Wikileaks.org releases 90,000 secret US war documents

[Lemon law]

Don't worry, I'm just glad somebody read my post

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To some extent, its important to say this op ed published in NYT is not a NYT product.
And I also have to wonder about the bias of the author, Andrew Exum, in terms of assassination tactics, that may border on war crimes.

Here is a brief snippet from the op ed.

" I myself first went to Afghanistan as a young Army officer in 2002 and returned two years later after having led a small special operations unit — what Mr. Assange calls an “assassination squad.” (I also worked briefly as a civilian adviser to General McChrystal last year.) I can confirm that the situation in Afghanistan is complex, and defies any attempt to graft it onto easy-to-discern lessons or policy conclusions. Yet the release of the documents has led to a stampede of commentators and politicians doing exactly that. It’s all too easy for them to find field reports to reaffirm their preconceived opinions about the war. "

Te other point Mr. Exum seemingly makes is that one does not have to be on the ground in Afghanistan to get a fairly clear picture on what is going on, because any one who follows the news reports coming out can gain that same general perspective.

But the other Mr. Exum thesis is seemingly, that these leaks do not rise to the significance level of the Pentagon papers, because they were already reported in some sort of vague detail before. But we can ask, if Mr. Exum is right or wrong on that contention?

I somewhat submit he is wrong in that area. Simply because there were vague and ill defined reports circulating in the news media and or blogasphere makes their credibility easy to attack, dismiss, and deny. But when the reports unquestionable come from the US military itself, they become hard facts impossible to deny. And we can correlate what the military was telling the public about many past incidents and what the military really knew about the incident at the same time.

But because many of the leaks were raw intelligence and often came from dubious sources, such dubious sources are included in RAW intelligence, not because they are per say true, but because its true that someone did indeed report it. So if Joe Blow from Kokomo or Karatchi tells army intelligence that the Taliban comes from some the planet XRGal, it gets included in raw intelligence even though its dubious at best.

Which somewhat comes back to the almost certain fact, its going to take a lot of time to makes sense of these leaks, and with maybe another 15,000 or more documents yet to be released, very little is known now. And any initial conclusion is likely to be true later, because those initial conclusions are unlikely to stand the test of time.

 

[Blackjack200]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To some extent, its important to say this op ed published in NYT is not a NYT product.
And I also have to wonder about the bias of the author, Andrew Exum, in terms of assassination tactics, that may border on war crimes.

Here is a brief snippet from the op ed.

" I myself first went to Afghanistan as a young Army officer in 2002 and returned two years later after having led a small special operations unit — what Mr. Assange calls an “assassination squad.” (I also worked briefly as a civilian adviser to General McChrystal last year.) I can confirm that the situation in Afghanistan is complex, and defies any attempt to graft it onto easy-to-discern lessons or policy conclusions. Yet the release of the documents has led to a stampede of commentators and politicians doing exactly that. It’s all too easy for them to find field reports to reaffirm their preconceived opinions about the war. "

I noticed this too, and agree that it could, and probably does, color his opinion. On the other hand, I do appreciate that he's upfront about it.

Te other point Mr. Exum seemingly makes is that one does not have to be on the ground in Afghanistan to get a fairly clear picture on what is going on, because any one who follows the news reports coming out can gain that same general perspective.

I read it the other way: that the situation in Afghanistan is so complex that even the officers on the ground lack a sense of the big picture, and their reports consquently lack context.

But the other Mr. Exum thesis is seemingly, that these leaks do not rise to the significance level of the Pentagon papers, because they were already reported in some sort of vague detail before. But we can ask, if Mr. Exum is right or wrong on that contention?

I somewhat submit he is wrong in that area. Simply because there were vague and ill defined reports circulating in the news media and or blogasphere makes their credibility easy to attack, dismiss, and deny. But when the reports unquestionable come from the US military itself, they become hard facts impossible to deny. And we can correlate what the military was telling the public about many past incidents and what the military really knew about the incident at the same time.

But because many of the leaks were raw intelligence and often came from dubious sources, such dubious sources are included in RAW intelligence, not because they are per say true, but because its true that someone did indeed report it. So if Joe Blow from Kokomo or Karatchi tells army intelligence that the Taliban comes from some the planet XRGal, it gets included in raw intelligence even though its dubious at best.

Which somewhat comes back to the almost certain fact, its going to take a lot of time to makes sense of these leaks, and with maybe another 15,000 or more documents yet to be released, very little is known now. And any initial conclusion is likely to be true later, because those initial conclusions are unlikely to stand the test of time.

I agree that we won't know the real signifigance of this for some time. 91,000 is just a large number to work through, especially if you're trying to organize them and construct some kind of broader story. As far as the Pentagon Papers are concerned, I think the point is that these documents are unlikely to show the American Government lying to the public the way they were in Vietnam.

 

[OutHouse]

I was going to apologise for posting in the wrong thread but then your stupid arse had to go further.

