Defence departments love it: 92,000 documents on Afghanistan operations leaked [Archive]

CaptainHaplo

07-26-10, 09:25 AM

A black unit targetting leadership without trials? Thats a suprise to people? C'mon - last time I checked this was combat - taking out leadership is a common and acceptable tactic. No different than tankers told to look for red star tanks with command antennae....

Unmanned drones that don't work as expected? Nothing is 100% - better the cost of a 3-5M for a crashed drone that crashed vs 17M for an F-16, plus the cost of a human life lost or captured. Gee they have bugs - big suprise. Show me a new weapon that doesnt......

Not every civilian casualty is reported by and to the press? Wow - now thats a shocker let me tell you. Even the articles linked point out how "hundreds" of civilians have been killed by coalition forces - but also admits multiple thousands have been killed by extremists using stuff like roadside bombs. Funny how the mainstream media doesn't keep a real tally. Lets point out the deaths on ALL sides why don't we - or would that make the media admit that the people who are actively targetting civilians - and not caring if any innocents are hurt - are in fact the terrorists. But the media doesn't want to do that....

144 civilian incidents that went "unreported". Funny - how could they go unreported if they were in the documetation. Someone reported them - there was a record of them. Just because the news media wasn't briefed it somehow becomes "unreported"? Give me a break. Oh - and 144 "incidents" in 5 years. Basically 29 per year. A little over 2 a month. Think about this. Combat happens in multiple places there every day - and its suddenly "Oh my god - we in the media didn't KNOW about this" and that makes it a coverup?

Did no one notice how the Guardian article stated French troops in 2008 had an incident, 2007 Polish troops did to - but when mentioning US troops it gave absolutely no date frame at all?

Of course - one look at the title of that article and you already know its leaning...... "occupation" makes it clear they have a predefined view. Yet isn't it odd the article itself doesn't make any kind of case for occupation - and in fact details the weakness of the current government - which is WHY allied forces are still in country - to prop up a weak but democratically elected government. So what would it be if the pakistani/iranian supported taliban took over? Would they still call it an "occupation"? I doubt it.

I agree this war has gone on far too long and at too high a price. But trying to villify those who are fighting it - when the decisions to be there and HOW we fight it are political - is putting the blame on the wrong people.

When bullets fly, bad **** happens no matter what. People die. But if your going to fight a battle or a war, you have to be willing to actually fight it. That still has not really happened. When the media is more about trying to "nail the soldier" - so that they ignore the more heinous and intentional acts of the enemy, as well as fail to hold the political leadership accountable, they lose total credibility.

Want to end this war? Then decide how you want to do it. Either victory (meaning extremists lack the ability to organize and do more than minimal disruption) or failure (meaning a withdrawal in which a legal government cannot continue to function). We have the means to do either one - I support the first option - but the leadership of NATO has consistently lacked the will to pursue it. This war could be over in one year. Or it could be over tommorow. If your going to pursue failure (which both Bush and Obama have done) - then we should end it tommorow - or today. If you are going to pursue success - then the leadership has to make the determination and make it happen. Forgive me, but I am not holding my breath.

And for those who want to say "the people don't have the will to pursue success" - that is because the media has sapped their will to do so. If you turned on your TV and saw the carnage that the taliban create - saw the tears of the families of those they brutally murder - then you would know why those men and women were there fighting. But the media doesn't show you that, now does it.

Fair and balanced my big fat ass - and that goes for every single outlet out there.... Some are simply closer to actual news than others.

Foxtrot

07-26-10, 09:28 AM

atrocities committed by military in the name of "protecting freedoms" are NOT classified documents.

And these documents are just a tip of the iceberg.

Tribesman

07-26-10, 10:23 AM

Of course - one look at the title of that article and you already know its leaning...... "occupation" makes it clear they have a predefined view.
Occupation is the correct term, ISAF is the occupying body in the ongoing conflict despite the change from transitional government and the two elections. Just as the Coilition in Iraq remained an occupying power until they did the deal which meant the terms were completed and the occupation was ended by a sofa

Skybird

07-26-10, 10:24 AM

Well I hope they catch the guy who leaked this stuff. I take a dim view of the unauthorized dissemination of classified information. Somebody needs to go to jail for a long time.
the governments betraying their own people weighs much heavier. the leaking of this material I consider to be some kind of an ultima ratio in self-defence - becasue there is zero idnication that our governments are stopping to betray us: you, me, all others, and last but not least: the troops in the field, no matter the nationality.

