Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Chelsea Manning

I guess most of this article was very old and not updated since, but I found it odd that there was no mention at all of the source of the leaked cables, which is of course well known by now. Could maybe use a bit more in the body of the article on Chelsea (nee Bradley) Manning and the trial and consequences of her leak. Acerimusdux (talk) 17:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Iraqi government reopened investigation as a result of the publication of cable

Any thoughts on the following text which was recently removed. It comes from a Washington Post report:

One of the leaked documents included comments sent to the US State Department by Philip Alston, United Nations special rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions regarding the Ishaqi incident. Alston stated that US forces handcuffed and executed the residents of a house on 15 March 2006. The residents included five children under 5 years of age. Autopsies later confirmed that "all the corpses were shot in the head and handcuffed". In September 2011, the Iraqi government reopened their investigation into the incident as a result of the publication of the cable.

The reason for removal consists mostly of a meaningless alphabet of letters. My view is that the text is a fair summary of the WP article and is clearly a significant episode. The release of the cable had real-world consequences as detailed in the text. Burrobert (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The reopened investigations by Iraq and the US resulted in no new findings and the whole matter produced nothing positive, while compromizing US intelligence sources and methods. Kind of a debacle. I urge you to study WP policies and guidelines so that you can understand the coded capital letter links to the reasons for the deletion. Nobody else is going to tutor you when you can read them for yourself. SPECIFICO talk 03:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

• The release of a cable related to the murder of 11 people, including five children and four women "... produced nothing positive, while compromizing US intelligence sources and methods. Kind of a debacle". Do you have a source for this barbarism? Btw, if what you say is true, it makes the release of the cable even more noteworthy.
• Any idiot can throw letters around without explaining why they are relevant. Try to construct a logical argument instead of taking lazy shortcuts.

Burrobert (talk) 14:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Did the US actually find nothing different? According to their first report a load of people died due to the building collapsing under fire. And yet the autopsy found they were all handcuffed and shot in the head. Am I actually reading this right? Well if we're supposed to show the major points of view I guess it would be right to say what the US said as well but it would look really stupid alongside the autopsy reports. I do think though it should state the results of the investigations or leave the last statement out.

Fully agree about the alphabet soup. NadVolum (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The text that was removed was a fair summary of the WashingPost article. If there were further developments after Iraq reopened its enquiry, including the claim above that it "resulted in no new findings", then these can also be added with an appropriate reference. Our article on the Ishaqi incident does not provide the findings of the Iraqi investigation. Burrobert (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

After writing the above, I came upon this article in which John Shipton is being interviewed. The article says

"[Shipton] spoke of one release in the Diplomatic Cables, in which a U.S. military unit entered a house in Iraq and massacred the entire family inside. A cable describes how the soldiers, realizing they had committed a crime, called in an airstrike to entirely destroy the house and all the evidence inside. That incident led the Iraqi Parliament to not support the renewal of the government’s status of forces agreement with the U.S. "A revelation stopped a war" , Shipton said".

The article is saying that the release of the cable led to the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Let's see if we can find more information about this. Burrobert (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Consortium is not RS. SPECIFICO talk 08:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"Let's see if we can find more information about this". Burrobert (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are some points that have a bearing on our discussion. In summary, the US pulled its troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011 after the Iraqi government refused to give them legal immunity from prosecution. Some reports suggest that the release of the cable by Wikileaks in late August 2011 influenced the decision of the Iraqi government. I am not satisfied that the sources below provide a strong enough connection between the release of the cable and the stance of the Iraq government but will continue looking. If anyone has access to the Foreign Policy article below, I would be interested in knowing whether it says anything of relevance.

