Wikileaks releases what could be evidence of the murder of Reuters journalists as well as civilians in Iraq

WWW--This is a very big deal and gives some more context to possible harassment of Wikileaks by American military and/or intelligence personnel as well as of anyone trying to report the reality on the ground in American occupied Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't even know how to put this into words, but I do recall this incident from July 12th, 2007 where Iraqi Reuters journalists Namir Noor-Eldeen and Saeed Chmagh were killed by "friendly fire"...only now it appears that the fire was quite intentional and anything-but-friendly. There also seems to be an element of bloodlust and cowardice on the part of the crew of the Apaches. Did they know the two were journalists? This is unclear, but there is mention in the communications transcript from the copters that seems to connotate that they knew they were "civilians."Is this yet another "isolated" event?

Recall that in early April 2003, three Al-Jazeera journalists were killed by "friendly fire," and also calls to mind the "accidental" shooting of hostage and Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena who was fired on by American troops just outside of the Baghdad International Airport and nearly killed. One of her Italian intelligence agent rescuers--Nicola Calipari--died of his wounds. Sgrena worked for the Italian Communist paper, Il Manifesto. One might think you're life might be in danger as a correspondent if you're not towing the line for the Pentagon.

A separate site from the main Wikileaks home has been created for the release, possibly for security measures to prevent its hacking:

5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded. (www.collateralmurder.com/index)

The military has been mostly silent on how the event occurred and how the slain died, but ruled in an inquiry that the rules of engagement at that time were observed. The whole story underscores the weakness of the FOIA as well, but whatever works, it's out now. Reuters demanded an inquiry and action in the aftermath in 2007, just as they've had to in obtaining the release of other Iraqi Reuters employees/journalists, from Iraqi prisons, and got very little from the Pentagon--at least not copies. They were shown the materials off-the-record. Criminals don't tend to indict themselves, especially when they're the ones in power.

There's no indication from any source of any combat or exchanges of fire immediately before the Apache helicopter gunner opened-fire on civilians and the two journalists, killing as many as eleven. One individual was viewed brandishing an RPG (soviet-designed rocket propelled grenade), but was seen after the event began and shots had already been fired. Two U.S. Army Apache helicopters were involved the 2007 incident with some ground forces nearby. Footage from one helicopter has been leaked to Wikileaks by a military whistleblower(s) and the activist site itself claims to have conducted interviews with other journalists, military personnel and other witnesses at the scene, including consulting with Reuters over the basic facts and timeline.

...WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work. (ibid)

Wikileaks makes a fine point that occurred to me almost immediately: if we're seeing what we think we're seeing (and hearing), the event could even be part of a pattern of violence, harassment, and intimidation against members of the press in American war zones, especially considering that Reuters has had other incidents of harassment directed against their personnel in Iraq. A few of these journalists were arrested under flimsy pretenses and ferried off to the palatial Abu-Ghraib prison where God knows how they were treated. Now is a time of scoundrels. It hasn't ended with the national elections of 2008.

Wikileaks appears to have done their homework and have even included photographs, a timeline, documents, and even the transcript of the communications between the helicopters, also very telling when taken with the rules of engagement at the time and the 38 minute video. This exchange is most galling and not honorable behavior for soldiers of any army, of any nation:

...17:46 Well it's their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.

17:48 That's right. ...

18:29 I think they just drove over a body.

18:31 Hey hey!

18:32 Yeah!

18:37 Maybe it was just a visual illusion, but it looked like it.

18:41 Well, they're dead, so. ...

(http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html)

After these comments, there were more shots fired by the crew of the main Apache helicopter and a missile was fired into a building filled with armed civilians. There's no indication that any shots had been fired at the military personnel at any point in the roughly 38 minute event. It should be noted that many Iraqis carry AK-47s into dangerous areas, which one can assume, is when occupying troops and militias are present. Johnny got his gun, was instilled with fear and trained to kill, and imbued with a hair-trigger mentality. This isn't how soldiers are supposed to behave, not at all. Yet, the Pentagon says that this was part of the rules of engagement at the time. Are they sure they want to stand by that one?

