Here, have 91,000 classified Afghan War documents

[wdtony]

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.

I couldn't agree more. This reminds me of the secretive nature of residential treatment programs and how they hide abuses behind confidentiality/patient privacy, etc.

[Ursus]

Forgot to include this comment for an earlier article before I posted the interview with Assange...

-------------- • -------------- • --------------

Comment left for the above article, "Afghan War Unmasked By Massive Leak Of Military Files" (by Robert Tait, 26.07.2010, RFE/RL, Inc.):


by: Bill Webb from: Phoenix, AZ, U.S.A. · July 27, 2010 01:25

144 incidents that resulted in 195 civilians being killed and 174 being wounded.
The acts of the Taliban and al-Queda approach that number of casualties in single blatant attacks against civilian targets time and time again. They are the ones slaughtering civilians, not the NATO troops.

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

[Pile of Dead Kids]

Ursus. Seriously, man. Stop posting comments on this one. There's a billion trillion bazillion comments on this subject encompassing the entire fucking Internet. You do not need to archive this.

[Ursus]

RADIO FREE EUROPE
RADIO LIBERTY
NEWS
Afghan War Leak Stirs Intense U.S. Debate


In this U.S. military handout photo, U.S. Army soldiers from Provincial Reconstruction Team-Paktika walk down a street in Sharana, in Afghanistan's Paktika Province, in 2009.

July 27, 2010
By Richard Solash

 As U.S. officials try to contain fallout from Wikileaks' release of reams of secret documents on the war in Afghanistan, U.S. pundits and the public are also having their say.

With doubts already mounting about the trajectory of the nine-year military campaign in Afghanistan, the new information could heighten American disillusionment.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs chose his words carefully when asked by a reporter to describe President Barack Obama's reaction to the leak. Gibbs characterized it as "more than 90,000 top secret documents which are against the law" to provide to reporters.

"I think it would be safe to say it's alarming to find them published on a website," he added.

The classified reports from the Afghan war, released on July 25 by the whistleblower website Wikileaks, exposes unreported civilian deaths as well as allegations of collusion between Pakistan's intelligence agency and the Taliban, among other sensitive revelations.

Meanwhile, "The New York Times" was reporting that leaders in the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives were pressing for a vote on a key war-funding bill as soon as today, amid concerns that Democratic support for the war effort could ebb.

Skepticism All Around

While Gibbs said nothing more about Obama's reaction to the leak, the public was voicing its own take on the dramatic data dump.

With doubts already deepening about the success of U.S. policy in the war, the new information is showing signs of causing even more public disillusionment.

Still others chided Wikileaks for the release, as headlines across the United States tried to make sense of it all and the blogosphere buzzed with reactions.

"No news here," read one reader comment posted on the website of the "New York Times." "If you followed any myriad of blogs [by soldiers who had fought in Afghanistan] you would have known many years ago that this was war not winnable."

White House spokesman Gibbs largely agreed with the first half of that statement as he briefed reporters on July 26.

"I don't think that what is being reported hasn't, in many ways, been publicly discussed either by you all [reporters] or by representatives of the U.S. government for quite some time," Gibbs said.

But the "New York Times" letter writer was among many public commentators who saw the newly released information as confirmation that their skepticism about U.S. involvement in the war is correct.

A July 13 Gallup poll showed that 60 percent of Americans believe that things are not going well for the United States in Afghanistan.

According to one "Washington Post" reader, the leaked reports are "an attempt to point out the truth which is that this nation is completely and totally wasting lives, tax dollars and our moral authority on our occupation of Afghanistan, which will end much like the Soviet occupation did no matter what general is installed at the top."

Echoing the sentiments of many of their readers, newspapers from the East Coast to the West Coast described the picture of the Afghan war painted by the leak as "grim" and "bleak."

One "Los Angeles Times" reader wrote, "If I knew that these wars would continue indefinitely, I would have voted [in the 2008 election] for John McCain."

Controversial Whistleblower

In some quarters, there was condemnation or the organization behind the leak, with a number of bloggers calling Wikileaks founder Julian Assange a "traitor."

A page on Facebook called "Shutdown Wikileaks" was created, apparently in response to the recent release. Its creator, who identifies himself as a member of the U.S. Air Force, posted: "They [at Wikileaks] promote freedom of speech, yet they endanger those who fight for it."

