Wikileaks Afghanistan War Logs

Politics International Politics
41

Likely one more thing: inadvertently bolstered the argument that it’s necessary to keep so much information locked down. It’s not. But by spilling potentially dangerous details… :doh:

(If you buy the conspiracy theory that the CIA has been feeding Wikileaks, how’s that for a reason?)

I expect he’d say that, on balance, being in country for the long term is going to result in far, far more deaths than will his release of information, to no good end. I suspect that’s correct. But it certainly doesn’t absolve him of responsibility.

42

And perhaps he will save the lives of Afghan civilians who would otherwise have been killed by U.S. forces.

I notice how easily you assume that everyone is, or ought to be, on the same side of this conflict. When some people say “our” soldiers, they mean the Taliban.

As for charges of treason, Australia (whose nationality Assange holds) is not at war, though its forces do participate in the ISAF. For that matter, the U.S. has troops in hundreds of countries. Is it therefore the duty of every American–or every citizen of a NATO power–to support whatever government the U.S. happens to be propping up?

I suppose you must regard the Iranian students who took over the U.S. embassy during the Islamic Revolution as traitors, for opposing the U.S.-backed government of the Shah.

43

It turns out there doesn’t seem to be much to that. Of course I have no way of knowing whether the CIA has ever been involved with WikiLeaks, but as far as I can tell, that idea mainly comes from John Young, who was once affiliated with WikiLeaks. Here’s one statement that’s attributed to Mr. Young–from a Guardian piece in the Taipei Times back in April:

[quote]The organizers approached John Young, who ran another Web site that posted leaked documents, Cryptome, and asked him to register the ­WikiLeaks Web site in his name. Young obliged and was initially an enthusiastic supporter, but when the organizers announced their intention to try and raise US$5 million, he questioned their motives, saying that kind of money could only come from the CIA or George Soros. Then he walked away.[/quote] taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003470341

Here’s a recent quote from him on CNN’s website:

[quote]“They revealed that they were continuing to raise $5 million in the first year, and I had a problem with that scale of money raising,” Young said. “So I criticized it … the only way you could raise that kind of money that fast would be for some corrupt source of money or some government agency. So they booted me off the list.”[/quote] edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/web/07 … HDuZpQlI8t

But for me, I confess it was just wishful thinking. I was kinda hoping the CIA would wind up getting busted, but at least as to this affair, I doubt that’s gonna happen. Anyway, that’s not a very cool way to think, but I do it sometimes.

44

"The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and the means can never be considered in isolation form their purposes. "

45

[quote=“CBS”]In what appears to be an attempt to build a criminal case against Julian Assange, the head of WikiLeaks, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called the director of the FBI to ask the bureau to join the investigation.

“The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners,” Gates told reporters.
…
“Will people whose lives are on the line trust us to keep their identity secret?” Gates asked. [/quote]Wikileaks twitted… “Gates, who killed thousands in Iraq, Afg and Iran-Contra says we might have ‘blood on our hands’.”

The legal question in the US at least, may put Wilileaks legally protected. Maybe war power will step in though.[quote=“Bloomberg”]The First Amendment’s free-press protection shields those who merely publish classified documents that others take.

The need for that protection should be obvious.

“Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government,” the Supreme Court said in 1971 in the Pentagon Papers case.

Prosecutors charged the leaker, military analyst Daniel Ellsberg, but had to drop the case because of government misconduct, like breaking into Ellsberg’s psychiatrist’s office. And the New York Times was free to publish the 7,000-page internal history of the Vietnam War, revealing that president after president had lied about what the U.S. was doing in the region and the chances for success.

It helped turn the tide of public opinion.[/quote]Interestingly, Assange has come out to say that through the NY Times, they specifically requested the White House for help protecting innocents and informants in the leaks:[quote]starting at around min. 5:40:
“We contacted the White House, as a group, before we released this material, and asked them to help assist in going through it, to make sure no innocent names came out. The White House did not accept that request.
…
Of course, we did not offer them a chance to veto any material, but rather that we told them we were going through a harm minimization process, and offered them the chance to point out names of informants or other innocents who might be harmed. And they did not respond to that request, which was mediated through the New York Times who was acting as a contact for the four media groups involved in this.”[/quote]Any chance New York Times will deny this, or that they didn’t legally protect themselves?

Assange remarks that many reports are “deeply troubling”… in one instance of armed escalation, 181 enemy killed, zero detained…

[color=#FF0040]NUTS.[/color]

So I checked into it… and this MAY be the one he refers to:
Sept 9th, 2006… “friendly action”… involves Canadian forces near Kandahar, Camp Wilson, Camp Nathan Smith, Operation Medusa.