Contrary to popular belief, life isn't a videogame.

"BREAKING NEWS-LEAKED VIDEO FOOTAGE EXPOSES PENTAGON MURDER COVER-UP," The Elf Wax Times, 04.05.2010: http://www.elfwax.com/news/breaking-news-video-footage-to-expose-pentagon-murder-cover-up/

Wikileak's page on the 2007 slaughter: http://collateralmurder.com/en/download.html

Tyler Bass's blog: http://spectaclemonopolized.blogspot.com/

NYTimes article on original Baghdad attack in July 12, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/13/world/middleeast/13iraq.html

"The war on Wikileaks and why it matters," Salon.com, 03.27.2010: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/27/wikileaks?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+salon%252Fgreenwald+%2528Glenn+Greenwald%2529

http://www.collateralmurder.com/en/transcript.html

"U.S. Bombing Raid Kills Three Journalists in Bagdad," Fox News.com, 04.08.2003: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,83503,00.html

On the "torture flap" and all the waffling in DC: Bust Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld, Rice, Miers, and the OLC attorneys

WWW--This is getting good. To say that I'm enjoying the shit storm created over the release of these torture memos, the narratives coming from former participants, and the formation of a coherent time line, would be an understatement. This could have a good effect on reining-in our intelligence community, and more. Reactionaries of every stripe are going to complain that this is "going to hamper the CIA, et. al.," which misses the point: actions defined as internationally illegal and barbaric behavior by them isn't necessarily going to make us any safer, quite the opposite.

But the the public has to be engaged in this, and so far, they are in a major way that's not showing any signs of cresting.

We could be seeing the radical reformulation of our foreign policy dialog inside and outside of the State Department and the executive branch. Why? Because the Bush II administration was so incompetent, so blustery in their criminality, that they didn't think that they had to cover their tracks much--not that they cared to most of the time, they thought the fix was on permanently. Who and what made them think that? Who gave them that blank check? Few buy the justifications these days. However, there still seems to be an increasingly isolated segment of the public that thinks George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, and the rest of the Bush II administration were somehow protecting us through methods that were proven useless in obtaining information centuries ago.

Torture doesn't work.

My advice to concerned members of the public who find the use of torture by our government unacceptable: sign any petition (once!), call your elected representatives, and make one hell of a lot of noise about your concern over this until we see some real action, some real justice. Until then, all bets are off, so keep hammering!

Why is the Obama administration waffling back-and-forth on this? Some of the torture memos came out because they knew a whistle-blower was going to leak them to the press and watchdog groups. Nonetheless, it was a brave move to release them in unredacted form, and I applaud it. But the Obama administration doesn't yet know what to do about it, and the reasons are simple and complicated: yes, they have qualms about how the Bush II administration implemented torture against individuals captured in the field (oftentimes just taken off of the streets of another nation), but I think they want to keep this gun in their pockets for a rainy day.

Does it matter? It might not. This whole scandal is broader than just one incident: it's an internationally sprawling and seemingly endless string of incidents that constituted official policy under Bush II, a secret one. Interestingly, the former president isn't taking any potshots at President Obama on torture...only the factions of Karl Rove and Richard Cheney are. This speaks volumes as to who was the genesis of the policy, it could be isolated primarily to the last vice president.

However, none of this matters. George W. Bush was our standing president, regardless of whether he abdicated his responsibilities to Vice President Cheney. For this reason, there must be accountability because we are a nation of laws and precedents. If the Bush II precedents stand on torture and numerous other matters, we're no longer a democracy. Motivation enough for you now?

One thing's certain: There's a war for the minds of Americans on this issue being fought by Rovian operatives within the mainstream media, and they and the Obama administration are losing control of the debate to the public. This can only be a good thing. The groundswell is here, now.

The Smoking Gun's Bill Bastone: "Bottom Feeder," according to late DC Madam

WWW--Below is an excerpt of correspondence between Jeane Palfrey and nefarious cop/prosecutor lover Bill Bastone, ostensible editor of The Smoking Gun. What a piece-of-shit he is: Palfrey's trial was almost a year away. The world first learned of this story from his website, and it wasn't on-accident.