At the same time, membership on Facebook's Wikileaks supporters' page mushroomed to nearly 60,000, a number that has jumped markedly since the Afghan report leak.

David Streko, a former member of the U.S. Army, said he doesn't expect the leak to drive public consensus on the war.

"I just think that the people who are against the war now have some more ammunition to be against it and the people who are for it -- who don't want to criticize America -- are just going to blow this off. I don't think it's really going to sway or change anything," Streko told RFE/RL.

But if that remains the case, Streko acknowledges, those who question the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan will still be the majority.

Many readers and bloggers are anticipating the release of thousands more classified documents on the Afghan war that Wikileaks says it possesses. The documents already leaked are being described as the biggest revelation of classified reports in U.S. history.

More than one commentator has taken an ironic tack, describing the release of the Afghan files as a larger leak than the three-month-long gush of oil from a BP well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Rising Voices?

The powerful chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry, was the first in Congress to respond, and he did so with a direct challenge to the administration.

"However illegally these documents came to light, they raise serious questions about the reality of America's policy toward Pakistan and Afghanistan," Kerry's statement said. "Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right."

His words could have political consequences for Obama, who has faced increasing criticism over the lack of progress in the war. The U.S. president's next review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is set for December.

Political analysts interpreted Kerry's comments as signaling that he might hold hearings on the reports.

Less obviously, they say, might be his message to the White House that it needs to directly address the failings the reports have uncovered.


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

[Ursus]

RADIO FREE EUROPE
RADIO LIBERTY
FEATURES
Former Spymaster Rejects WikiLeaks Charges As U.S. Pre-Exit Smear


Former Inter-Services Intelligence head Hamid Gul gives a "victory" sign after his arrest under a state of emergency in Islamabad in 2007.

July 27, 2010
By RFE/RL

A former Pakistani general implicated in militant activities by this week's WikiLeaks document dump has refuted allegations of wrongdoing.

Hamid Gul, a former head of Pakistan's premiere intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), told RFE/RL's Radio Mashaal that he does not support the Taliban and accused the United States of using him to ease a disgraced withdrawal from fighting in Afghanistan. He called the leaked documents "fabricated."

A handful of the tens of thousands of U.S. military incident and intelligence reports leaked by the whistle-blower website name Gul, whom former Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardai once famously labeled "the political ideologue of terror," as a key facilitator of Afghan insurgents in Pakistan.

'An Open Book'

The 73-year-old Gul said he left the Pakistani military 18 years ago and lives in retirement in Rawalpindi, a city next to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, that serves as the military headquarters.

"I am like an open book. Every day scores of people visit me from dawn to dusk," Gul said. "The journalists, media people particularly, international TV crews, come to hear my perspective about American involvement in Afghanistan -- I call it aggression and oppose it on moral grounds."

Reports made public by WikiLeaks accuse Gul of organizing mine attacks against Afghan and international troops. He is also accused of organizing the kidnapping of United Nations officials and attending a meeting in the tribal borderland of Arab jihadists who were planning to send suicide bombers to Afghanistan.

Gul headed Pakistan's ISI from 1987 to 1989, when the Red Army left Afghanistan. In the spring of 1989, Gul engineered a large-scale rebel offensive against the eastern Afghan city of Jalalabad. That offensive failed miserably because the anti-Soviet Afghan Islamist guerrillas were ill-prepared for a conventional battle against communist Afghan forces. More than 1,000 guerrillas -- including hundreds of Arabs -- were killed in the two-month siege of the city.

Vocal U.S. Critic

After his retirement from the military, Gul became a prominent supporter of Pakistan-based Islamist militant groups that were active in Kashmir and Afghanistan. He opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan after September 11, 2001, and often predicts a strategic debacle for Washington in his speeches and media interviews.

After deadly attacks by militants in the Indian city of Mumbai in November 2008, Washington unsuccessfully urged the United Nations to include Gul on its list of international terrorists over his alleged links to Pakistani militants behind the attacks.

Gul said he regards the WikiLeaks episode as a sign that Washington is preparing to pull out of Afghanistan in failure and is now looking for scapegoats to help it save face. He described it as "a sign of defeat to credit an old retired general [with being] instrumental in [an] American defeat."

Gul suggested that Washington wanted to use the leaks as part of its exit strategy from Afghanistan.