As I see it, if ranking the enemies by importance and priorities, the greatest enemy of the troops fighting is their own governments, next it is the Pakistani and the ISI (preaching this since years, don't I), and then, maybe, finally, it is the Taliban.

Compared to this, the leaking of these documents is a minor crime. And why should our governments ever change their approach and their deception of the public, if the public can be successfully deceived by hiding such reports from it?

As somebody above put it: if this makes the governments more afraid of the people, then it is a good thing. I personally am sick and tieed of listening to government'S infantile stupid claims about what they plan and can do in Afghnaistan. It is so very disconnected from realities, and own troops are being told to risk their lives for this governmental crime.

to me, the crime of leaking secret stuff is put into relation if that deeds helps to enforce more realism and honesty from politicians. A politician will lie if it helps his interest - but only if he sees that he gets away with it. that's why free media are so important in a democracy, and that's why gagging media or limiting the protection of their sources is a direct assault on the very basics of free, democratic political and social order.

If those in power are allowed to hide too much from the people, freedom dies.

August

07-26-10, 11:05 AM

As somebody above put it: if this makes the governments more afraid of the people, then it is a good thing.

What if it identifies people who have been working for us to the Taliban and they are killed and/or tortured as a result? Would it still be a good thing then?

There are good reasons for assigning security classifications to information and i'm betting that somewhere in those 97 thousand documents there will be some information that will put some good people at risk. I don't trust the media one bit to choose what is safe to disseminate and what isn't.

Tribesman

07-26-10, 11:41 AM

What if it identifies people who have been working for us to the Taliban and they are killed and/or tortured as a result? Would it still be a good thing then?

Once they pull out then its gonna happen anyway isn't it.

I don't trust the media one bit to choose what is safe to disseminate and what isn't.
But do you trust the government to?

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-26-10, 11:42 AM

mookiemookie

07-26-10, 11:44 AM

If this release helps end this stupid war, then it will have saved more lives than any amount of guns or bombs ever would have.

Skybird

07-26-10, 12:34 PM

What if it identifies people who have been working for us to the Taliban and they are killed and/or tortured as a result? Would it still be a good thing then?

There are good reasons for assigning security classifications to information and i'm betting that somewhere in those 97 thousand documents there will be some information that will put some good people at risk. I don't trust the media one bit to choose what is safe to disseminate and what isn't.
Obviously many documents in there show that many non-combatants get killed while we debate this, and that this is kept secret, and that many operations by special operations teams fail too, again resulting in the killing of not the intended targets, but "others". Also the many reports from men fighting at the front seem to show that the situation is much, much worse than what the media and the govenrment try to make the people at home believe. I noted over the day that in the American media headlines, the aspect of the ISI massively supporting and directing the Taliban, and the existence of commandoes for tagetted assassination of hostile key figures, seem to get most attention - as if the reports are not showing anything else. But they cover as well the inadequzate equipment of the German bundeswehr and the deficits it suffers therefore. Der Spiegel also points at reports showing how very many of the remote control drones are malfunction and go lost in crashes, or troops trying to retrieve them get ambushed. There are so many very different aspects that get adressed, that each nation currently seem to focus its' media attention on only a small ammount of the overall ammount of information released here.

Also, it is was mentioned by the chief editors of the newspapers and Wikileaks as well, that critical information that could effect running operations or put lives at risk, get withhold from public release, or get blacked out.

Much more things go wrong in Afghanistan then what the media usually gets told and then reports, or what governments try to make us believe. And this material seems to be a huge truckload of first-hand information from those who know the situation better than most others: the men fighting this messy war at the frontline, on the basis of political lies, illusions and deceitful claims of their own government on why they get send there.

Note that I do not make much difference between Germans and Americans and British and Dutch and others here. All our governments have lost their senses over Afghanistan. and no matter their flags, all our soldiers over there need to spoon out the soup politicians at home have messed up.