Posting Palfrey's early-1990s mugshot mirrors the prosecution's strategy, and "bad-jacketed" the defendant as a felon.

It begs-the-question: how many times has Bastone engaged in this behavior before? Who is he? Really? What is he? What is the real role of The Smoking Gun site?

Someone within the government's investigation and prosecution provided him--illegally--with an unsigned search warrant (it's dated Oct. 4th, 2006, and still online), and more. In the opinion of this writer, at-minimum, Bill Bastone is that most despicable of so-called journalists--the "friendly asset." Guilty, or innocent, how can anyone have a fair trial under such circumstances?

What Bastone did was to taint virtually every potential jury member out there, by colluding with the prosecution--there is no other conclusion to be made from this. My take. Prove me wrong. What I do pledge is that I will be filing FOIAs on this matter until the end of my life. Bastone appears to have no concept of due process or the time honored American tradition that one is presumed innocent until found guilty in a fair trial. He ensured that this wasn't going to happen by his actions.

Mr. Bastone… I can assure you that sooner or later, I will get to the bottom of this mess. In particular, I am going to find out who leaked the unsigned search warrant to you, last October and who you really are and/or represent. –Jeane Palfrey

-----Original Message-----
From: william bastone [mailto:wbastone@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 9:29 AM
To: jeanepalfrey@sprynet.com
Subject: Re: D.C. Madam Can Peddle "Call" List - July 5, 2007

jeane:

let's see, you've turned women out for almost 20

years [Ed.--Told to you by whom?], which seems to make the "veteran pimp" moniker

pretty accurate. as for the bottom feeder crack, well, i'm not going to

challenge your particular ability to identify that

species.[Ed.--Correct, she knew scum when she saw it.]

finally, does this mean you won't be e-mailing us your phone logs? because i had cleared my calendar for the

rest of the month... [Ed.--Here, Bastone makes-it-plain which

camp he's in and that he's not interested in the phone logs, which is curious considering the nature of his site. Amazing.]

regards,bill bastone

--- Jeane Palfrey wrote:

>

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0705072palfrey1.html?link=rs

> sfeed

>

> Mr. Bastone... "the veteran pimp" - you continue to

> be nothing, but a bottom

> feeder. Jeane Palfrey

>

>

William Bastone

thesmokinggun.com

600 Third Avenue

16th Floor

New York, N.Y. 10016

(212) 692-7849

Palfrey Defense emails: Late-December, 2007

Ed.--These are more missives from the Palfrey defense, between Jeane, myself, and my co-researcher Monique Rawlings. I asked Palfrey whether certain things she conveyed to us could be published. Rawlings jumped on it--as she did on another occasion on another topic--for reasons I still don't entirely understand.

She was stating the obvious, and there was no "leak" by me. I had been looking for clarification only. In my opinion, Rawlings has an overstated sense of importance, like many I've encountered in this whole saga. In case you didn't notice, Palfrey was jumping from one theory to another as to the genesis of her case. She would shift-gears and go from theory-to-theory, which I assume was desperation on her part.

She fostered an atmosphere of paranoia and conspiricism, though the speculations were coming from numerous directions, myself included. Other than standardized-fonts and my added comments, these are unedited and pasted directly from the original e-mails. This is primary historical material, enjoy it if you can. I can't, but I did what I could to help. Looking back, it could never have been enough. Lost causes are for gentlemen.