U.S. soldiers en route from Afghanistan (file photo)

"They have decided the timing of their withdrawal [from Afghanistan]. But they are timing it to pressure Pakistan so that they have some victory before the flame [of their power] extinguishes," he said. "They want Pakistan to attack [militant sanctuaries] in North Waziristan [tribal region] -- something that Pakistan is reluctant to do."

Analysts in Islamabad suggest that the information in the WikiLeaks documents is mostly sourced to biased Afghan informants and intelligence operatives. They say those views are colored by hatred of Islamabad's role in Afghan affairs.

Officials in the two countries have a long history of mistrust that has accompanied six decades of acrimonious relations.

written by RFE/RL correspondent Abubakar Siddique in Prague based on an interview by Radio Mashaal correspondent Ahmad Ullah


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

[Ursus]

RADIO FREE EUROPE
RADIO LIBERTY
FEATURES
WikiLeaks' Afghan War Reports Stir Debates On Journalism, Law


The Australian founder of the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, holds up a copy of 'The Guardian' at a press conference in London on July 26.

July 27, 2010
By Ron Synovitz

As the Pentagon investigates the potential damage from the leak of more than 91,000 classified U.S. military reports on the war in Afghanistan, the leak is fueling debate about the role of whistle-blowers as journalistic sources in the age of digital data.

WikiLeaks, a website that tries to foster policy debates by making classified information available to the public, received the cache of documents from sources it will not disclose. Wikileaks then passed the materials on to three media organizations -- "The New York Times," "The Guardian" newspaper in the United Kingdom, and "Der Spiegel" magazine in Germany.

Officials in Washington say they are concerned the leaks pose a national security threat and may endanger people in Afghanistan or Pakistan who have worked against the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

"The State Department joins the White House and [the Department of Defense] in condemning the disclosure of classified information by WikiLeaks," U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said. "The fact that these are in many cases documents that are several years old does not change our concern that this action risks our national security."


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

The U.S. Army announced today that it was opening a criminal investigation aimed at finding the source of the leaks.

'Maximizing Impact'

WikiLeaks has hundreds of unpaid volunteers from around the world who help maintain the website's complicated infrastructure. By running off of an array of Internet servers in many countries, WikiLeaks has been able to prevent any single government from shutting down its website.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told RFE/RL today that he decided to share the documents with "The New York Times," "The Guardian," and "Der Spiegel" because those are "the most influential press organizations" within the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany.

Assange explained that his motivation is to reform systems where abuses are covered up by officials who classify documents in order to keep politically sensitive information from becoming public.

"The vision behind [WikiLeaks] is really quite ancient. In order to make any sensible decision, you need to know what actually is going on. In order to make any just decision, you need to understand what abuses or plans for abuse are occurring," Assange said. "As technologists, we can see that big reforms come quickly when the public and decision makers can see what is really going on."

Assange also explained that by sharing the cache of documents with major news organizations, Wikileaks was able to keep its promise to the whistle-blower who provided his organization with the information.

"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," Assange said. "And we believe, in this case, [sharing the material with 'The New York Times,' 'The Guardian,' and 'Der Spiegel'] was the way to maximize impact."

Pentagon Papers 2.0

Comparisons are being made to the so-called "Pentagon Papers" case of 1971, when former U.S. military analyst Daniel Ellsberg, while employed by the RAND Corporation, released 7,000 pages of a top-secret Pentagon study on the Vietnam conflict to "The New York Times" and other newspapers.

"I do see an analogy to the situation I was in 40 years ago," Ellsberg said during an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Show" today.

The administration of then-President Richard Nixon tried to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, but was defeated in the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post's" right, under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to publish the material.

Tom Glaisyer, a Knight media-policy fellow at the New America Foundation, says that the Afghan war reports are a kind of Pentagon Papers case in the age of the Internet.

"There has always been a delicate balance between national security and the public interest, and it's been struck in the Pentagon Papers very much in favor of giving journalists and newspapers the ability to publish all but the most sensitive -- time sensitive -- of data," Glaisyer says.

"The fact of the matter is that we are entering a world where there is an awful lot more digital data around, and there is a great possibility that it can be transferred and shared very quickly. The world is going to change. We have to get used to journalism in a world of digital data."

Assange, for his part, welcomes the comparisons with Ellsberg, saying he has "great respect" for Ellsberg and "the work that he has done -- and has continued to do -- in promoting the importance of the role of whistle-blowers and their role in society."