Son, i'm talking about BLAIR, i don't give a flying fuck about your retard of a president.

You can read my reply to this matter above in this thread. now go fuck yourself you retarded piece of sheit and fucking cheers from Bagram.

wow dude take a pill and i believe an apology is in order.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally Posted by Deeko View Post
When you get a clearance, you agree that violating the clearance amounts to treason

lol umm no. ive know people who have lost or accidentally shredded secret and top secret papers. was that violating their clearance? yes did they get charged with treason? lol no and I assure you they did not enjoy the ass chewing they got standing on the commanders carpet while signing their article-15's.

 

[Deeko]

lol umm no. ive know people who have lost or accidentally shredded secret and top secret papers. was that violating their clearance? yes did they get charged with treason? lol no and I assure you they did not enjoy the ass chewing they got standing on the commanders carpet while signing their article-15's.

While I do appreciate your 11 year old AOL style response, there are obviously varying levels of violation. Intentionally leaking 90,000 documents to the press? Treason. Accidentally shredding a document? Not quite as dire.

 

[Kirby]

i'm sure there's going to a be a shit ton of new restrictions, regulations and other nonsense bureaucracy at work due to this.

 

[LumbergTech]

While I do appreciate your 11 year old AOL style response, there are obviously varying levels of violation. Intentionally leaking 90,000 documents to the press? Treason. Accidentally shredding a document? Not quite as dire.

fortunately they will not reveal their sources..so the people like you who wish to live in a cloud not knowing what the hell is going on do not get your wish

 

[EagleKeeper]

i'm sure there's going to a be a shit ton of new restrictions, regulations and other nonsense bureaucracy at work due to this.

People did not honor the Need-To-Know axium.

And the leaker apparently did not have a TS.

 

[Kirby]

People did not honor the Need-To-Know axium.

And the leaker apparently did not have a TS.

Obviously there are problems with the how the info was handled, but I imagine there's going to a backlash of stupid training videos that no one pays attention to, superfluous security, and a whole bunch of crap that's going to interfere with work more than solve the issue.

I'm a co-op student for the DoD, and I already spend at least a week catching up on training ever semester I come back. I'm pretty sure my coworker who sits beside is going to have an aneurysm the next time he has to change his password.

 

[OutHouse]

While I do appreciate your 11 year old AOL style response, there are obviously varying levels of violation. Intentionally leaking 90,000 documents to the press? Treason. Accidentally shredding a document? Not quite as dire.

im fully aware of the difference, i was just pointing out that craig is wrong about the "contract" you have when you have a security clearance.

the asshat who leaked those documents did commit treason and i hope he gets shot.

people have been executed under treason for doing far less.

11 year old AOL response? did i ask your A/S/L or something?

 

[Deeko]

fortunately they will not reveal their sources..so the people like you who wish to live in a cloud not knowing what the hell is going on do not get your wish

I have TS/SCI. I know plenty, thank you.

 

[rchiu]

I still have to regard these wicki leaks as another incarnation of the Pentagon papers, when the American people learned of the huge gaps between what the Government actually knew, and the bullshit propaganda those that knew better were telling to American people. I always prefer to know the truth, and find it astonishing that anyone would prefer propaganda.

But I for one would be overwhelmed and delusional if I thought that I could wade through 90,000+ documents, each on them multi page links, and come to any immediate valid conclusions. Which is why many journalistic entities have already assigned teams of analysts to look at the larger whole even as the larger whole is broken up into sub categories. And already we have some journalistic teams coming up with early conclusions other teams disagree with.

As for me, I will wait maybe weeks and months, before I have the unmitigated gall to say there are specific valuable things to be learned. Its a little too early to tell yet!

But has the American Government been lying to me, that is a no brainer yes, its been our life time experience, but as some of those liars are exposed, at least we can make sure they get their ass fired.

So what's the truth? Is Wikileak providing us the truth or are they just another site with anti-war agenda?

Sure we all prefer to know the truth, but there is the right way and the wrong way to go about finding the truth. Going through a propaganda website is no better than going through a propaganda government PR guy. For someone in the military to leak top secret documents by the tens of thousand to someone with agenda, to make information available to enemies we are still engaging, is simple treason.

There are channels in US you can go through to make formal investigation without making top secret information public. There got to be one or two good men or women in the government and military with the backbone to look into this with proper procedure and due consideration of the context surrounding those documents. Why not go through those channels, why go through public websites?

Hmm...because someone has serious need for attention, or web traffic maybe?

 

[Wheezer]

Looks like he pissed off his own government......the Australians are going to look into pressing charges:

Assange may have committed offence: ADA

Wikileaks founder Australian Julian Assange could have committed a serious criminal offence in helping an enemy of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), the lobby group, the Australia Defence Association (ADA) says.

ADA executive director Neil James said much of the 92,201 assorted US military, intelligence and diplomatic documents leaked by Wikileaks would not be new to anyone familiar with the Afghanistan war or wars in general.

