General Interest > Tacitus' Realm

Here, have 91,000 classified Afghan War documents

<< < (3/9) > >>

Pile of Dead Kids:
Afghan National Army.

Protip: Learn what the hell you're talking about before you post.

Stonewall:
Times of London

July 27, 2010

Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants




Hundreds of Afghan lives have been put at risk by the leaking of 90,000 intelligence documents to WikiLeaks because the files identify informants working with NATO forces.

In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times of London found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing detailed intelligence to U.S. forces. Their villages are given for identification and also, in many cases, their fathers' names.

U.S. officers recorded detailed logs of the information fed to them by named local informants, particularly tribal elders.

Julian Assange, the Australian founder of WikiLeaks, claimed on Monday that all the documents released through his organisation had been checked for named informants and that 15,000 such documents had been held back.

The Afghan Government has reacted with horror to the volume of information contained in the files.

A senior official at the Afghan Foreign Ministry, who declined to be named, said: "The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans. The U.S. is both morally and legally responsible for any harm that the leaks might cause to the individuals, particularly those who have been named. It will further limit the U.S./international access to the uncensored views of Afghans."

The Pentagon claimed that a preliminary review of the thousands of secret reports released by WikiLeaks showed that they posed no immediate threat to U.S. forces. But experts warned that the Taliban and Al Qaeda would already be using the information to identify and target informers in the war zone.


© Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Copyright 2010 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.


http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/27 ... nformants/

Ursus:

--- Quote ---Times of London

July 27, 2010

Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants
--- End quote ---

Apparently that was just the first part of that article in The Times... HERE is full access. Even though it just came out yesterday or the day before, ya have to pay now...

Looks like they are doing something very similar to what Press Digest is doing here in the States and in Canada. Although I didn't spend a whole lot of time checking it out, The Times has now got that "interactive customizable website" look ... for subscribers only.

-------------------------------

Here is a title from the July 28th edition of The Times; since it is now the 29th in the UK, that article is no longer available for public purvey: "Man named by WikiLeaks is dead ."

Ursus:
RADIO FREE EUROPE
RADIO LIBERTY
NEWS
Afghan War Unmasked By Massive Leak Of Military Files


The U.S. government says the leaks could be damaging.

Last updated (GMT/UTC): 26.07.2010 14:19
By RFE/RL

The United States and its allies have scrambled to contain the fallout of a massive leak of military files on the war in Afghanistan that revealed spiraling civilian casualties, a surge in Taliban attacks, and fresh allegations that insurgents are being aided by Pakistani intelligence officials.

The revelations came in 92,000 reports of military incidents and intelligence reports obtained by the whistleblowers website Wikileaks and passed to three Western news organizations: "The New York Times," "The Guardian," and "Der Spiegel."

WIkileaks, which specializes in publishing untraceable leaks from whistleblowers, posted the files on its website.

Included in the files are disclosures that coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in incidents that went officially unreported.

They also record the existence of a secret "black" unit of Special Forces charged with hunting down Taliban leaders for "kill or capture" without trial. Allied forces are using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada, according to the files.

In disclosures that will exacerbate fears that U.S. President Barack Obama's surge strategy is failing, the Taliban is said to have caused growing damage by massively intensifying its roadside bombing campaign with improvised explosive devices (IEDs). The files further suggest that military officials have covered up evidence that the Taliban has acquired surface-to-air missiles.

Relations between Washington and Islamabad seemed set to come under further strain by allegations -- in more than 180 files -- that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency has been secretly supporting the Taliban, something the United States has long suspected.

Included in a catalogue of claims are allegations that the ISI colluded by training suicide bombers, smuggling surface-to-air missiles into Afghanistan, plotted to assassinate President Hamid Karzai, and even planned to poison beer supplies to Western troops.

Iran is also identified as being engaged in an extensive campaign to arm, finance, train, and equip Taliban insurgents, Al-Qaeda-linked Afghan warlords, and suicide bombers. The Iranian government has repeatedly denied accusations that it is helping the Taliban or Al-Qaeda fight the Afghan government.

Speaking to "The Guardian," Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said the leaked documents "showed the true nature of this war."

"The public from Afghanistan and other nations can see what's really going on and address the problems. The significance of this material is both the overarching context -- that is it covers the entire war since 2004," Assange said.

He told a press conference on July 26 that he believed the files contained evidence of war crimes.

"It is up to a court to decide clearly whether something is, in the end, a crime," Assange said. "That said, prima facie, there does appear to be evidence of war crimes in this material."

Responding to criticism that the leaks endangered the lives of allied troops, Assange insisted his website implemented procedures designed to reduce such risks to a minimum.

"So far, our harm-minimization procedures have always worked," Assange said.

"To our knowledge, no one has ever been physically harmed by the material we have released, even though we have caused the change of governments and many other serious reforms."

White House Response

In a damage-limitation exercise, the White House responded by branding the leaks "irresponsible" and condemned Wikileaks for failing to contact the U.S. security services.

The Obama administration's national-security adviser, Jim Jones, also stressed that the documents covered a period between January 2004 and December 2009, which predated the launch of the recent troop surge.

"These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan," Jones said in a statement.

"President Obama announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on Al-Qaeda and Taliban safe havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years," he added. "We know that serious challenges lie ahead, but if Afghanistan is permitted to slide backwards, we will again face a threat from violent extremist groups like Al-Qaeda who will have more space to plot and train."

The leaks were also denounced by Pakistan. "These reports reflect nothing more than single source comments and rumors, which abound on both sides of the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and are often proved wrong," said Husain Haqqani, the Pakistani ambassador to the United States.

At a news conference in Kabul on July 26, Afghan presidential spokesman Wahid Omar expressed "shock" at the sheer volume of disclosures, but said Karzai believed few of the revelations were new, that "most of this is what has been discussed in that past, and most of this is what we have always raised with our international partners."