Brave New Media World

Chris Anderson, who also is a Knight media-policy fellow at the New America Foundation, says WikiLeaks may represent the beginning of a new era in journalism -- an era of Internet whistle-blowers who serve as intermediary sources for investigative reporters.

Still, Anderson warns that journalists need to ensure that intermediaries are reliable. "No one knows what WikiLeaks is," he says. "I mean, they don't fit any of the categories of types of organizations that we are used to thinking about. They're not really journalism. They're not really hackers. They're not really activists. They are something new."

Anderson also cites the example set by Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. "They are both doing the same thing, except one is an organization and one is a person," he says. "We need to trust them, but interrogate them in the same way we would with any person who has got their hands on data that may cause harm or may help serve the public interest."

Anderson insists that the world of "digital data" is creating "a very different world" -- a world where it is much easier for whistle-blowers to leak classified information and remain anonymous, but where traditional journalism will remain relevant.

"WikiLeaks could have very easily just put all these documents up online themselves. I think it actually speaks very highly of the future of some form of institutional professional journalism that they worked with 'The New York Times' and 'The Guardian' on these stories because they technologically didn't need to," Anderson says.

"So I think it actually says more about why traditional institutions are still relevant. But it does show that there is a new ecosystem developing. It isn't simply newspapers having relationships with sources anymore. There are other groups and organizations and layers involved now."

Journalism More Than Just Sources

Steven Aftergood, head of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, agrees that basic journalism is still necessary to verify and substantiate information provided by groups like WikiLeaks.

"The service that they have been providing up to now is that of a source of documents. But documents are not journalism. Documents can mislead as easily as any other source. The function of journalism still needs to be carried out as carefully and responsibly as possible," Aftergood says.

"That means confirming the accuracy of the content of any particular document. It means placing it in some kind of political or policy context, and it means collecting a range of interpretations of the significance."

Assange said he also agrees, insisting that anyone who reads the Afghan war reports should closely examine the reliability of the original sources, especially for U.S. military reports that are based on information from an informer.

"We need to look at these reports in a subtle way. A lot of material is included," Assange said. "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 a family enemy -- and they also make reports for legitimate reasons."

Assange told RFE/RL today that he has not been threatened with any court order or legal proceedings because of leaking the Afghan war reports. Assange said he also was not aware of any such threats against "The New York Times," "The Guardian," or "Der Spiegel."

John Attanasio, a professor of law at Southern Methodist University's Deadman School of Law, says he doesn't think charges will be brought against WikiLeaks by the U.S. government because of the Afghan war reports. But Attanasio says the incident is sure to fuel professional and legal debates around the world in the years ahead.

"There are going to be journalists who are going to debate this and how this kind of activity implicates the profession, and I think journalists should debate this," Attanasio says. "But I also think, because of the international nature of the blogosphere, it's going to get debated in more than the American legal system."

contributors to this report include Ladan Nekoomaram of RFE/RL's Radio Farda in Washington and Christopher Schwartz in Prague


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

[DannyB II]

RADIO FREE EUROPE
RADIO LIBERTY
FEATURES
WikiLeaks' Afghan War Reports Stir Debates On Journalism, Law


The Australian founder of the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, holds up a copy of 'The Guardian' at a press conference in London on July 26.

July 27, 2010
By Ron Synovitz

As the Pentagon investigates the potential damage from the leak of more than 91,000 classified U.S. military reports on the war in Afghanistan, the leak is fueling debate about the role of whistle-blowers as journalistic sources in the age of digital data.

WikiLeaks, a website that tries to foster policy debates by making classified information available to the public, received the cache of documents from sources it will not disclose. Wikileaks then passed the materials on to three media organizations -- "The New York Times," "The Guardian" newspaper in the United Kingdom, and "Der Spiegel" magazine in Germany.

Officials in Washington say they are concerned the leaks pose a national security threat and may endanger people in Afghanistan or Pakistan who have worked against the Taliban or Al Qaeda.

"The State Department joins the White House and [the Department of Defense] in condemning the disclosure of classified information by WikiLeaks," U.S. State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said. "The fact that these are in many cases documents that are several years old does not change our concern that this action risks our national security."


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

The U.S. Army announced today that it was opening a criminal investigation aimed at finding the source of the leaks.