FriendlyWIA 1
FriendlyKIA 1 (Canadian Mark Graham by friendly fire?)
HostNationWIA 3
HostNationKIA 4
EnemyWIA 1
EnemyKIA 181 (all of them ‘enemy’, despite scarce media coverage)
Detained 0 *from ReportKey 30CD484A-A700-4B04-9557-9036079BD836

cbc.ca/news/background/afgha … eline.html
CBC.ca has no Afghanistan war entry for Sept 9, 2006, or Sept 10. BUT: on 9/11/2006: Prime Minister Stephen Harper reassured Canadian public that their military participation in Afghanistan was necessary to make the world safer and help eliminate the terror behind the Sept. 11 attacks.


wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/sort/ … _09_6.html

46

Can you give a Cliff’s notes version of why this video is so compelling? I lost interest in listening to to this soldier’s story after he complained about having to drink hot water. What was he expecting about life as a soldier in a war zone: pink champagne on ice?

Also, you should find this interesting.
slog.thestranger.com/slog/archiv … ks-founder

[quote]WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is annoyed at 9/11 Truthers for distracting from the real conspiracies:

“Any time people with power plan in secret, they are conducting a conspiracy. So there are conspiracies everywhere. There are also crazed conspiracy theories. It’s important not to confuse these two. Generally, when there’s enough facts about a conspiracy we simply call this news.” What about 9/11? "I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."[/quote]

47

[quote=“Chewycorns”]Assange should be charged with high treason and hanged. In my opinion, these documents were leaked for the same reason that Fuch or Rosenberg type of traitors leaked atomic secrets to Stalin. They thought that the playing field between the US and terrorist countries should be made equal. And for that, I hope Assange meets the same fate as the Rosenbergs. :laughing: :laughing:

The sanctimony emanating from Assange is bloody appalling. In his ideal warped world, the true heroes aren’t the Western soldiers who sacrifice for the rights of women and the rights of locals to vote, but the “journalists” who expose all sorts of things. I’ll bet this cheesedick cornpone Queenslander entered his hermaphroditic teenage years by watching “The Pelican Brief” and “Erin Brockovich” over and over again alone. :laughing: :smiley:

Here is a person that attended the Oslo Freedom Forum in April 2010 and compared Auschwitz and Guantanamo Bay. :thumbsdown:

I wonder why so many Che-loving, beret-wearing, liberal arts studying spoiled kids have to go after the US? Why don’t they go after really closed societies? Ah, it might actually mean leaving the suburban bubble where mummsies and popsies can’t take care of them. Ain’t gonna happen, is it? :smiley: Jay Nordlinger summed it up quite well in National Review

Fact is, were the people he’s aiding actually win, he’d be the first one lined up against the wall. :smiley:[/quote]

48

[quote=“Mick”]WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants

[quote] in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.

One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.[/quote]

I’m all for certain levels of accountability and transparency, but releasing the names of hundreds of informants, what was he thinking? Perhaps being charged with treason is not off the cards.[/quote]

That’s depressing. Assange is now aiding and abetting the Taliban. I wonder how he feels about that?

49

This is interesting: Acoording to some wikileaks documents the Canadian government covered up a freindly fire incident.
montrealgazette.com/news/Wik … story.html

[quote]OTTAWA — The dramatic WikiLeaks report contains details of what appears to be a previously unknown “friendly fire” incident in Afghanistan in which it says four Canadians were killed and seven were injured.

The incident may have occurred the same day, Sept. 3, 2006, as four Canadians were officially reported killed by Taliban insurgents — not by their own side in the conflict.r[/quote]

It hurts when Canadian officials lie.

50

[quote=“Chuanzao El Ale Destroyer”]Can you give a Cliff’s notes version of why this video is so compelling?[/quote][quote]I suspect, like how the Iraq collateral murder video indirectly prompted the former Army Ranger who pulled the children victims out of the shot-up van to now share his story, these leaked ‘war logs’ will eventually add to the haunting of other soldiers to share and speak out against the war as well.
…
If anyone hasn’t seen the ex-Ranger’s story: Innocence Lost: Ethan McCord recounts aftermath of Collateral Murder event[/quote]Cliff notes. Ranger first on the scene of collateral murder massacre, helps children out of the van, tries to cope with what he witnessed, now speaks out against the war. IMO the collateral damage noteriety may have in some way helped him come out. [quote=“Chuanzao El Ale Destroyer”]Also, you should find this interesting.
slog.thestranger.com/slog/archiv … ks-founder[/quote]Its fine with me, for in part I agree there are lots of ‘distractions of false conspiracies’ like perhaps no plane in towers, space beams, aliens, lizardmen, etc. which are frankly IMO far removed from legitimate concerns that contradict and condemn the ‘official account’.

