Fornits
General Interest => Tacitus' Realm => Topic started by: Pile of Dead Kids on July 26, 2010, 07:26:34 AM
-
http://wardiary.wikileaks.org (http://wardiary.wikileaks.org)
Our military is very good at killing hostiles it sees who are dumb enough to engage in a straight-up fight, but that doesn't stop the Taliban from basically owning the country anyway.
-
The Guardian
Series: Afghanistan: The war logs (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/afghanistan-the-war-logs)
Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks?intcmp=239)
- Hundreds of civilians killed by coalition troops
- Covert unit hunts leaders for 'kill or capture'
- Steep rise in Taliban bomb attacks on Nato
- Read the Guardian's full war logs investigation (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/warlogs)
Nick Davies and David Leigh
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 July 2010 22.03 BST
(http://http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/7/25/1280087885361/US-soldier-in-Afghanistan-006.jpg)
The war logs reveal civilian killings by coalition forces, secret efforts to eliminate Taliban and al-Qaida leaders, and discuss the involvement of Iran and Pakistan in supporting insurgents. Photograph: Max Whittaker/Corbis
A huge cache of secret US military files (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/warlogs) today provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency.
The disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers' website Wikileaks (http://http://wikileaks.org/) in one of the biggest leaks in US military history. The files, which were made available to the Guardian (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/warlogs), the New York Times (http://http://www.nytimes.com/warlogs) and the German weekly Der Spiegel (http://http://www.spiegel.de/afghandocuments), give a blow-by-blow account of the fighting over the last six years, which has so far cost the lives of more than 320 British and more than 1,000 US troops.
Their publication comes amid mounting concern that Barack Obama's "surge" strategy is failing and as coalition troops hunt for two US naval personnel captured by the Taliban south of Kabul on Friday.
The war logs (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/warlogs) also detail:
• How a secret "black" unit of special forces hunts down Taliban leaders for "kill or capture" without trial.
• How the US covered up evidence that the Taliban have acquired deadly surface-to-air missiles.
• How the coalition is increasingly using deadly Reaper drones to hunt and kill Taliban targets by remote control from a base in Nevada.
• How the Taliban have caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of their roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date.
In a statement, the White House said the chaotic picture painted by the logs was the result of "under-resourcing" under Obama's predecessor, saying: "It is important to note that the time period reflected in the documents is January 2004 to December 2009."
The White House also criticised the publication of the files by Wikileaks: "We strongly condemn the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organisations, which puts the lives of the US and partner service members at risk and threatens our national security. Wikileaks made no effort to contact the US government about these documents, which may contain information that endanger the lives of Americans, our partners, and local populations who co-operate with us."
The logs detail, in sometimes harrowing vignettes, the toll on civilians exacted by coalition forces: events termed "blue on white" in military jargon. The logs reveal 144 such incidents.
Some of these casualties come from the controversial air strikes that have led to Afghan government protests, but a large number of previously unknown incidents also appear to be the result of troops shooting unarmed drivers or motorcyclists out of a determination to protect themselves from suicide bombers.
At least 195 civilians are admitted to have been killed and 174 wounded in total, but this is likely to be an underestimate as many disputed incidents are omitted from the daily snapshots reported by troops on the ground and then collated, sometimes erratically, by military intelligence analysts.
Bloody errors at civilians' expense, as recorded in the logs, include the day French troops strafed a bus full of children in 2008, wounding eight. A US patrol similarly machine-gunned a bus, wounding or killing 15 of its passengers, and in 2007 Polish troops mortared a village, killing a wedding party including a pregnant woman, in an apparent revenge attack.
Questionable shootings of civilians by UK troops also figure. The US compilers detail an unusual cluster of four British shootings in Kabul in the space of barely a month, in October/November 2007, culminating in the death of the son of an Afghan general. Of one shooting, they wrote: "Investigation controlled by the British. We are not able to get [sic] complete story."
A second cluster of similar shootings, all involving Royal Marine commandos in Helmand province, took place in a six-month period at the end of 2008, according to the log entries. Asked by the Guardian about these allegations, the Ministry of Defence said: "We have been unable to corroborate these claims in the short time available and it would be inappropriate to speculate on specific cases without further verification of the alleged actions."