'Maximizing Impact'

WikiLeaks has hundreds of unpaid volunteers from around the world who help maintain the website's complicated infrastructure. By running off of an array of Internet servers in many countries, WikiLeaks has been able to prevent any single government from shutting down its website.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told RFE/RL today that he decided to share the documents with "The New York Times," "The Guardian," and "Der Spiegel" because those are "the most influential press organizations" within the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany.

Assange explained that his motivation is to reform systems where abuses are covered up by officials who classify documents in order to keep politically sensitive information from becoming public.

"The vision behind [WikiLeaks] is really quite ancient. In order to make any sensible decision, you need to know what actually is going on. In order to make any just decision, you need to understand what abuses or plans for abuse are occurring," Assange said. "As technologists, we can see that big reforms come quickly when the public and decision makers can see what is really going on."

Assange also explained that by sharing the cache of documents with major news organizations, Wikileaks was able to keep its promise to the whistle-blower who provided his organization with the information.

"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," Assange said. "And we believe, in this case, [sharing the material with 'The New York Times,' 'The Guardian,' and 'Der Spiegel'] was the way to maximize impact."

Pentagon Papers 2.0

Comparisons are being made to the so-called "Pentagon Papers" case of 1971, when former U.S. military analyst Daniel Ellsberg, while employed by the RAND Corporation, released 7,000 pages of a top-secret Pentagon study on the Vietnam conflict to "The New York Times" and other newspapers.

"I do see an analogy to the situation I was in 40 years ago," Ellsberg said during an appearance on CNN's "Larry King Show" today.

The administration of then-President Richard Nixon tried to block publication of the Pentagon Papers, but was defeated in the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of "The New York Times" and "The Washington Post's" right, under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, to publish the material.

Tom Glaisyer, a Knight media-policy fellow at the New America Foundation, says that the Afghan war reports are a kind of Pentagon Papers case in the age of the Internet.

"There has always been a delicate balance between national security and the public interest, and it's been struck in the Pentagon Papers very much in favor of giving journalists and newspapers the ability to publish all but the most sensitive -- time sensitive -- of data," Glaisyer says.

"The fact of the matter is that we are entering a world where there is an awful lot more digital data around, and there is a great possibility that it can be transferred and shared very quickly. The world is going to change. We have to get used to journalism in a world of digital data."

Assange, for his part, welcomes the comparisons with Ellsberg, saying he has "great respect" for Ellsberg and "the work that he has done -- and has continued to do -- in promoting the importance of the role of whistle-blowers and their role in society."

Brave New Media World

Chris Anderson, who also is a Knight media-policy fellow at the New America Foundation, says WikiLeaks may represent the beginning of a new era in journalism -- an era of Internet whistle-blowers who serve as intermediary sources for investigative reporters.

Still, Anderson warns that journalists need to ensure that intermediaries are reliable. "No one knows what WikiLeaks is," he says. "I mean, they don't fit any of the categories of types of organizations that we are used to thinking about. They're not really journalism. They're not really hackers. They're not really activists. They are something new."

Anderson also cites the example set by Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers. "They are both doing the same thing, except one is an organization and one is a person," he says. "We need to trust them, but interrogate them in the same way we would with any person who has got their hands on data that may cause harm or may help serve the public interest."

Anderson insists that the world of "digital data" is creating "a very different world" -- a world where it is much easier for whistle-blowers to leak classified information and remain anonymous, but where traditional journalism will remain relevant.

"WikiLeaks could have very easily just put all these documents up online themselves. I think it actually speaks very highly of the future of some form of institutional professional journalism that they worked with 'The New York Times' and 'The Guardian' on these stories because they technologically didn't need to," Anderson says.

"So I think it actually says more about why traditional institutions are still relevant. But it does show that there is a new ecosystem developing. It isn't simply newspapers having relationships with sources anymore. There are other groups and organizations and layers involved now."

Journalism More Than Just Sources

Steven Aftergood, head of the project on government secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, agrees that basic journalism is still necessary to verify and substantiate information provided by groups like WikiLeaks.

"The service that they have been providing up to now is that of a source of documents. But documents are not journalism. Documents can mislead as easily as any other source. The function of journalism still needs to be carried out as carefully and responsibly as possible," Aftergood says.

"That means confirming the accuracy of the content of any particular document. It means placing it in some kind of political or policy context, and it means collecting a range of interpretations of the significance."