[quote=“Chuanzao El Ale Destroyer”]That’s depressing. Assange is now aiding and abetting the Taliban. I wonder how he feels about that?[/quote]Answer?[quote]Interestingly, Assange has come out to say that through the NY Times, they specifically requested the White House for help protecting innocents and informants in the leaks:[quote]starting at around min. 5:40:
“We contacted the White House, as a group, before we released this material, and asked them to help assist in going through it, to make sure no innocent names came out. The White House did not accept that request.
…
Of course, we did not offer them a chance to veto any material, but rather that we told them we were going through a harm minimization process, and offered them the chance to point out names of informants or other innocents who might be harmed. And they did not respond to that request, which was mediated through the New York Times who was acting as a contact for the four media groups involved in this.”[/quote]Any chance New York Times will deny this, or that they didn’t legally protect themselves? [/quote]

51

But why is Assange doing it? Perhaps because he believes we all need to know the truth about the war, and that the forces involved -or rather, their leaders and political connections - don’t want us to know.

I think his actions are more honorable than otherwise. But that is not to say that he is perfect or that there is no collateral damage.

Question: Should journalists - including the wikileaks variety - be held to a higher standard of moral responsibility than soldiers?
A soldier may accidentally kill a civilian or a fellow soldier while “fighting the good fight”. But must we, as Chewy suggests, denounce and hang a truth-shooter for his inadvertent casualties?

52

[quote=“BigJohn”]
Question: Should journalists - including the wikileaks variety - be held to a higher standard of moral responsibility than soldiers?
A soldier may accidentally kill a civilian or a fellow soldier while “fighting the good fight”. But must we, as Chewy suggests, denounce and hang a truth-shooter for his inadvertent casualties?[/quote] Two significant differences: journalists have a great deal more time for reflection, and thus less excuse for errors; soldiers are at the sharp end of events, and their errors are a whole lot more likely to result in blood being spilt, so they’ve more reason to ensure that they get it right. Have fun sorting that.

Chewycorns call is hyperhyperbole, imo.

53

(in honor of Kissinger)
[/i] murdered as a result of invasion, nah, rather a leak about them afterward of course. But in a better response to rants of “irresponsibility” and “idiocy”, Fox News (whom I’m a BIG fan of :loco: ), being pro-Obama and all, picked up on Wikileaks saying that the New York Times directly requested help from the White House to protect innocents/informants’ names prior to release… and got no help. (source) With all so much of our tax dollars to use, we expected the DoD to respond, CYA style: [quote=“defense.gov”]“We never had the opportunity to look at any of the documents in advance to determine anything,” Lapan said. “The documents were brought to the attention of the White House, but no copies of documents, or opportunities to review were given.”

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said yesterday that Defense Department officials have asked the FBI to assist in investigating the leak of the classified material. Navy Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said those responsible for the leak may have the blood of U.S. servicemembers and Afghan civilians on their hands.[/quote]DoD target of blame for potential snitches being outed shifts from Wikileaks to White House to an anonymous leaker? Still leaves a massive pool of possible claims of human rights abuses and/or war crimes which the DoD will have a much harder time blaming elsewhere.

So could this White House blame-shift help mid-term elections? Of course! Who for even a second thinks RovePAC won’t ride this in every mid-term race he can (fyi Nov 2 will vote in 37/100 Senators, 434/435 Representatives). Get ready to welcome back a republican congress. Now there’s a new reason to be mad about the leak: how it will be leveraged for a neo-con advantage.

54

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … mants.html

[quote]Wikileaks Afghanistan: Taliban ‘hunting down informants’
The Taliban has issued a warning to Afghans whose names might appear on the leaked Afghanistan war logs as informers for the Nato-led coalition.

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said they were studying and investigating the report, adding “If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.”
The warning came as the US military’s top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen said that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, may already have blood on his hands following the leak of 92,000 classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan by his website.

“Mr Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family,” he said.
Information from the documents could reveal:
Names and addresses of Afghans cooperating with Nato forces
Precise GPS locations of Afghans[/quote]

Sad. Mr. Assange is aiding and abetting the murder of innocent Afghans who don’t want to live under Taliban rule.
I wonder if this will happen to any of the daughters of those revealed on Wikileaks to be cooperating with NATO forces.