Skybird

07-26-10, 01:01 PM

Acting on these new convictions, in the summer of 1971 Ellsberg leaked copies of the McNamara study to the New York Times and other prominent newspapers. Almost overnight the "Pentagon Papers," as the study was quickly dubbed, became a lead story in the media, and Ellsberg became a controversial national figure. As he later explained his motivations:

"I felt as an American citizen, a responsible citizen, I could no longer cooperate in concealing this information from the American people. I took this action on my own initiative, and I am prepared for all the consequences."

Those consequences included federal indictment on several counts under the Espionage Act for the possession and unauthorized release of classified documents.
The Pentagon Papers catapulted Ellsberg into a position of national prominence. For the antiwar movement, his conversion from ardent "hawk" to committed "dove" proved a powerful symbol. Ellsberg, for his part, warmly embraced the movement along with a series of other liberal causes. In 1972 he published a book, Papers on the War, that set forth his position on the Vietnam conflict. The following year the charges against him were dropped as a result of government misconduct. In the wake of the Pentagon Papers furor, the Nixon administration had launched its secret "plumbers" operation, so named because this team of trusted presidential aides was directed to stem any further "leaks" that might embarrass the government, as the Pentagon Papers had. Nixon aides burglarized the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist in an effort to find information that would destroy his credibility, and employed similar criminal tactics in an attempt to tap the phones at the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in the summer of 1972. The ramifications from this last act forced Nixon to resign 1974.

from:
http://www.bookrags.com/biography/daniel-ellsberg/

the same guy fears that the Us is planning a hit on the Wikileaks founder, since it is no secret that the government would love to shut down Wikileaks better yesterday than today, and that it is "exmained" how that could be acchieved. so far they preferred to focus on "legal actions", or hindering Wikileaks' access to thr world wide web. After this stunt now, one indeed cannot rule out that Wikileaks is considered to be too great a threat to government and party interests as if even an accident or a hit could be ruled out.

Jimbuna

07-26-10, 02:12 PM

This is causing quite a stir in the UK and tbh I'm not suprised.

Anyone any idea where the leak came from?

krashkart

07-26-10, 02:15 PM

This is causing quite a stir in the UK and tbh I'm not suprised.

If I recall correctly, the Yahoo News article I read last night said it was the same guy that leaked the video of Iraqi journalists being killed by the Apache crew.

EDIT - A former US military analyst. Not remembering his name ATM.

Can anyone verify this information? I'm not finding the article I read last night. :/

CaptainHaplo

07-26-10, 02:36 PM

You all are missing the point. There is really nothing "new" in this "news", but everyone wants to act like its something revealing. It's much ado about nothing in many ways.

Its more a way for some to stir up those with similiar views by manufacturing "secret information" that anyone should have known if they used their brain.

Does the government hide too much - of course. That's not news either.....

August

07-26-10, 02:43 PM

Also, it is was mentioned by the chief editors of the newspapers and Wikileaks as well, that critical information that could effect running operations or put lives at risk, get withhold from public release, or get blacked out.

Yeah I read that too. My question is what makes a newspaper editor such an expert that he can make such determinations?

Also, what is their chain of custody like? Is it good enough to keep the withheld critical information out of the wrong hands? I'm betting it isn't.

Wolfehunter

07-26-10, 02:56 PM

the governments betraying their own people weighs much heavier. the leaking of this material I consider to be some kind of an ultima ratio in self-defence - becasue there is zero idnication that our governments are stopping to betray us: you, me, all others, and last but not least: the troops in the field, no matter the nationality.

As I see it, if ranking the enemies by importance and priorities, the greatest enemy of the troops fighting is their own governments, next it is the Pakistani and the ISI (preaching this since years, don't I), and then, maybe, finally, it is the Taliban.

Compared to this, the leaking of these documents is a minor crime. And why should our governments ever change their approach and their deception of the public, if the public can be successfully deceived by hiding such reports from it?

As somebody above put it: if this makes the governments more afraid of the people, then it is a good thing. I personally am sick and tieed of listening to government'S infantile stupid claims about what they plan and can do in Afghnaistan. It is so very disconnected from realities, and own troops are being told to risk their lives for this governmental crime.

to me, the crime of leaking secret stuff is put into relation if that deeds helps to enforce more realism and honesty from politicians. A politician will lie if it helps his interest - but only if he sees that he gets away with it. that's why free media are so important in a democracy, and that's why gagging media or limiting the protection of their sources is a direct assault on the very basics of free, democratic political and social order.