Assange said he also agrees, insisting that anyone who reads the Afghan war reports should closely examine the reliability of the original sources, especially for U.S. military reports that are based on information from an informer.

"We need to look at these reports in a subtle way. A lot of material is included," Assange said. "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 a family enemy -- and they also make reports for legitimate reasons."

Assange told RFE/RL today that he has not been threatened with any court order or legal proceedings because of leaking the Afghan war reports. Assange said he also was not aware of any such threats against "The New York Times," "The Guardian," or "Der Spiegel."

John Attanasio, a professor of law at Southern Methodist University's Deadman School of Law, says he doesn't think charges will be brought against WikiLeaks by the U.S. government because of the Afghan war reports. But Attanasio says the incident is sure to fuel professional and legal debates around the world in the years ahead.

"There are going to be journalists who are going to debate this and how this kind of activity implicates the profession, and I think journalists should debate this," Attanasio says. "But I also think, because of the international nature of the blogosphere, it's going to get debated in more than the American legal system."

contributors to this report include Ladan Nekoomaram of RFE/RL's Radio Farda in Washington and Christopher Schwartz in Prague


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

Just ask'in??  Are you OK, as a American, with WikiLeaks releasing this information and the probability that someone will be prosecuted for hacking then distributing the intelligence.
This is not a question that I am setting you up to attack. I am curious on your take concerning this matter.
I would like to explore this with you.

[Ursus]

Comments left for the above article, "WikiLeaks' Afghan War Reports Stir Debates On Journalism, Law" (by Ron Synovitz; July 27, 2010; RFE/RL):


by: K Doyle from: California · July 27, 2010 17:20

Assange is a world hero. If the day ever comes when you can shine a light under a rock and find the cockroaches like Cheney and Lieberman aren't there to squirm, that is the day you don't need people like Assange anymore. The True Believers will forge ahead right over a cliff just like the lemmings they are. They'd prefer that the American People (which includes them, BTW) be kept in the dark so that they can't see that they're marching into a wall. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. I hope the day will come, that attempts to keep secrets always becomes far more of a liability than an advantage-- seems like that day isn't too far off. Government needs the light of day shined on it far more than anyone else, because otherwise they just can't seem to keep their noses clean...

by: Ray from: Lawrence, KS · July 28, 2010 02:31

Dear Sir, I would like to agree with you, but I have a darker view of human nature. My experience has confirmed the quote made by George Orwell, “Men sleep peacefully in their beds at night because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” Americans don’t want to have their materialistic and shallow dreams disturbed by the revelations provided by wiki-leaks. We will continue to arm the better part of the planet to preserve these dreams. And hate to break this news to you, but this is a global problem. Most men (regardless of nationality) prefer the darkness of ignorance over enlightenment.

[/list]
by: locomotivebreath1901 from: Texas · July 28, 2010 00:25

(Ed. Note: Spelling corrected. Use this comment, guys.)

We are in the middle of a multi-lateral war. Coalition soldier's lives are in jeopardy, and this Assange clown is publishing secret info for propaganda purposes.

Ol' Joe Goebbels could've used a guy like Assange.

Julian Assange is a war criminal. He should be arrested and prosecuted accordingly for aiding and abetting the enemies of coalition soldiers; Cowardly enemies who have no qualms about hiding behind women and children.

Ask the Taliban how many civilian deaths are the tragic consequence of THEIR collateral damage. (hint: it's much, much higher than death from coalition forces) Then ask the Taliban if it gives a steamy pile of dog squeeze about those civilian deaths! (right before they blow YOUR head off)

Ain't it strange how Wiki Licks proudly publishes ONLY classified info from the U.S. of A., but none from brutal thug-o-cracies like Iran, or N. Korea, or Cuba, or Sudan?

Julian Assange is a war criminal. He should be arrested and prosecuted accordingly.

by: Seyran from: Armenia · July 28, 2010 07:12

"Ain't it strange how Wiki Licks proudly publishes ONLY classified info from the U.S. of A., but none from brutal thug-o-cracies like Iran, or N. Korea, or Cuba, or Sudan?"

The USA has been occupying of that since the very beginning of all its conflicts with other countries. Releasing propaganda for nothing more than propaganda purposes has been No. 1 top priority of the USA since well, forever.