Rachel Reid, who investigates civilian casualty incidents in Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, said: "These files bring to light what's been a consistent trend by US and Nato forces: the concealment of civilian casualties. Despite numerous tactical directives ordering transparent investigations when civilians are killed, there have been incidents I've investigated in recent months where this is still not happening.
Accountability is not just something you do when you are caught. It should be part of the way the US and Nato do business in Afghanistan every time they kill or harm civilians." The reports, many of which the Guardian is publishing in full online (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/warlogs), present an unvarnished and often compelling account of the reality of modern war.
Most of the material, though classified "secret" at the time, is no longer militarily sensitive. A small amount of information has been withheld from publication because it might endanger local informants or give away genuine military secrets. Wikileaks, whose founder, Julian Assange, obtained the material in circumstances he will not discuss, said it would redact harmful material before posting the bulk of the data on its "uncensorable" servers.
Wikileaks published in April this year a previously suppressed classified video of US Apache helicopters killing two Reuters cameramen (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack) on the streets of Baghdad, which gained international attention. A 22-year-old intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, was arrested in Iraq and charged with leaking the video, but not with leaking the latest material. The Pentagon's criminal investigations department continues to try to trace the leaks and recently unsuccessfully asked Assange, he says, to meet them outside the US to help them. Assange allowed the Guardian to examine the logs at our request. No fee was involved and Wikileaks was not involved in the preparation of the Guardian's articles.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
-
Good video tutorial at the link:
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
How to read the Afghanistan war logs: video tutorial (http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/datablog/video/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-video-tutorial)
David Leigh, the Guardian's investigations editor, explains the online tools we have created to help you understand the secret US military files on the war in Afghanistan
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 25 July 2010
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2010
-
http://wardiary.wikileaks.org
Our military is very good at killing hostiles it sees who are dumb enough to engage in a straight-up fight, but that doesn't stop the Taliban from basically owning the country anyway.
The Military is in a no-win situation because their mission is impossible to accomplish. They should not even have this mission. The last thing on peoples minds on 9/11 was how it would be so nice if Afghans could vote. I don't care about that country whatsoever. The government that we call our friend will kill their citizens for leaving Islam. That is what our soldiers are fighting and dying for.
-
:eek:
-
Eliscu, were you as high as an ANA recruit when you posted that?
Yes, the situation's unwinnable. You'd think someone would have figured that out in 2004. If "victory" means leaving behind a stable country without an insurgency, then we'd have to kill absolutely everyone in Afghanistan, plus some more in Chechenya, Iran, and Pakistan, to achieve that, because these people are simply not going to make the kind of government we want them to make.
-
Eliscu, were you as high as an ANA recruit when you posted that?
Yes, the situation's unwinnable. You'd think someone would have figured that out in 2004. If "victory" means leaving behind a stable country without an insurgency, then we'd have to kill absolutely everyone in Afghanistan, plus some more in Chechenya, Iran, and Pakistan, to achieve that, because these people are simply not going to make the kind of government we want them to make.
But we won over Serbia when we joined the Jihad... Same over the Soviets.
When we join the Jihad, we win.
-
I know the US military has been having trouble in Afghanistan, which makes me wonder....
Why was the US military redirected to invade Iraq?
It was something about weapons of mass destruction I think. Were any ever found?
If we hadn't entered into a war in Iraq, the US military could have been successful in defeating the Taliban in Afghanistan before now.
I remember some people comparing the "war on terror" [sic] as being the next Vietnam. I didn't think it would escalate to what it is now.
It seems that the US may be in a state of perpetual warfare. Our economy, which is a mixed economy, (Capitalist/Socialist) cannot sustain these wars.
I hope somebody in our government has the smarts to get us out of this mess.
Back to the focus of eliminating child torture in the US.......
-
http://wardiary.wikileaks.org
Our military is very good at killing hostiles it sees who are dumb enough to engage in a straight-up fight, but that doesn't stop the Taliban from basically owning the country anyway.