If those in power are allowed to hide too much from the people, freedom dies.+1 :up: I have to agree with sky. Your enemy is your government. There personal interest are for themselves and there friends. Unless your part of that system of there your worthless to them. Just trash.

krashkart

07-26-10, 03:01 PM

Unless your part of that system of there your worthless to them. Just trash.

Not entirely; someone has to keep the mills running. :03:

SteamWake

07-26-10, 03:09 PM

The regime is not pleased...

The Obama administration on Monday called the release of thousands of classified documents on the Afghanistan war a "breach of federal law," as a prominent senator said the government needs to press charges in the case.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/26/administration-calls-war-document-leak-illegal-harmful-amid-probe/

Jimbuna

07-26-10, 03:19 PM

If I recall correctly, the Yahoo News article I read last night said it was the same guy that leaked the video of Iraqi journalists being killed by the Apache crew.

EDIT - A former US military analyst. Not remembering his name ATM.

Ah, right...cheers :up:

Takeda Shingen

07-26-10, 03:21 PM

Well I hope they catch the guy who leaked this stuff. I take a dim view of the unauthorized dissemination of classified information. Somebody needs to go to jail for a long time.

Agreed. This is most underhanded. The media is not the media of 50 years ago. Integrity has given way to the almighty dollar. The outlet that can spill the most dirt, spill it the quickest, and give the highest justification to its 'base' is the one with the fattest coffers. It is simply that pointing the finger at the government is very fashionable nowadays. A year ago, it was corporations. Before that, it was the military. Tomorrow, it will be something else.

Ducimus

07-26-10, 03:44 PM

Well I hope they catch the guy who leaked this stuff. I take a dim view of the unauthorized dissemination of classified information. Somebody needs to go to jail for a long time.

It's not often I agree with August. I don't know what was in the document's, and I don't care. No matter what those classified document's contain, they'll only be twisted around to further Media ratings, Jihadist agenda's, and put peoples lives in further danger. Whoever decided to do that is a scumbag, and the media moguls should know better then to risk national security over god damn ratings. Scumbags, all.

Skybird

07-26-10, 03:44 PM

Yeah I read that too. My question is what makes a newspaper editor such an expert that he can make such determinations?

What makes a poltiician or a committee member such an expert? Are you sure those having a word on hiding or releasing these things do so much better a job? I don't.

The expertise of an editor depends on the person and his background. Note that it were complete teams, not indovudual persons, and that they spend weeks on this task. also note that it were three different intenrational papers, not just one bean-counter in the back corner of some forgotten office. I assume they have not put their "local news" editors on it. However, blacking out names and faces and adresses should be something not so impossible to acchieve. however, I must wondering that when you are so distrustful to them, why you do not complain about the trust beytrayed by the government that runs the war and wants to keep the reality of it hidden. Do you really have any reason to be so sure that they do that much a better job with the responsibility they have? When I look at how Afghanistan and the ISAf mission detoriated over the past 7 years, I see no reason at all to put any trust in my or your government's handling of the war at all. Both stink, both ignore unwanted realities, both raise false promises about the future, and the other governments do like that as well. And these people's deeds you want to let go by unmonitored and uncontrolled, although their failure and betrayal cannot be hidden and they are costing the lives of your own and our own troops?? Listen to their public statements and conferences and promises - their words speak for themselves in order to illustrate how disconnected from reality they are. They need to be stopped.

Also, what is their chain of custody like? Is it good enough to keep the withheld critical information out of the wrong hands? I'm betting it isn't.
when judging the way the war has been handled for 7 years you may want to be more concerned about the lack of realism and expertise of both the Bush and the Obama governments and the way they "managed" the war, as well as the failure of the other nation'S governments driven by illusions as well. And if their competence to withhold any knowledge from the public (that the public depends on in order to form an educated opinion on the war), can compensate for that lacking sense of realism and expertise, is highly in doubt.

I do not knopw if in 2014 their realyl will be a major withdrawel. but I can tell you for sure that in 2014 the Afghan security apparatus still will not derseve that name and still will be as impotent as it is now and has been two years ago and has been three and four and five years ago, with the Pakistani not stopping the ways in which they run their game. Why should they if it runs so well for them.