I don't see anything wrong here, it is a good deuce. Why? Well, we every single day hear about how bad is Fidel Castro, how much of a bad guy is Ahmadinejad, how many crimes the Taliban and practically every single military group in the Middle East does. You have picked up every single thing that has shown opposition or question USA in the world and made it as evil and horrible as Satan himself. We all know that story, it is always the same story, it is just different "bad guys".

Yet, where is the other part of the story? We all know the quantity of war crimes and related atrocities the USA and its backed forces have committed pretty much since WWII. Now don't get me wrong, the "Commies" and their allies also committed many war crimes, atrocities, and horrible things which we all know now, and the Arabs and Muslim have committed many atrocities as well and keep doing so, many against their own people...so I am being equal.

But reality is, in your "War on Terror", which any intelligent person can see its real objective through, there are no "bad guy" Taliban/Arabs/Muslims and "good guys" USA and allies....to me, to any regular person, and to any normal folk living in the war zones...you all can be put in one single bag: "persons who have done damage

[to us] and keep doing it".

We know what your "bringing democracy" to Afghanistan and Iraq means, and we know what their "Death to America" means as well. We have all been fed your American propaganda, it's a good time now to hear the other side of the story, and if there can be a single place in this world where we can see what you are really doing there, that is WikiLeaks.

So, blame no one of being a war criminal, Mr. Texan. For any normal person, you are no better than the "bad guys" you're fighting to, and for any normal person, who are as war criminals as them.[/list][/list]

by: locomotivebreath1901 from: Texas · July 28, 2010 14:38

Seyran from: Armenia,

I appreciate your comments and understand what you are saying, although I find your comments (and others from your kind) frightening in their moral relativism, and political ignorance.

The Taliban are not tolerant. The Taliban are not open minded. The Taliban do not champion open societies and democratic government. The U.S. of A. has its flaws, but I can guarantee you that when the Taliban comes to your town, people like you will be the first ones they line up and shoot - after they rape your women and enslave your children.

It's the Taliban's proven standard operating procedure for waging war.

Personally, I'd rather take refuge with American and coalition forces. And my guess is - if you were honest - that you'd rather see the Red, White and Blue defending your home rather than the islamo-fascists infesting your country.

[/list][/list]
by: vytautasba from: vilnius · July 28, 2010 10:18

If the goal is to have a democracy then the people need to be infomed as much as possible. If not the government can take advantage and lead its people by the nose into believing and doing anything. Think about how the US Govt. convinced its people that S. Husseins Iraq was a clear and present danger to the US (responsible for 911, etc.).

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

[wdtony]

"The Bush administration made the case that Iraq posed a clear and present danger before the invasion."

That was a lie.

"The current refrain from President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair has only one word, "patience." It will take time, they say, but weapons of mass destruction eventually will be found in Iraq."

That was a lie.

"Americans -- and the world community -- were told that Iraq was an immediate threat."

That was a lie.

This country needs more information about the exact nature of Iraq weaponry and if there was a credible, immediate threat posed by the Iraqi regime. This is the question that must be answered because it is the essence of the policy of pre-emptive strike against a nation that poses a threat.

The leaking of these documents are controversial but there are two sides to this argument, both with valid points. My question is: Our government having lied in matters that we, the people, should have been informed, why should we trust the government to be transparent now? If soldiers and civilians are killed due to the release of these documents, part of the blame falls on the US government for covering up the truth in the past.

If we hadn't been tricked and forced into the Iraq war, the Taliban probably would have been decimated years ago.

So if anyone wants to blast the organization who leaked these documents, I would expect an equal blasting of the government administration that led us into the Iraq war under false pretenses.

How many people will these leaked documents put in danger?

How many people did the unnecessary Iraq war put in danger?

[ajax13]

The flood of Afghanistan war reports from Wikileaks is a curious thing indeed.  It is quite unlike the release of the Pentagon Papers, which were extremely damaging to the faction in the United States that benefitted from the Vietnam war and occupation.  The Wikileaks documents serve to bolster the war party by implicating Pakistan, lending more credence to the policy of using the airborne terminators to assassinate the "terrists", and anyone else in their vicinity.  For those who buy the concepts underlying the "War on Terra", the Wikileaks info indicates a need to broaden the war, not end it.  Qui bono?

