Wikileaks have made available the Afghan War Diary, a collection of over 75000 secret US military reports that cover the war in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010.
Most notably, the large number of civilian deaths - usually covered up or mis-described as 'insurgent' deaths is revealed: "This archive shows the vast range of small tragedies that are almost never reported by the press but which account for the overwhelming majority of deaths and injuries."
For the background to this video see Collateral Murder and Wikileaks. The full uncut video is available here.
Faisal al-Saadoon and Khalef Hussain Mufdhi, accused of murdering two soldiers, left at risk of unfair trial and execution in Iraq, European court finds
- guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 2 March 2010 18.15 GMT
- Article history
The UK government was today condemned for violating the human rights of two Iraqis accused of murdering two captive British soldiers in 2003.
Faisal al-Saadoon and Khalef Hussain Mufdhi, Sunni Muslims and former officials of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, have been detained for almost seven years. They are currently being held in the Rusafa prison near Baghdad.
The European court of human rights in Strasbourg unanimously found the pair were "at real risk of being subjected to an unfair trial followed by execution by hanging" in Iraq.
The finding reversed a decision made at the UK's highest court.
Saadoon and Mufdhi are accused of two of the most brutal killings of British personnel during the war.
On 23 March 2003, Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth and Sapper Luke Allsopp, both bomb disposal experts, were dragged from their vehicles during an ambush within days of the US-led invasion of Iraq.
They were taken to an intelligence base, shot and filmed as they lay dying surrounded by a baying mob. Their bodies were found in shallow graves a month later.
Saadoon, 57, and 59-year-old Mufdhi have been waging a long-running legal battle, arguing that the British army had been wrong to hand them over to the Iraqi authorities for trial in December 2008.
They claim the transfer put them at real risk of torture and death by hanging after the Iraqi national assembly reintroduced the death penalty in 2004.
The two were tried by an Iraqi court in 2009 and cleared of the charges, but remain in custody pending an appeal by the prosecutor.
The European court of human rights ruled that Saadoon and Mufdhi had been "subjected to mental suffering caused by the fear of execution amounting to inhuman treatment" and awarded them €40,000 (£36,330) jointly in costs.
The judgment said: "For the court, compliance with their obligations under article three of the convention [which prohibits torture and "inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment"] requires the government to seek to put an end to the applicants' suffering as soon as possible, by taking all possible steps to obtain an assurance from the Iraqi authorities that they will not be subjected to the death penalty."
Following the judgement, Tessa Gregory, of Public Interest Lawyers, which represented Saadoon and Mufdhi, said: "We call upon the UK government, in light of the severe criticisms made by the European court, to now do everything within its power to protect our clients from the death penalty and to seek their release so that they can, at long last, be reunited with their families.
"This case has been pursued for political purposes, and it is now time for the government to act."
The armed forces minister, Bill Rammell, said: "We are carefully considering the court's verdict.
"On 31 December 2008, we transferred to the Iraqi authorities, to face trial for war crimes, two Iraqis suspected of involvement in the murder of two British soldiers.
"At this point, we had no legal power to detain the suspects, and the court of appeal had unanimously ruled that they did not fall within the jurisdiction of the European convention on human rights.
"We transferred them having received credible assurances from the Iraqi government that they would be treated humanely in custody and we know that this has been the case.
"We have acted throughout in the interests of justice and in the interests of the families of the two murdered soldiers. We should all welcome the due legal process that is now being followed."
Justice department finds John Yoo and Jay Bybee guilty of poor judgment but not professional misconduct
- guardian.co.uk, Saturday 20 February 2010
- Article history
Detainees in a holding area at Guantanamo Bay. Photograph: Shane T McCoy/AFP/Getty Images
An inquiry by the US justice department last night reprimanded two senior Bush era lawyers who approved the use of torture at Guantánamo Bay. The department found the two lawyers, John Yoo and Jay Bybee, guilty of poor judgment but not professional misconduct.
The lawyers wrote controversial memorandums dating from 2002 after the 9/11 attacks that provided legal cover for the CIA to use torture and other harsh interrogation techniques. The conclusion of the report, which marks a significant softening of the original draft, will disappoint human rights organisations. Publication of the report has been delayed for months amid fierce internal debate. If the two had been found guilty of professional misconduct, it would have had consequences for their immediate careers and opened the way for legal challenges.
The techniques approved by the lawyers included waterboarding, which Barack Obama has described as torture but the former vice-president, Dick Cheney, insisted was not. Detainees accused of the 9/11 attacks such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were repeatedly subjected to waterboarding. Harsh techniques were used against others picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan and taken to Guantánamo.
The assistant attorney-general, Ronald Weich, found the two lawyers "exercised poor judgment in connection with the drafting of the pertinent memoranda". No disciplinary action is to be taken.
Weich said poor judgment "differs from professional misconduct in that an attorney may act inappropriately and thus exhibit poor judgment even though he or she may not have violated or acted in reckless disregard of a clear obligation or standard". Yoo is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Bybee is a federal appeals court judge.
The Obama administration is reluctant to reopen the row over waterboarding and Obama last year ruled against prosecution of CIA agents involved in torture techniques. He said it was a "time for reflection, not retribution".Other techniques that were approved included walling (in which the suspect could be pushed into a wall), wall standing, and sleep deprivation.
Lord Neuberger's excised observations have compelling public interest, court of appeal told
- guardian.co.uk, Saturday 13 February 2010
- Article history
Lawyers representing Binyam Mohamed, the civil rights groups Liberty, Justice, and Index on Censorship, and media organisations including the Guardian, the Times and the BBC, urged the court of appeal today to publish a key passage in its draft ruling that evidence of MI5 complicity in the mistreatment of the British resident must be released.
A paragraph drawn up Lord Neuberger, master of the rolls, was suppressed following the intervention of the government's lawyer, Jonathan Sumption QC.
In a letter sent to Neuberger without the knowledge of defence lawyers, Sumption said the paragraph suggested that MI5 officers "deliberately misled" parliament's intelligence and security committee, shared a "culture of suppression" and "does not in fact operate a culture that respects human rights".
In what Neuberger admits was an "over-hasty" response he excised the offending paragraph without giving lawyers representing other parties in the case the opportunity to respond to Sumption's objections.
The submissions sent to the appeal court today are confidential but human rights and media groups say the evidence reflects the criticisms Sumption complains about.
There is a compelling public interest in the full judgment observations being restored, they have argued, and the government has no right to suppress judicial criticism of MI5 officers.
If ministers were allowed to do so, the reputation of the judiciary would be harmed.
Richard Stein of the law firm Leigh Day, which represents Mohamed, said: "The whole case has been about who writes the judgments – judges or the government.The government seeking to influence a draft judgment is a very worrying development." Reprieve, the legal charity which represented Mohamed in the US courts while he was detained in Guantanamo, said: "If the government really wants to clear up the confusion over MI5's conduct in this case, they must release the policy that was in place at the time. Releasing a new, cleaned-up version will not reassure anyone about these persistent and damaging allegations."
Its executive director, Clare Agar, said: "It is offensive to suggest that by fighting torture through the British legal system, Reprieve and others are giving succour to our enemies."
Media groups, including the Guardian, were today given leave to appeal against a high court ruling obtained by the government, that evidence in a civil suit for compensation brought by British citizens and residents must not be revealed to them or their lawyers.
Richard Norton-Taylor