Probably worse. Raping, stoning, public executions, torture. I’m not a fan of US Imperialism but I’ll choose it over life under the Taliban. So will Afghans. This is what people like J. Scholl simply don’t understand.

55

[quote=“Chuanzao El Ale Destroyer”]I wonder if this will happen to any of the daughters of those revealed on Wikileaks to be cooperating with NATO forces…Raping, stoning, public executions, torture. I’m not a fan of US Imperialism but I’ll choose it over life under the Taliban. So will Afghans. This is what people like J. Scholl simply don’t understand.[/quote]Interesting twist, that this might happen because information was leaked… never mind the leak occurred after the White House reportedly chose not to help censor informants names. But I do understand that reports say this girl was brutally punished for trying to escape abusive in-laws, and the brother-in-law did this to her ears and nose… Not for being a snitch, but for rejecting abuse.

Chuanzao - I do admit not understanding this… and maybe you’ll be kind enough to help. How does this graphic representation of cultural abuse in Afghanistan legally or even politically effect the original premise of our invasion and occupation?

Outing informants certainly can’t be a good way to secure a successful police state. Don’t get me wrong, if we were to turn the table, I’m sure there would be many less-than healthy civil debates in our townhalls back home if some of our neighbors were taking money to snitch out enemies of the brutal foreign invaders who keep saying they’re “bringing us freedom from terror”. Let’s admit the snitches wouldn’t exactly be praised and thanked.

The whole idea of connecting this tragic abuse to justifying continued war? Get real. [color=#0040FF]“Let’s clarify something right off the top when it comes to this cover: Aisha, the poor woman depicted in the photograph, was attacked last year, with tens of thousands of U.S. troops tramping all over the country at the time. This isn’t the picture of some as-yet-unrealized nightmarish future for Afghan women. It’s the picture of the present.
…
This is something that folks who put together TIME’s cover better understand right now: the fox is already in the hen-house. There is a very powerful set of anti-women’s-equality caucuses already nested within the Afghan government that the U.S. supports. These individuals and groups are working to reassert the official misogyny of the Taliban days already, independent of the reconciliation and reintegration process.”[/color] (source)

Maybe some of you already knew this… about some of the points made about Karzai’s new Amnesty Law immunizing Mohaqiq for his crimes against women, just months after President Obama declared his election “legitimate.” [quote]The Amnesty Law states that all those who were engaged in armed conflict before the formation of Afghanistan’s Interim Administration in December 2001 shall “enjoy all their legal rights and shall not be prosecuted.” It also says that those engaged in current hostilities will be granted immunity if they agree to reconciliation with the government, effectively providing amnesty for future crimes. The law thus provides immunity from prosecution for members of the Taliban and other insurgent groups, as well as pro-government warlords, who have committed war crimes.[/quote]So really, it appears the U.S. backed Afghan govt protected themselves and warlord “allies” from being held responsible for crimes against women, or any war crime, as long as they remain on “o u r” side. Sounds eerily similar. How worse of a situation can we continue pouring money, blood and equipment into? We were going after accused terrorists, and now we’re protecting women by supporting a government that protects some who will still abuse women?

56

[quote=“j.scholl”]I do admit not understanding this… and maybe you’ll be kind enough to help. How does this graphic representation of cultural abuse in Afghanistan legally or even politically effect the original premise of our invasion and occupation?
[/quote]

Coming from someone that is unable to see the idiocy in suggesting the BBC were given a script of 911 demolition conducted by the US government, your not understanding something hardly should be a shock to anyone.

This thread is called "Wikileaks Afghanistan War Logs" , a graphic representation from the group that said "we know how to punish them" in relation to the informers, who were named in the documents released by wikileaks is more relevant to the discussion than the topic of "original premise of our invasion and occupation"

 Now you are saying the leak of these names is the fault of the White house because they didnt let Wikileaks know which part not to print? I think its safe to assume since it was secret, they didnt want any of it published, but to disclose names and towns and family members names was totally irresponsible, although I won't hold my breath waiting for that fact to sink in for you.

You would think that anyone with the slightest intelligence would not need to be told, and would have understood the dangers they were putting people in, not just the informants, but the soldiers running around now trying to protect them, or soldiers who no longer can use them as informants, or soldiers whos lives are put at risk because people are too afraid to be informants.

57

[quote=“Mick”][quote=“j.scholl”]I do admit not understanding this… and maybe you’ll be kind enough to help. How does this graphic representation of cultural abuse in Afghanistan legally or even politically effect the original premise of our invasion and occupation?
[/quote]

Coming from someone that is unable to see the idiocy in suggesting the BBC were given a script of 911 demolition conducted by the US government, your not understanding something hardly should be a shock to anyone.