But this latest material went well beyond justifiable whistleblowing, he said.
Advertisement: Story continues below

"Put bluntly, Wikileaks is not authorised in international or Australian law, nor equipped morally or operationally, to judge whether open publication of such material risks the safety, security, morale and legitimate objectives of Australian and allied troops fighting in a UN-endorsed military operation," he said in a statement.

Mr James said there were many alternative avenues available for legitimate dissent which did not endanger our troops.

"Moreover, as an Australian citizen, Wikileaks' Julian Assange may also be guilty of a serious criminal offence by assisting an enemy the ADF is fighting on behalf of all Australians, especially if the assistance was intentional," he said.

The documents cover the period 2004-09, with an initial tranche released to various US, UK and German publications by WikiLeaks.

The most controversial allegations centre around claims that Pakistan's intelligence service has continued to assist the Taliban insurgency despite Pakistan government insistence there was no ongoing relationship.

Australia is mentioned in some of the documents with the Australian Defence Department forming a task force to assess whether release of this information has endangered Australian troops.

Mr James said whatever Mr Assange's motives, his actions again highlighted the need to amend treachery laws to prohibit reckless assistance to an enemy.

"What Wikileaks and its apologists ignore is the clear legal and moral differences between the actions of rule-of-law democracies applying international humanitarian law in UN-endorsed warfighting (however imperfectly at times), and the deliberate rejection of such law by the Taliban and its Islamist allies," he said.

"ISAF's battlefield mistakes are the result of typical wartime tragedy, accidents and at times incompetence or personal failure, not deliberate or institutional policy."

Which is why this is serious...some douche bag(s) handed him all these documents said "don't worry there is nothing serious in here that would get any body killed" and he takes them at their word and publishes it.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...ave-committed-offence-ada-20100728-10vp8.html

 

[Craig234]

Going through a propaganda website...

You may have unintentionally spoken the truth...

Now a web site which publishes official government documents, is a propaganda web site.

Hmm...because someone has serious need for attention, or web traffic maybe?

This is ignorant and childish.

I guess Rosa Parks just needed attention, or press. Obviously, there's no principle involved, whether or not you think it's misguided, but you don't have that reasonable an opinion.

 

[llee]

Vegeta, what does the scouter say about his power?
It's over NINE THOUSAAAAAAAND!

 

[palehorse]

OK, THIS is why the leaks are entirely fucking unacceptable, and the person who leaked them must be tried for treason... And quite possibly a few counts of manslaughter as well.

Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/27/leaked-afghan-war-files-expose-identities-informants/

Anyone who supports wikileaks, or supports the person who leaked the documents, is fucking scum.

 

[Lemon law]

OK, THIS is why the leaks are entirely fucking unacceptable, and the person who leaked them must be tried for treason... And quite possibly a few counts of manslaughter as well.

Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/27/leaked-afghan-war-files-expose-identities-informants/

Anyone who supports wikileaks, or supports the person who leaked the documents, is fucking scum.

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

Palehorse, even if there is universal agreement that the leaker should be tried for treason, your Statement still boils down to crying about spilled milk and locking the barn door after the horse got out. Because the damage is already done.

As for the identity of the actual leaker(s), its my understanding that the US military has some suspects, and in the fullness of time may finally find out for sure for sure who done it. As for wikileaks, the founder claims they do not know and do not care to know the identity of the leaker.

In short, intel always leaks, and in my mind, its somewhat the fault of the US military for not better safe guarding its secrets.

And I am reminded of a recent Statement made by a ex chief Cia official Admiral Hayden to the effect, if I am the Russians, I would be putting my top guys on this leaked information to see where are the US strengths and where are the US weaknesses. Yet ole Hayden had easy access to all this information all along, and failed to put his top guys on this information to see where US liabilities were in Afghanistan and was also asleep at the switch in terms of reducing those liabilities.
And now, the larger world will know, for all to see, where the US failed to act on the information it had.

 

[Craig234]

I don't think you have any clue what so ever of what you are trying to discuss here.

If it puts friendly troops in harms way, it's a fucking problem, if you don't think it is then you are not thinking straight.

If it was about the US and UK SS and politicians lying about things, i would have NO problem what so ever with it, in fact i would support that (the exposure of it) to the fullest of my ability.

But that is not what this is about, either you are too fucked up in the head to get that or you are really just ignorant and still talking about something you know nothing of.

I'm discussing it in general, I have not seen the documents and can't say anything about whether they actually are any real 'security issue'.

For what it's worth, a report has said that there is one actual name that could cause a problem for the person.

But note the links from people that even the Pentagon, surprisingly, says the info seems 'safe'.

What specific harm can you show the leaks have done?

If they are exposing people to harm, I'd like to know, that's a problem.

And I don't mean the 'harm' of the 'if they know the truth they'll get mad and might attack more' type of harm, like with Abu Ghraib. That's the price of accountability.

When you post 'you don't know what you're posting on', it's customary not to say just that but to post some of the info you claim you have and prove the alleged error.