The Military is in a no-win situation because their mission is impossible to accomplish. They should not even have this mission. The last thing on peoples minds on 9/11 was how it would be so nice if Afghans could vote. I don't care about that country whatsoever. The government that we call our friend will kill their citizens for leaving Islam. That is what our soldiers are fighting and dying for.
thank you...
-
Eliscu, were you as high as an ANA recruit when you posted that?
Yes, the situation's unwinnable. You'd think someone would have figured that out in 2004. If "victory" means leaving behind a stable country without an insurgency, then we'd have to kill absolutely everyone in Afghanistan, plus some more in Chechenya, Iran, and Pakistan, to achieve that, because these people are simply not going to make the kind of government we want them to make.
Administration for Native Americans (ANA)?????????????????????
-
Afghan National Army.
Protip: Learn what the hell you're talking about before you post.
-
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/ (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/27/leaked-afghan-war-files-expose-identities-informants/)
-
Times of London
July 27, 2010
Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants
Apparently that was just the first part of that article in The Times... HERE is full access (http://http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/afghanistan/article2662444.ece). 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 ."
-
RADIO FREE EUROPE
RADIO LIBERTY
NEWS
Afghan War Unmasked By Massive Leak Of Military Files (http://http://www.rferl.org/content/US_Criticizes_Publication_Of_Classified_Information_On_Afghan_War/2109508.html)
(http://http://gdb.rferl.org/755E877B-C303-45EC-9FFD-9092C04F7012_w527_s.jpg)
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 (http://http://www.wikileaks.org/).
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.
-
RADIO FREE EUROPE
RADIO LIBERTY
FEATURES
Interview: WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange (http://http://www.rferl.org/content/Interview_WikiLeaks_Founder_Julian_Assange/2111481.html)
(http://http://gdb.rferl.org/6A6F61B5-4BF6-4498-84FE-195904703265_w527_s.jpg)
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 (http://http://www.rferl.org/content/US_Criticizes_Publication_Of_Classified_Information_On_Afghan_War/2109508.html)?" In particular, Hamid Gul, the former chief of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, has said he thinks the reports are fabrications (http://http://www.rferl.org/content/Former_Spymaster_Rejects_Wikileaks_US_PreExit_Smear/2111322.html).
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 (http://http://www.rferl.org/content/Wikileaks_Afghan_War_Reports_Stir_Debates_On_Journalism_Law/2111395.html), 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.
-
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.
-
Forgot to include this comment for an earlier article (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=30855#p371249) before I posted the interview with Assange (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=30855#p371258)...
-------------- • -------------- • --------------
Comment (http://http://www.rferl.org/content/US_Criticizes_Publication_Of_Classified_Information_On_Afghan_War/2109508.html) left for the above article, "Afghan War Unmasked By Massive Leak Of Military Files (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=30855#p371249)" (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.
-
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.
-
RADIO FREE EUROPE
RADIO LIBERTY
NEWS
Afghan War Leak Stirs Intense U.S. Debate (http://http://www.rferl.org/content/Afghan_War_Leak_Stirs_Intense_US_Debate/2110638.html)
(http://http://gdb.rferl.org/9269E198-3D94-4A10-B6EF-0CDAA5B0827C_w527_s.jpg)
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 (http://http://www.wikileaks.org/)' 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 (http://http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/28/world/asia/28wikileaks.html?ref=world) 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 (http://http://thepage.time.com/statement-kerry-on-wikileaks-documents/). "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.
-
RADIO FREE EUROPE
RADIO LIBERTY
FEATURES
Former Spymaster Rejects WikiLeaks Charges As U.S. Pre-Exit Smear (http://http://www.rferl.org/content/Former_Spymaster_Rejects_Wikileaks_US_PreExit_Smear/2111322.html)
(http://http://gdb.rferl.org/0ED6C02D-87BD-4B56-906B-C1A595F1B825_mw270_s.jpg)
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.
(http://http://gdb.rferl.org/6CF21799-5B18-4A34-B672-531671AEEF04_w270_s.jpg)
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.