However, he said reports of civilian casualties outlined in the documents chimed with concerns previously expressed by the Afghan government.

"Over the past 1 1/2 years there is a reduction in civilian casualties, certain procedures were put in effect that helped reduce civilian casualties," Omar said. "But civilian casualties and adherence to the motto of protecting Afghan civilians is something that we will continue to press hard on."

The logs reveal -- sometimes in graphic detail -- 144 incidents that resulted in 195 civilians being killed and 174 being wounded.

Many of these were the results of controversial air strikes that have prompted protests by the Afghan government. But others appear to have been caused by forced firing on drivers and motorcyclists out of fear that they could be trying to carry out suicide attacks.

The files record an incident in which French troops fired on a bus full of children in 2008, wounding eight, and a U.S. patrol machine-gunning a bus, killing or wounding 15 passengers.

In 2007, Polish troops attacked a village with mortars, killing a wedding party including a pregnant woman. The attack was apparently motivated by revenge after the Poles sustained a roadside attack from an IED.

written by Robert Tait with agency reports


Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty © 2010 RFE/RL, Inc.

Ursus:
RADIO FREE EUROPE
RADIO LIBERTY
FEATURES
Interview: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange


The Australian founder of the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, on July 26.

July 27, 2010

Julian Assange, the founder of the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks, says his work is based on the "ancient vision" of uncovering the truth. And he says sources would rather turn over their information to him than to traditional news outlets because he can protect them better. Assange spoke with RFE/RL's Ron Synovitz and Christopher Schwartz on July 27 by phone from London.

RFE/RL: What is your response to those in Pakistan who doubt the veracity of WikiLeaks' "Afghan War Diary?" In particular, Hamid Gul, the former chief of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, has said he thinks the reports are fabrications.

Julian Assange: We need to look at these reports in a subtle way. A lot of material is included there. There are 91,000 reports from units in the field, from embassies in relation to Afghanistan, intelligence officers, and from informers. The informers make their reports for money. They are paid by the United States government for making serious allegations. They make reports to knock out a competitor -- a detested neighbor or family enemy -- and they make reports for legitimate reasons.

In looking at the ISI material by informers, we see that the U.S. military puts a sort of label on each informer as to how reliable they believe they are. If we just look [at these], we do see an extensive number of reports about the ISI. Now, any one of them may be incorrect, any two of them may be correct. It's really in the such large numbers and figures involving so many different circumstances and/or involving the ISI that we start to become very suspicious of the ISI [in Afghanistan].

RFE/RL: There's a rumor circulating in Pakistan -- one that's being encouraged by some Pakistani officials -- that this leak was actually orchestrated by the U.S. government to justify an increased military presence in, or even invasion of, Pakistan.

Assange: Well, it's simply not true, and people can read the individual reports and individual details and make connections about each one of those circumstances. Though we had a previous rumor that we were the CIA, [WikiLeaks] has put out information from the main manuals of Guantanamo Bay, [former U.S. vice-presidential candidate] Sarah Palin's e-mails, secret Chinese censorship briefs, official assassinations in Kenya and East Timor. It is clear that we are strictly impartial and we do take all comers from across the world who have material that is difficult for them to get out to the public.

RFE/RL: A lot of comparisons are being made between Wikileaks' "Afghan War Diary" and Daniel Ellsberg's leaking in 1971 of the U.S. Department of Defense's classified report on the Vietnam War, known as the "Pentagon Papers." Do you see a parallel?

Assange: We have great respect for Dan Ellsberg and the work that he has done and continues to do in promoting the importance of whistle-blowers and their role in society. As a comparison, this has been -- this is the Pentagon Papers -- it was the nearest analogy to what we were doing. and Dan Ellsberg says that he sees this being in the same way.

RFE/RL: Have you or WikiLeaks received any threats of violence or legal action, as Ellsberg did?

Assange: In relation to this particular event, we have received no court order or legal action, and as far as I'm aware, none of our legal partners have either.

You know, as a serious organization we sometimes take serious threats. In relation to this issue, there has been no physical threats. Now, there has been spying, some disturbing sounds coming out of the U.S. administration about a month ago in private. Those seem to have stopped, although it is too early to see what the reaction will be in relation to this publication.

RFE/RL: Why did you select "The New York Times," "The Guardian," and "Der Spiegel" as the media outlets to share the leak with?

Assange: We make a promise to our sources: one, that we will do everything in our power technically and legally to protect them; two, that we are going to maximize the impact of the submissions that they make to us, and we believe in this case that that was the way to maximize the impact.

RFE/RL: Why do you think so many important sources have chosen to give their information to WikiLeaks instead of traditional media outlets?

Assange: Because we are specialists. We specialize in protecting sources. We specialize in getting the full material out to the public. Now, mainstream media, through internal concentrations in countries where there's really only sort of one or two dominant media organizations in a town, has had a sort of perverse effect where sources are treated as something to be kept at bay rather than something to treasure. That has resulted in organizations such as "The [New York] Times" sitting on significant disclosures for a year, not releasing them, or only picking a few cherries from a whistle-blower's disclosure, instead of all the material that they submit in their documents.

Sources understand that we are the most reliable, from a safety point of view and from a publishing point of view, organization to deal with.

RFE/RL: How do you see WikiLeaks -- is it journalism, activism, or some new kind of intermediary between sources and journalists?

Assange: The vision behind it is really quite ancient: in order to make any sensible decision you need to know what's really going on, and in order to make any just decision you need to know and understand what abuses or plans for abuses are occurring. As technologists, we can see that big reforms come when the public and decision makers can see what's really going on.


Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty © 2010 RFE/RL, Inc.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page