Zachstar

07-26-10, 05:05 PM

The regime is not pleased...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/26/administration-calls-war-document-leak-illegal-harmful-amid-probe/

They can whine and scream all they want. The only reason they caught the man who exposed the cowardly attack on the Reuters reporters is because he bragged in a chat. Wikileaks likely has it VERY clear now (Well unless they are stupid beyond belief) that when someone releases such info that exposes politicians for the dirty liars they are the person letting loose the info needs to be silent elseware.

krashkart

07-26-10, 06:01 PM

If there is any information in those 92,000 pages of documents that pertains to blatant Western disregard for human life, I might have something to spit about. Without that, this latest leak amounts to horse crap on powdered toast.

The information I read about last night isn't all that special, really. It's not exactly news that the Paki's have been harboring and aiding the Taliban. It doesn't strike me as odd that they may have attacked our forces, either. When it comes to the drone failures, again, nothing new. We should have seen it coming. Those are flashy new technologies that had not been fielded in combat prior to Iraq/Afghanistan. There will be failures. $5-7 million bucks a pop? Somebody already made a point here regarding that, and he is spot-on correct.

Are we, the public, fit to be fair judges of what is considered an acceptable combat loss, or even how the war should be fought? Why then would the information be leaked? Whose agenda do we serve?

Yes, the military conceals information from the public. They do it to deny the enemy an accurate assessment of their own success/failure. The public is on a need-to-know basis. The government decides IF, then when and how the information will be distributed to the public. At least, that's how it was played prior to today's journalism.

One last thing: the frontline club is not staffed by journalists and whistleblowers. It's staffed by Moms and Dads and brothers and sisters in uniform, and some of them won't be coming back home to their families. Wikileaks, Bite My Ass. ;)

Platapus

07-26-10, 06:23 PM

Well I hope they catch the guy who leaked this stuff. I take a dim view of the unauthorized dissemination of classified information. Somebody needs to go to jail for a long time.

I agree. When you sign the NDAs you are giving up any choice or moral justification for protecting the information.

There simply is no justification for violating these security NDAs :nope:

If you don't feel you can morally follow an NDA, don't sign one. But to sign one and then leak the information is a betrayal of our nation.

Skybird

07-26-10, 06:47 PM

Want to cut back civil rights? Refer to this "war on terror". Want to hide info that would reveal the folly of the government or hidden agenda? Refer to "national security issue". Both things today are the rethoric pendants to an atomic bomb, capable to silence any critical thought and question by overkill strength. It happens in the US. It hgappens in Europe. And it happens in places like China, Russia, and rogue nations anyway.

The Afghnaistan war for almost 8 years now has been messed up more and more and more. Those being in command of it and being reponsible for it need to be brought to a stop. The damage done to own troops and own side is tremendous. It has to be brought to a stop.

However, the wikileaks-founder said in a german interview that he has no opinion on whether or not the war should be stopped now. He said his goal is to reveal the enormous and widening gap between the relaity and what polticians lie to the public, and that he wants the obviously immense faults and unacceptable mishappenings being remedied.

Krashkart, you are right, the WH itself says that so far it has not really found any report that is really "new", is a real "revelation", a "sensation". Even more, the reports are old, sometimes years old. If you focus on them one by one, then you comletely miss what this mass-leak is about.

Becasue what it is about is that the mere number of small scale reports on events and incidents tell us two thingS: many things going wrong, many events of misled fire, civilians being killed, equipement missing or breaking down, interference by the ISI, do not ever get rprorted about in Wetsenr media, are completely below the horizon of our perception. And the cojmplete mosaic of these many indiovidual small scale reports also tell this: the the general situation has constantly detoriated and is still going from bad to worse - dspite the idiotic babbling of givernment polticians in front of cameras.

The warlogs end more than seven months ago, actual operations and missions thus are not effected anymore. Again, what the mosaic tells us once you bring all pieces together - this is what makes this leak so explosive. Because nobody was able to prove that so much is going wrong. This also delivers of course a propaganda victory to NATO's enemies in Afghanistan. both details together are the real expolanation, I strongly assume, why goiverments are so angry about the publication - it illusatrates their own failures, their own lies, and their own ignorrance towards reality. And such an impotent impression governments certainly do not want to give to the public - if politicians fail or mess up or act criminally, then their first reflex is that their responsibility for it has to be kept hidden, or the failing has to be denied.