-
RADIO FREE EUROPE
RADIO LIBERTY
FEATURES
WikiLeaks' Afghan War Reports Stir Debates On Journalism, Law (http://http://www.rferl.org/content/Wikileaks_Afghan_War_Reports_Stir_Debates_On_Journalism_Law/2111395.html)
(http://http://gdb.rferl.org/6A6F61B5-4BF6-4498-84FE-195904703265_w527_s.jpg)
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."
(http://http://gdb.rferl.org/FD5D9B72-510C-4C57-BE2A-DACB53EBF86D_w270_s.jpg)
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.
-
RADIO FREE EUROPE
RADIO LIBERTY
FEATURES
WikiLeaks' Afghan War Reports Stir Debates On Journalism, Law (http://http://www.rferl.org/content/Wikileaks_Afghan_War_Reports_Stir_Debates_On_Journalism_Law/2111395.html)
(http://http://gdb.rferl.org/6A6F61B5-4BF6-4498-84FE-195904703265_w527_s.jpg)
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."
(http://http://gdb.rferl.org/FD5D9B72-510C-4C57-BE2A-DACB53EBF86D_w270_s.jpg)
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.
-
Comments (http://http://www.rferl.org/content/Wikileaks_Afghan_War_Reports_Stir_Debates_On_Journalism_Law/2111395.html) left for the above article, "WikiLeaks' Afghan War Reports Stir Debates On Journalism, Law (http://http://www.fornits.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=32&t=30855&p=371783#p371771)" (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.
-
"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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
"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.
...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
...
-
My opinion, bring are boys and girls home, now.
-
Fair enough Whooter. I do remember a large majority of government representatives being "for the war". Once in 2001 and eventually persuaded in 2003.
I have always viewed the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan as two separate wars. One was just and the other was not. Some may consider this all one war against terror. We were not attacked by Iraq though, that is a fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror)
-
Fair enough Whooter. I do remember a large majority of government representatives being "for the war". Once in 2001 and eventually persuaded in 2003.
I have always viewed the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan as two separate wars. One was just and the other was not. Some may consider this all one war against terror. We were not attacked by Iraq though, that is a fact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror)
True, I followed the war in Iraq very closely, but I am not up to speed on the war in Afghanistan. I have not had the intense interest as I did with Iraq. Maybe I am just tired of it. Bush was so intense about what was going on over there and fired up the troops and people at home. Obama seems to be disconnected from the whole middle east and focused on home affairs and that has been my interest lately also.
...
-
Yeah, I'm tired of it too. I don't have the answers and I don't think anyone else knows what to do at this point.
-
Yeah, I'm tired of it too. I don't have the answers and I don't think anyone else knows what to do at this point.
Bring the men and women home, please don't get tired of this.
-
It is really not very complicated. Russia and China are nation states that still follow policies that deviate from the system that is dominated by US financial interests. These financial interests, through a series of organizations of various nation states linked in the US-dominated system are attempting to isolate China and Russia militarily in order to maintain the current arrangement. The conditions that led to the US-centred system no longer exist, and instability has resulted. Chaos is the one consistent aspect of the period of adjustment in which we are currently living. Until a new equilibrium is achieved, there will be war.
-
It is really not very complicated. Russia and China are nation states that still follow policies that deviate from the system that is dominated by US financial interests. These financial interests, through a series of organizations of various nation states linked in the US-dominated system are attempting to isolate China and Russia militarily in order to maintain the current arrangement. The conditions that led to the US-centred system no longer exist, and instability has resulted. Chaos is the one consistent aspect of the period of adjustment in which we are currently living. Until a new equilibrium is achieved, there will be war.
Very Scary... I mean your opinion.
Russia and China. In the last century both countries have killed tens of millions of their own citizens.
-
Hilarious as always, Stonewall. As if my opinion could scare you. My opinion can't take you from your home and incarcerate you, nor can it cause you nor anyone else physical harm.
