hand and arm signals and continued at a high rate of speed… when the vehicle did not stop, the S. Bridge OP and 1/5 jump which was part of the cordon engaged the front grill of the vehicle at approximately 100 metres but the vehicle continued to approach at 40-45 MPH.  When the vehicle did not stop after all the warning shots the marines engaged the driver to stop the vehicle. The vehicle stopped directly in front of the orange cones. There were a total of 11X civilians in the vehicle. The engagement resulted in 7 X CIV killed (2 X were children) and 2 X CIV inj.  The large number of civilian KIA [Killed in Action] resulted from the family having placed their children on the floor boards of the vehicle.  The disabling shots aimed at the grill are believed to have travelled through the vehicle low to the floor boards causing the large number of KIA. No CF [Coalition Forces] INJ/damage.

In another incident, on December 11 2005, a three-year-old boy was killed. An elderly woman in the car was shot in the hand and fragments of glass had become lodged in her eyes. She refused treatment for her wounds, however, telling forces that she needed to bury the infant first.

The logs also contain details of the well-reported shooting of a vehicle carrying a rescued Italian journalist, Giuliana Sgrena. An Italian intelligence agent, Nicola Calipari was killed when U.S. forces initiated EOF procedures on the vehicle on March 2 2005.  Sgrena, along with another secret agent, Andrea Carpani, were wounded in the incident.

A new approach
Rising civilian deaths from EOF procedures meant that Iraqi citizens rapidly lost trust in the coalition forces. A U.S. Army-issued Traffic Control Operations Handbook of April 2006 identified the increasing discontent: “There is a perception that coalition forces (CF) engage in indiscriminate killing, which undermines information operations and public affairs campaigns.”

The handbook laid down a set of rules for EOF proceedings, in an attempt to reduce civilian casualties. In the handbook, Lieutenant General David Petraeus, who was later to take over as coalition Commander in Chief in Iraq, said: “In reference to conducting [Traffic Control Points] you must shape situations to minimise the tough calls, and train our leaders on how to react … this will reduce the number of Iraqi civilian injuries and deaths.”

Death rates dropped. But people were still killed. From May 2006 to the end of 2009, 320 further civilian deaths from EOF incidents were recorded in the Iraq war logs.

October 22nd, 2010 |  by Yuba Bessaoud

When the Iraq Study Group published its report on December 6 2006 – a month to the day after Donald Rumsfeld’s resignation – their opinion was clear from the first line:

“The situation in Iraq is grave and deteriorating.”

On the same day 123 secret logs, including reports of the murder of 128 civilians, were filed.*

From synchronised attacks on higher education ministers and officials, to a series of closely timed Improvised Explosive Device (IED) explosions in Sadr City, the following entries, revealed here for the first time, underline the routine violence that had become an everyday occurrence.

The first report of violence is logged before daybreak.

0450: Baghdad – Patrol finds a dead body with a “GSW” – gunshot wound.

0545: Kirkuk – Explosion reported at interpreter’s house.

0650: Baghdad – Civilian corpse found “handcuffed, blindfolded and shot in the        head”.

0700: Baghdad – Corpse found handcuffed, blindfolded and shot dead in Sadr City.

0750: Iskandariyah – “17-20-year-old” found shot in the head.

0800: Baghdad – Man found shot in head.

0806: Baghdad – “AIF” (Anti-Iraqi Forces) kill a man.

0825: Iskandariyah – IED ignites fire, kills one and wounds four Iraqis.

0825: Baghdad – University worker shot dead by AIF.

0830: Iskandariyah – IED explodes in garage killing four and injuring 12.

0830: Baghdad – Unknown corpse found.

0840: Baghdad – Two unknown corpses found shot in the head.

0900: Baghdad – Private security contractor is killed protecting the government’s minister for higher education (who is wounded).

0900: Baghdad –[in related attack] Higher education ministry driver is killed and ministry employee injured after attack by AIF.

0900: Baghdad – Man killed by AIF.

0910: Mosul – Male found with gunshot and axe wounds to the head.

0935: Baghdad – AIF kill Iraqi.

0945: Baghdad – Mahdi Army (JAM) suspected of killing of “high ranking” Ba’ath Party member.

0950: Mosul – AIF kill Iraqi male.

1010: Baghdad – Patrol finds four Iraqis – three murdered, one still alive. Wounded person is “medevaced” (medical evacuation).

1010: Baghdad – Two dead and two wounded people found after shooting.

1015: Baghdad – Corpse shot in the head.

1030: Khan Azad – AIF kill Iraqi.

1040: Al Musaiyib – Two people found shot in head.