Obama has made many decisions now on Afghanistan that seriously influenced the war. He can no longer evade by trying to put all the blame on Bush - Obama has gotten a good, big handful of own actions, decisions and responsibilities for the overall messup, too.

August

07-26-10, 07:10 PM

...however, I must wondering that when you are so distrustful to them, why you do not complain about the trust beytrayed by the government that runs the war and wants to keep the reality of it hidden.

Well mainly because my level of trust in my government, or your views on their ability or culpability for that matter, aren't what I was asking about when I made that post. A question BTW that I still haven't seen answered (see below).

Do you really have any reason to be so sure that they do that much a better job with the responsibility they have?

Well, actually yes I have plenty of reason to believe this (which is what led me to the question I reference above).

As a former US Army Signalman I once held a Top Secret security clearance and I am quite familiar with the military's methods and procedures for safeguarding classified material. Chains of custody, storage requirements, vetting of personnel, compartmentalization of information, need to know limitations, all of it is very strictly regulated and enforced.

I highly doubt that a civilian news organization. let alone an international one, let alone three of them, will come close to those standards, so i'm betting that any information the media has redacted will be available to our enemies, if not the general public, in short order.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-26-10, 07:12 PM

Agreed. This is most underhanded. The media is not the media of 50 years ago. Integrity has given way to the almighty dollar. The outlet that can spill the most dirt, spill it the quickest, and give the highest justification to its 'base' is the one with the fattest coffers. It is simply that pointing the finger at the government is very fashionable nowadays. A year ago, it was corporations. Before that, it was the military. Tomorrow, it will be something else.

Quite frankly, spilling dirt about the government is the most vital function of the free press. It certainly is a much happier day to see them doing that rather than harassing some poor minor celebrity.

Skybird

07-26-10, 07:18 PM

Quite frankly, spilling dirt about the government is the most vital function of the free press. It certainly is a much happier day to see them doing that rather than harassing some poor minor celebrity.

Obama you mean? :D

Skybird

07-26-10, 07:30 PM

Well mainly because my level of trust in my government, or your views on their ability or culpability for that matter, aren't what I was asking about when I made that post. A question BTW that I still haven't seen answered (see below).

Well, actually yes I have plenty of reason to believe this (which is what led me to the question I reference above).

As a former US Army Signalman I once held a Top Secret security clearance and I am quite familiar with the military's methods and procedures for safeguarding classified material. Chains of custody, storage requirements, vetting of personnel, compartmentalization of information, need to know limitations, all of it is very strictly regulated and enforced.

I highly doubt that a civilian news organization. let alone an international one, let alone three of them, will come close to those standards, so i'm betting that any information the media has redacted will be available to our enemies, if not the general public, in short order.

On the trustworthiness or moral authority of your or my government we will totally disagree forever. The moral authority you see in it and that commands your obedience, to me is non-existent and is already proven to be a source of criminal energy that now abuses it's powers and right to try denying it's repsoinbility for messing it up. Or in other words: those you pay respect and trust to, I have identified as the most dangerous enemies of our people and our freedoms. Not one milligram of trust I give them. As I see it, the good will of soldiers - to serve for their country - gets betrayed and abused by those being in political command. That I say with regard both to the Bundeswehr and the US Army, but also with rgard to the other armies in Aghanistan. And this is a form of treachery like I cannot imagine any bigger. Why you military folks tend to have such a character feature that makes you so very prone to putting more trust into your politicians than they deserve, I probably never will understand. I just can note that I see it in many professional soldiers, no matter their nationality. they usually think of it in terms of obedience, honour or duty. While I recognise the need of discipline and sense of duty, I nevertheless see this big trust into political leaders as something different: as uncritical naivety.

Your question on the competence of an editor I have adressed, btw. By pointing out that it depends on his background and education/experience, and that it was not just on editor, but a whole team of people, and that they were given the documents weeks in advance of wikileak's publication. To add to that, I think it is very well possible that somebody who deals with security issues by profession, for example, or is an analyst in his field of profession, not only may be able to understand such reports and their context as good or even better than a politician or president (who is totally depending on the advisors and lobbyists he is surrounded with), but I even think that the moral authority and character of politicians rates significantly below the mean value of the average population.