Millions of Chinese and Russians were killed in the last century by agents of their own governments and millions more by an array of foreign occupying forces. At the end of the First World War occupying armies from France, Great Britain, Japan, the United States and Canada entered Russia. The Germans killed millions of Russians during the Second World War. China was also occupied by foreign powers and millions of Chinese were killed in the course of the Sino-Japanese War. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed by other Americans during the US civil war. Twenty per cent of the population of North Korea was killed by the United States during the Korean War according to General Curtis Lemay. I know that you are a clever satirist, I just don't see the punchline this time.
-
It is really not very complicated. Russia and China are nation states that still follow policies that deviate from the system that is dominated by US financial interests. These financial interests, through a series of organizations of various nation states linked in the US-dominated system are attempting to isolate China and Russia militarily in order to maintain the current arrangement. The conditions that led to the US-centred system no longer exist, and instability has resulted. Chaos is the one consistent aspect of the period of adjustment in which we are currently living. Until a new equilibrium is achieved, there will be war.
Very Scary... I mean your opinion.
Russia and China. In the last century both countries have killed tens of millions of their own citizens.
That's just in the last century, keep going there's millions more dead.
-
There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many
There's so many of us
There's so many of us
There's so many
Let's have a war
So you can go and die!
Let's have a war!
We could all use the money!
Let's have a war!
We need the space!
Let's have a war!
Clean out this place!
It already started in the city!
Suburbia will be just as easy!
Let's have a war!
Jack up the Dow Jones!
Let's have a war!
It can start in New Jersey!
Let's have a war!
Blame it on the middle-class!
Let's have a war!
We're like rats in a cage!
It already started in the city!
Suburbia will be just as easy!
Let's have a war!
Sell the rights to the networks!
Let's have a war!
General Motors get fat like last time!
Let's have a war!
Give guns to the queers!
Let's have a war!
The enemy's within!
It already started in the city!
Suburbia will be just as easy!
:twofinger:
-
Hilarious as always, Stonewall. As if my opinion could scare you. My opinion can't take you from your home and incarcerate you, nor can it cause you nor anyone else physical harm.
Millions of Chinese and Russians were killed in the last century by agents of their own governments and millions more by an array of foreign occupying forces. At the end of the First World War occupying armies from France, Great Britain, Japan, the United States and Canada entered Russia. The Germans killed millions of Russians during the Second World War. China was also occupied by foreign powers and millions of Chinese were killed in the course of the Sino-Japanese War. Hundreds of thousands of Americans were killed by other Americans during the US civil war. Twenty per cent of the population of North Korea was killed by the United States during the Korean War according to General Curtis Lemay. I know that you are a clever satirist, I just don't see the punchline this time.
Russia's military is already isolated. Their Navy is useless. China does not have a blue water Navy. China is actually benefiting greatly under the current world financial system.
I do agree with you that the main way to be an enemy of the U.S. you must deviate from the financial system that is dominated by the U.S.. The so called Free Market World Economy. Globalization.
It used to be that ideology would create enemies for the U.S.. Like Communism & Nazism. That is not necessarily true anymore. Even Radical Islamic States are not enemies of the U.S. because of their ideology, what I mean by that is, well here is an example... Look at Iran. Iran is our enemy not because of their ideology or religion. It is our enemy because Iran has an agenda that tries to upset our version of economics, the World economy, Globalization. Iran does not want to play the game. They have their own game and wish to have it expand and dominate. We say we are against their human rights in their own country and their export of terror... and I'm sure we do not like those things but that alone would not make you an enemy. Proof of that is our relationship with Saudi Arabia. They have the same type of human rights issues and they export terror, much more than Iran does. But, Arabia plays the economic game. They go along with the world economy. They do not make waves economically.
The basic reality is, if you play America's economic game... you are in, if you don't you are out. That is what matters in American Foreign Policy. Not ideology, not human rights, just the money...
And, what is even worse is that this hurts America.
-
Proof of that is our relationship with Saudi Arabia. They have the same type of human rights issues and they export terror, much more than Iran does. But, Arabia plays the economic game. They go along with the world economy. They do not make waves economically.
The basic reality is, if you play America's economic game... you are in, if you don't you are out. That is what matters in American Foreign Policy. Not ideology, not human rights, just the money...
And, what is even worse is that this hurts America.
:notworthy:
So now the question is how should decent people respond?