This thread is called "Wikileaks Afghanistan War Logs" , a graphic representation from the group that said "we know how to punish them" in relation to the informers, who were named in the documents released by wikileaks is more relevant to the discussion than the topic of "original premise of our invasion and occupation"

 Now you are saying the leak of these names is the fault of the White house because they didnt let Wikileaks know which part not to print? I think its safe to assume since it was secret, they didnt want any of it published, but to disclose names and towns and family members names was totally irresponsible, although I won't hold my breath waiting for that fact to sink in for you.

You would think that anyone with the slightest intelligence would not need to be told, and would have understood the dangers they were putting people in, not just the informants, but the soldiers running around now trying to protect them, or soldiers who no longer can use them as informants, or soldiers whos lives are put at risk because people are too afraid to be informants.[/quote]

Thanks, Mick, that’s about what I was about to type in response to J. Scholl. You saved me the effort.

Some people just live in a fantasy world of their own making. :loco:

58

[quote=“Mick”]unable to see the idiocy in suggesting the BBC were given a script of 911 demolition conducted by the US government[/quote]Hi Mick. I’m pretty sure I still won’t defend what I didn’t say.
You’re probably referring to…
“The BBC, CNN and ABC apparently developed breaking news stories announcing that this building already collapsed due to structural damage BEFORE IT ACTUALLY COLLAPSED.”

You yourself helped clarify I wasn’t advancing a theory of some unknown script, but clarifying what the BBC guy reported before the collapse as something that was written for him:
[i]Watching the BBC fore-knowledge video and reading what the BBC news anchor actually said about the collapsed WTC7, 23 minutes BEFORE the event: [color=#0040FF]“Now, more on the latest building collapse in New York you might have heard a few moments ago, was talking about the Salomon Brothers Building collapsing, and indeed it has…and it seems its not a result of a new attack, it was because the building has been weakened during this morning’s attack…”[/color].

Is it a logical or illogical leap to explain away as an accident that someone could report in advance of a skyscraper collapse that it fell because it was weakened?

I requested before for you (Mick) to point out the existence of any other news agency at any time in history who so confidently claimed a steel skyscraper collapsed before it actually did.[/i]

Will keeping facts in context possibly alleviate some of your grievances?

[quote=“Mick”]Now you are saying the leak of these names is the fault of the White house because they didnt let Wikileaks know which part not to print?[/quote]No, but it seems as if the White House will be made to share the ‘innocent informants blood’ along with the four media groups who joined in. [quote=“Mick”]I think its safe to assume since it was secret, they didnt want any of it published[/quote]Makes sense.[quote=“Mick”]but to disclose names and towns and family members names was totally irresponsible[/quote]Sorry if you’ve confused me as someone supporting murderers, torturers, nose choppers, ear rippers and children as suicidal weapons. I wish there were no danger to informants.[quote=“Mick”]although I won’t hold my breath waiting for that fact to sink in for you.[/quote]There’s plenty of irresponsibility to go around, and the releasing of informants names is no doubt a serious disservice to coalition force intel. If the US doesn’t withdraw, maybe the debate shifts over to ‘how many more WIAs and KIAs does the mission really justify’? I know very well war equals death, destruction, and suffering for all sides. And for the occupation to end there, can we agree there will obviously be more challenges ahead?

Hey Mick, or Chuanzao, did you have an answer in mind? How does the graphic representation of cultural abuse in Afghanistan legally or even politically effect the original premise of our invasion and occupation?

59

Mick - do you think EFF (and/or the ACLU) still support Wikileaks’ First Amendment rights? Granted the high-profile scare of informants outing doesn’t exactly match Swiss bank Julius Baer’s internal docs. But I’m interested in EFF’s take on this leak.

60

[quote=“j.scholl”]
Is it a logical or illogical leap to explain away as an accident that someone could report in advance of a skyscraper collapse that it fell because it was weakened?[/quote]

I understand you dont get this, the fact you need to ask this question is why I keep posting this example to other posters who unlike you would see this is lunacy. Off topic yes, but an aid to those who think reasonable debate is possible with you.

It was reckless, endangered lives. Is this too hard of a concept for you to grasp?

Hey j.scholl, the relevance to this thread has already been explained, did the leaked documents reveal anything about the original premise? Whats the relevance of that to THIS thread?

In answer to EFF, it seems it has nothing to do with this thread either.