August

07-26-10, 07:53 PM

I see it in many professional soldiers, no matter their nationality. they suaully thiknk of it in terms of obedience or duty. While I recognise the need of discipline and sense of duty, I nevertheless see this big trust into political leaders as something different: as uncritical naivety.

Look, this isn't about me, or you, or for that matter the government. I asked a simple question about the medias handling of classified information and you either have an answer to it or you don't.

FWIW political leaders do not have access to classified military information unless they have a need to know and even then their access is recorded and severely restricted. Can you say the same about an international news organization, let alone three of them?

Platapus

07-26-10, 07:54 PM

Why you military folks tend to have such a character feature to make you so very prone to putting more trust into your politicians than they deserve, I probably never will understand.

Because we have voluntarily taken an oath of honour to serve the civilian leadership of our country.

- Whether we agree with the politician or not is irrelevant.

- Whether our political party of choice is in power or not is irrelevant.

- Whether we believe or do not believe in the specific action is irrelevant.

- Whether our personal morals agree or disagree with the government's is irrelevant.

- Whether our government appreciates or does not appreciate our service is irrelevant.

- Whether our government rewards us or ignores us is irrelevant.

We "military folks" have taken an oath on our personal honour to serve. This is why no one is, or should be forced to serve. To some it is a duty to serve, to others it is a honour to serve. To some it is a desire to serve. To all, it is service upon our honour.

To those who have not served, it may be difficult to understand. And I don't mean that in an insulting manner at all. Service to your country is difficult to understand even for those who serve. But we do it, because we feel that it is, for myriad reasons, the right thing for us to do.

Personally, I never look down at someone who chooses not to serve, nor do I especially encourage someone to serve. I don't even think I have any special feeling of pride for serving my country, in one form or another, for going on 30 years. My service to my country goes far deeper than pride or patriotism for I am neither a prideful nor a patriotic man . It goes to a level that defies words. My service to my country just is.

Perhaps you may understand it a little better now, but if you don't, that's OK too.

Torvald Von Mansee

07-26-10, 08:24 PM

Put me down as someone who thinks this was a bad idea.

Whereas the video of the journalists being killed in Iraq was withheld because it was politically embarrassing, documents such as these reveal sources and methods, etc.

Ducimus

07-26-10, 08:28 PM

Quite frankly, spilling dirt about the government is the most vital function of the free press. .

Except when it puts national security and lives of servicemen in danger. No, they didn't do this for any public good, real or perceived. They did this because they'd get more attention, ratings and money. I hope all responsible get the beatdown of their lives.

Ducimus

07-26-10, 08:35 PM

Because we have voluntarily taken an oath of honour to serve the civilian leadership of our country.

- Whether we agree with the politician or not is irrelevant.

- Whether our political party of choice is in power or not is irrelevant.

- Whether we believe or do not believe in the specific action is irrelevant.

- Whether our personal morals agree or disagree with the government's is irrelevant.

- Whether our government appreciates or does not appreciate our service is irrelevant.

- Whether our government rewards us or ignores us is irrelevant.

We "military folks" have taken an oath on our personal honour to serve. This is why no one is, or should be forced to serve. To some it is a duty to serve, to others it is a honour to serve. To some it is a desire to serve. To all, it is service upon our honour.

To those who have not served, it may be difficult to understand. And I don't mean that in an insulting manner at all. Service to your country is difficult to understand even for those who serve. But we do it, because we feel that it is, for myriad reasons, the right thing for us to do.

Personally, I never look down at someone who chooses not to serve, nor do I especially encourage someone to serve. I don't even think I have any special feeling of pride for serving my country, in one form or another, for going on 30 years. My service to my country goes far deeper than pride or patriotism for I am neither a prideful nor a patriotic man . It goes to a level that defies words. My service to my country just is.

Perhaps you may understand it a little better now, but if you don't, that's OK too.

My 2 cents along these thoughts.

Nobody goes to war thinking their the bad guy. But that's how our society usually judges things. Good guys and bad guys. