Doaa El-Bey assesses reaction to a puny Egyptian wage increase and Rasha Saad reviews the not so surprising WikiLeaks on Iraq Pundits did not see new information in the documents released by Wikileaks detailing crimes committed during the US occupation of Iraq. In the London-based daily Al-Hayat Jihad Al-Khazen questioned if we need 391,823 documents on the US war in Iraq "to know that the Bush administration has committed the worst war crimes in modern history since 1945." In 'And the killing is ongoing', Al-Khazen wrote that there was enough evidence to prosecute the Bush administration and its senior members for war crimes even before the WikiLeaks documents were published. "The Bush administration had planned for the invasion of Iraq before the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and these attacks then gave the US the excuse for the war. The administration then falsified premises for an invasion, with the result that out of the 3,000 Americans killed in New York, around 1.3 million Muslims were killed, and the killing is still ongoing," Al-Khazen wrote. Al-Khazen added that while terrorists "who claim to be Muslim" are killing other Muslims, "I hold the Bush administration responsible for this, because it spawned them thanks to its anti-Arab anti-Muslim policies, and then gave them momentum to thrive by continuing to pursue such policies." The additional information that these recently released documents imparted to my knowledge was that the crimes were committed deliberately, Al-Khazen maintains. Also in Al-Hayat, Elias Harfoush wrote that in terms of information, it is difficult to say that the WikiLeaks documents present us with new information that we did not know before about what took place and continues to take place in occupied Iraq, whether in terms of what was done by occupation troops themselves or by Iraqis who ruled the country under this occupation, and in cooperation with it. In 'Torture in Iraq! What's new?' Harfoush wrote that what is new today is that "we are talking about illegal behavior and crimes that were rumoured all these years, and which should have been revealed and investigated by Iraqi security bodies, which claim to have succeeded the Saddam Hussein regime in order to save Iraq from his regime's acts." Harfoush wrote that instead an independent media outlet was allowed to obtain these documents from American and British soldiers who were accidental witnesses, and perhaps also took part in these crimes committed by their comrades in the two armies. The Iraqi government did not consider the publication of these accusations, backed by documents, an opportunity to prosecute those accused of the crimes, whether they are occupation forces, before international courts, or Iraqi security personnel in Iraqi courts, if only to deflect criticism and shore up its image, Harfoush laments. Instead, Harfoush added, the prime minister, Nuri Al-Maliki, moved quickly to consider the release of the documents at this time 'a conspiracy' against him, to prevent him from returning to his post. "Iraq, then, before and after the occupation, remains the same. The only thing that has changed is that the identities of the killer and those killed have switched," Harfoush wrote. In the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat, Diana Mukkaled wrote that there can be no doubt that information is a source of strength and the cornerstone for all kinds of freedom. In 'WikiLeaks: Yes, we need information' she wrote that "perhaps this is what prompted the European Court for Human Rights to state that freedom of expression includes the freedom to reveal shocking and disturbing information." Pointing to ongoing campaigns to defame WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange and personally discredit him, Mukkaled warned that those disturbed by this information will continue their attempt to curb these leaks. Therefore, Mukkaled advised, we must ask ourselves if we should truly be concerned about the identity of Assange. Mukkaled noted that we should keep track of the ongoing controversy in the West today surrounding the enigmatic personality of Assange, "however, we should not allow this to take place at the expense of the atrocities disclosed by WikiLeaks, which morally compel us to call the people responsible for this to account." "Now that we have this information, it would be completely reprehensible not to bring those responsible for such crimes to justice," Mukkaled explains. Also in Asharq Al-Awsat, Abdel-Rahman Al-Rashed wrote the article, 'Did WikiLeaks target Al-Maliki?' saying Al-Maliki did not brand the classified US military documents recently leaked by WikiLeaks as being pure lies and fabrications. Rather, Al-Rashed wrote, Al-Maliki said that he considered the disclosure of this information -- and its timing -- to be part of an attempt to prevent him remaining as prime minister. "Anybody scrolling down the index of these documents on the WikiLeaks website can clearly see that there is little mention of Al-Maliki, and that other parties such as the Pentagon, Iran, and Syria have much more to lose," Al-Rashed wrote. Al-Maliki's belief that he is the target of the leaked military documents is just an illusion, Al-Rashed maintains. Al-Rashed wrote that what these documents reveal is extremely alarming and horrific by any standard. "If it is true that the Iraqi prime minister once established militias in order to carry out sectarian killings, or had knowledge of their existence, or influence over them, then this is very disturbing news," Al-Rashed wrote. Many, Al-Rashed wrote, have accepted the idea that Saddam Hussein was overthrown not because he possessed weapons of mass destruction, but rather because he was a bloodthirsty dictator. "I think Al-Maliki needs to clarify this issue, rather than levelling accusations at others, and ignoring what these documents revealed," Al-Rashed maintains.