• The Bush regime signed an agreement with the Iraq government under which US troops were to be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of 2011. The agreement was ratified by the Iraqi Parliament prior to Obama's inauguration.
• Foreign Policy reported that “several parts of the administration appeared to try hard to negotiate a deal for thousands of troops to remain”.
• Salon reported that “the Obama administration has been working for months to persuade, pressure and cajole Iraq to allow U.S. troops to remain in that country beyond the deadline”.
• Salon reported that “The only reason [the US did not keep troops in Iraq after 2011] is because the Iraqi Government refused to agree that U.S. soldiers would be immunized if they commit serious crimes, such as gunning down Iraqis without cause”. This is because “the U.S. is not and must never be subject to the rule of law when operating on foreign soil”.
• WaPo reported that US troops were withdrawn because the US and Iraq “failed to reach agreement on the legal status of U.S. troops who would stay in Iraq beyond Dec. 31 … The negotiations foundered over the U.S. demand that American troops receive legal immunity for their actions, a request Maliki was ultimately unable to sell to the anti-U.S. elements of his governing coalition after a war that many Iraqis believe has permanently altered their country for the worse”.
• NBC reported that “Iraq's prime minister said Saturday that U.S. troops are leaving Iraq after nearly nine years of war because Baghdad rejected American demands that any U.S. military forces to stay would have to be shielded from prosecution or lawsuits”.
• CBS reported that “The new report [i.e. the Wikileaks cable] about this crime will have its impact on signing any new agreement," said Sunni lawmaker Aliya Nusayif. She said Iraq's parliament will investigate the new details about the raid and seek to prosecute any U.S. soldiers who commit future crimes in Iraq. Whether U.S. forces in Iraq will continue to have legal immunity from prosecution if they stay is one of the major stumbling blocks in the ongoing negotiations, as Washington will not allow the military to remain without it”.
• Salon reported that “Beyond the primary question about what happened that day and whether it was an unjustified massacre or a case of collateral damage, the incident has political ramifications. As the AP reported Friday, Iraqi politicians said this week the incident could have an impact on any agreement to allow U.S. forces to stay in the country beyond Dec. 31”.

Burrobert (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you trying to stick all that in somehow? Or could you summarize please what you think is true and relevant and might have weight for the article and has some reasonable source, but is missing because you haven't been able to find a good enough reliable source? I'd really like to just concentrate on three points at a very maximum thanks preferably one, more and it'll start rambling with no definite result one way or the other. NadVolum (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I've added a bit about what the US said happened, and the consequences for relations between the countries because of the cable. NadVolum (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Cryptome publication of unredacted cables

I put

Cryptome has never been asked by US law enforcement to remove the unredacted cables and they remain online.

in the article and @SPECIFICO: removed it with "need independent RS to state this as fact. UNDUE PRIMARY SYNTH". I pointed out that it was stated by the Guardian in their own voice and was based on a sworn statement by the owner of Cryptome. It comes from a report of the extradition of Julian Assange. As far as I'm aware the Guardian is a reliable source and is used as a secondary source in this context. As to UNDUE and SYNTH no evidence is supplied for them either. NadVolum (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

So no actual contention, just alphabet soup. I'll just put it back. NadVolum (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"The source in invalid"? 💩 Burrobert (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian? And it says it in its own voice "US authorities have never asked a WikiLeaks rival to take down unredacted cables that have been among those at the centre of the legal battle to send Julian Assange to the US, his extradition hearing has been told." Not that a witness said or anything like that and they're careful about such things. It was in a sworn statemment and nobody denies it. Not that it is news, it has been known for years and the US has never said otherwise and they had another opportunity to do so at the extradition hearing. NadVolum (talk) 23:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Not that it is the same as the other objections they raised which they also never justified. NadVolum (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The "have been told" is why you cannot state this as fact in wiki-voice. You need to stop edit-warring and remove it while you seek consensus by engaging in all due channels here on talk. SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Well WP:NPOV says 'Avoid stating facts as opinions' and this is a staraightforward uncontested fact in the real world and in particular by the US. So I will raise this at WP:NPOVN#Is proposed addition an opinion or a fact and lets see if your objection holds up. NadVolum (talk) 00:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Good. Meanwhile, it needs to be removed or fully attributed to the involved party. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks like they agree with you so I'l stick in an attribution. Seemingly practically everything about a case needs an attribution according to them. NadVolum (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

It is still dubious DUE WEIGHT. Best practice would be to keep it out until you can find consensus that his testimony in Assanges case matters to this page. SPECIFICO talk 03:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the "United States diplomatic cables leak" page. Cryptome's statement is relevant to this page. Burrobert (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with @NadVolum:. The information given by the Guardian is completely relevant.Jmouritz127 (talk) 14:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Amazing they think it is worthwhile adding that the statement was introduced by Assange's lawyer which has practically zero relation to the topic, but don't think the whole business is worth putting in! NadVolum (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

So you would favor removing the whole Cryptome bit, as I initially raised? SPECIFICO talk 18:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

How you come to that conclusion I don't know. I said nothing of the sort. I try to be clear about things but I guess tomato tomahto. NadVolum (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@NadVolum:, that editor seems to have a problematic editing approach, with which she used aggression and intimidation to negate others' contributions. I had an issue with her edits on another page where I suspect she has a conflict of interest (see her Talk page)Jmouritz127 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry you've had an unpleasant experience, I'd have hoped the pages you edit would have been quite good that way. However it's best to leave comments about others behaviour on their user talk page or to one of the WP:dispute resolution pages thanks. NadVolum (talk) 12:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

References