From: Jeane Palfrey
To: Justice League
Cc: myboigie@earthlink.net; Montgomery Sibley
Sent: 12/28/2007 7:17:56 AM
Subject: RE: Anderson


Bil I just emailed my other contact and told him that he is the first outlet to have the Anderson tip; however, I informed him that I would be passing along the same information to another, on Friday. Please inform Jason of Andersons former patronage. The connection of Anderson, to the phone records is very simple  he is in them, complete with social security number. Remember, this is the Verizon Wireless list. The numbers here are all cell numbers. And lets face it. There would be no reason in the world why I would have the private cell number of a high-level Treasury Department official; especially, in my geographically disenfranchised existence in California, unless Anderson gave it to me in the course of my escort business dealings. He is a sure bet, as are the others. Bottom line - if my first guy doesnt do it, then Jason has a fantastic story, tomorrow (today). Jeane


Matt Anderson goes to the heart of the selective prosecution case; even more so than the average client. Incredibly, this man is part and parcel of the very institution, which has seized and frozen my lifes savings, for the past 15 months. More unbelievably, he is a very senior official, who acts in the capacity of Treasurys mouthpiece. He spins and justifies their junk on a daily basis. How absolutely mind-boggling it is for him to be found in the records. It is almost as delicious as Tobias and his ban regarding third world countries and prostitution. Consequently, it is imperative something like this gets a big boost at the onset. I cannot afford for it to get lost in cyberspace. [Ed.--I'm wondering how she felt any of this would do anything but taint a jury, but Anderson was a "false positive" that was subsequently dropped anyway, along with counsel at that time, Montgomery Blair Sibley.] -Jeane


-----Original Message-----
From: Justice League [mailto:spbiloxi00@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 9:47 PM
To: jeanepalfrey; Matt Janovic; Montgomery Sibley
Subject: Anderson

Jeane:

I tried to call Jason [Leopold] tonight. I left him a message on his voicemail. I just told him that I have a tip for him regarding your case. I told him that I will email him. I didn't leave the info on voicemail to him without talking to him live over the phone. I know he will ask the connection of Anderson to the phone records. I will dig into imfo om Anderson. Knowing Jason, he will email me or call me. This is good to tip Jason as well as your other source. [Ed.--...and would benefit yourself and Jason.] This will spread like wildflower. [Ed.--That would be "wildfire."]


Matt:


We are part of the legal team. So certain aspects of this case can't be leaked to blogsites first. Only the trustworthy media such as Truthout and others that Jeane and Blair wish to leak should get first dibbs. I was the first person that Jason had allowed to see his video interviews of Joe Wilson and four fired USAs before that was released.



Bil [Monique Rawlings]

Matt… just gotta love it! -Jeane PS if Bil’s suggestion that I was being used as the “fall gal” in the hope, Representative Slaughter’s persistent questioning would stop; thus driving attention away from the likely panorama of corruption the bad actors surely must have been trying to keep hidden – why then would they assume such a strategy would work? Unless of course, they thought I quickly would capitulate and not fight as I have. Nonetheless, I don’t understand why the ‘gift’ (Pamela Martin’s services) could be seen by Slaughter, as some sort of answer to her investigation into the shenanigans of K Street and the CIA and God only knows who else at this point. After all, I/we were not in cohots with Wilkes & Company. I was never part of any sort of influence peddling conspiracy. I absolutely had no knowledge whatsoever, of such happenings. And frankly, I suspect neither did any of the women in my employ. Was it perhaps proferred – by ??? - that I indeed was part of the conspiracy? -Jeane

-----Original Message-----
From: Matt Janovic [mailto:myboigie@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 1:13 PM
To: Jeane Palfrey
Cc: Justice League
Subject: From Verizon records, a DHS member...

Dear Jeane and Bil:

You're going to love this. I normally do just some random fishing and got a twinge to check the recently conveyed Verizon recs--found a man who's in DHS: Merrick Krause, looks like he's in "National Infrastructure Simulation and Analysis Center" (NISAC). Here's a link to a document, but there are a few things that come up on a google search. http://www.sandia.gov/nisac/docs/Portal_factsheet.pdf He's involved in infrastructure protection. He's a retired USAF Colonel.

kind regards, Matt Janovic

[Ed.--Also a false positive, but why did Verizon provide a list containing the "uninvolved"? What they gave the defense was a messy conglomeration of information that had to be sifted-through. We even found a war on terror internee. Did it fulfill the subpoena? It shouldn't have. We were given no substantial directions--just "find big names." I'd say this should lay to rest the notion that Palfrey consciously "had more names," but it won't.]