[wdtony]

The flood of Afghanistan war reports from Wikileaks is a curious thing indeed.  It is quite unlike the release of the Pentagon Papers, which were extremely damaging to the faction in the United States that benefitted from the Vietnam war and occupation.  The Wikileaks documents serve to bolster the war party by implicating Pakistan, lending more credence to the policy of using the airborne terminators to assassinate the "terrists", and anyone else in their vicinity.  For those who buy the concepts underlying the "War on Terra", the Wikileaks info indicates a need to broaden the war, not end it.  Qui bono?

If this is true, maybe this "leak" was organized by our own government. Admonishment by the administration may only be a clever ruse.

[Whooter]

"The Bush administration made the case that Iraq posed a clear and present danger before the invasion."

That was a lie.

"The current refrain from President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair has only one word, "patience." It will take time, they say, but weapons of mass destruction eventually will be found in Iraq."

That was a lie.

"Americans -- and the world community -- were told that Iraq was an immediate threat."

That was a lie.

This country needs more information about the exact nature of Iraq weaponry and if there was a credible, immediate threat posed by the Iraqi regime. This is the question that must be answered because it is the essence of the policy of pre-emptive strike against a nation that poses a threat.

The leaking of these documents are controversial but there are two sides to this argument, both with valid points. My question is: Our government having lied in matters that we, the people, should have been informed, why should we trust the government to be transparent now? If soldiers and civilians are killed due to the release of these documents, part of the blame falls on the US government for covering up the truth in the past.

If we hadn't been tricked and forced into the Iraq war, the Taliban probably would have been decimated years ago.

So if anyone wants to blast the organization who leaked these documents, I would expect an equal blasting of the government administration that led us into the Iraq war under false pretenses.

How many people will these leaked documents put in danger?

How many people did the unnecessary Iraq war put in danger?

Saddam could not come out and say there were no WOMD because he had a hostile nation (Iran) on his boarder who had a stronger military but did not have any nuclear weapons.  They had a long history of violence against each other.  The only way Saddam could Keep Iran from striking again was to have them believe that Iraq had Weapons of mass destruction.  Saddam played a dangerous game of cat and mouse with the weapons inspectors and it cost him his country and eventually  his life.

Take this for example:  If there is a guy on an airplane and he stands up  strapped with what appears to be plastic explosives around his waist and a trigger in his hand.   Would the Marshall on the plane be justified in shooting him?  What if after he is dead you find out that the plastic around his waist was only playdoh?  Should the Marshall be charged with murder and prosecuted?  Would he be considered a liar?

Clearly in hindsight there would be a better path we would have taken, but everyone, in this country, was on-board for the war in the middle east.



...

[wdtony]

Not everyone Whooter. I wasn't and I seem to remember Colin Powell asking for more time to consider and not attack unilaterally. You can't make a blanket statement like that, it's ridiculous.

But I agree with the cat and mouse thing and Saddam playing a dangerous game. But, in that country you have to be a real SOB to control a country's factions from destroying themselves, not to mention foreign invaders as you have mentioned. We, as Americans, simply aren't familiar with the culture that was Iraq.

Even Bush Senior was smart enough to pull back after Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

Afghanistan had to happen and I supported wholeheartedly but Iraq was a disater and undermined our terrorist counter-attack in Afghanistan. We were lied to from day one about that...... regardless of hindsight.

[DannyB II]

Not everyone Whooter. I wasn't and I seem to remember Colin Powell asking for more time to consider and not attack unilaterally. You can't make a blanket statement like that, it's ridiculous.

But I agree with the cat and mouse thing and Saddam playing a dangerous game. But, in that country you have to be a real SOB to control a country's factions from destroying themselves, not to mention foreign invaders as you have mentioned. We, as Americans, simply aren't familiar with the culture that was Iraq.

Even Bush Senior was smart enough to pull back after Desert Shield/Desert Storm.

Afghanistan had to happen and I supported wholeheartedly but Iraq was a disater and undermined our terrorist counter-attack in Afghanistan. We were lied to from day one about that...... regardless of hindsight.

wdtony both yourself and whooter make valid arguments. I would not even consider them arguments, they are true statements.

[Whooter]

Not everyone Whooter. I wasn't and I seem to remember Colin Powell asking for more time to consider and not attack unilaterally. You can't make a blanket statement like that, it's ridiculous.

By everyone I meant all facets of government... Democrats, republicans, liberals etc.  I should have made it clearer.



...