1045: Baghdad – Corpse found.

1050: Baghdad – Mortar round kills eight Iraqis, injures 41 more.

1055: Baghdad – 30-40-year-old male found shot in head.

1100: Baghdad – AIF kill man.

1106: Baghdad – Man in mid–20s found dead.

1110: Baghdad – Unknown corpse found.

1100: Baghdad – Corpse found shot in head.

1120: Baghdad – Corpse found killed.

1130: Baghdad – 15 people killed and 25 injured in IED attack outside old Ministry of Defence building.

1145: Mosul – IED explodes killing one Iraqi.

1155: Baghdad – Two corpses found shot in head.

1155: Baghdad – Corpse found shot dead near power station.

1159: Baghdad (Sadr City) – IED kills three and wounds eight.

1200: Baghdad – AIF kill two Iraqis.

1206: Baghdad – Corpse found.

1215: Baghdad – AIF kill three Iraqi men.

1220: Baghdad – Two unknown corpses found.

1220: Baghdad (Sadr City) – IED kills one woman, injures 22.

1230: Baghdad – Two corpses found shot in head.

1240: Baghdad – Man in late-30s found shot in head.

1250: Baghdad – Bodies of two murdered Iraqi males found with gunshot wounds (GSW) to the head.

1300: Baghdad – Two corpses found.

1330: Baghdad – AIF kill Iraqi man.

1335: Baghdad – Unknown corpse found.

1335: Baghdad – Corpse found.

1355: Baghdad – Four bodies found.

1355: Baghdad – Two Iraqi males in their 30s found dead with their arms “zip tied behind their backs”.

1355: Baghdad – Two corpses found.

1400: Baghdad – University director assassinated.

1400: Baghdad – ( a second) University director killed.

1400: Basra – AIF attack British troops. One soldier and five civilians killed.

1400: Baghdad – Police report two bodies found.

1400: Mosul – AIF shoot and kill Iraqi man.

1406: Diyala Province – Two truck drivers found dead.

1411: Baghdad – Corpse found.

1416: Baghdad – Body found with “hands and feet bound”.

1436: Baghdad – “Christian” male in 40s found in truck with GSW to chest.

1458: Baghdad – 30-year-old male with GSWs to both eyes, broken teeth and crushed forehead found at “dump site”.

1500: Baghdad – Police report dead body.

1528: Baghdad – Two explosions after a gunfight kill one Iraqi and injure two more.

1530: Central Iraq – Checkpoint attacked by AIF killing eight civilians and wounding five. One policeman also killed.

1530: Baghdad – Body found with GSW to head.

1553: Baghdad – Corpse found.

1600: Baghdad – Body found near mosque.

1610: Baghdad – Corpse found.

1610: Baghdad – Corpse found shot in head.

1635: Baghdad – AIF disguised as police kill and rob Iraqi male at his house.

1635: Baghdad – Two males, 46 and 42 years old, found “shot in top of the head”.

1645: Baghdad – 35-year-old man found shot once to left wrist, five times to chest, once to the stomach and once to the head.

1651: Baghdad – 17-year-old female shot in “head and torso” found in “trash pile”.

1654: Baghdad – 50-year-old male found shot in head.

1701: Baghdad – 40-year-old male found shot twice to head and twice to body.

1720: Baghdad – Two bodies found with unknown causes of death.

1720: Baghdad – Two bodies found near primary school.

1730: Baghdad – Police find body in industrial zone.

1730: Baghdad – Unidentified corpse shot in head.

1735: Baghdad – Police report death of Iraqi male.

1735: Baghdad – AIF shoot man dead.

1800: Baghdad – Unknown male found shot in head.

1800: Baghdad – Police report body found.

1830: Baghdad – Mortar kills civilian.

1845: Baghdad – Man “assassinated”.

1900: Basra – Two Katyusha rockets hit two houses, killing a girl and wounding three others.

1900: Baghdad – Mortar kills civilian.

1940: Baghdad – Unknown corpse found shot in head.

1950: Baghdad – Unknown female found shot in head.

1950: Basra – AIF shoot and kill watchman at medical clinic.

2000: Baghdad – Iraqi working for US killed by gunmen at his home.

2200: MND (Multinational Division)-Central – AIF shoot possible former Ba’ath Party member.

2215: Baghdad – Corpse blindfolded, handcuffed and with signs of torture found shot in head.

2344: Ash Shamiyah – Shop owner and former Ba’ath Party member shot in head and chest.

*In the interests of security for the families of the individuals concerned – some of whom are named in the documents – no logs have been made available for this story.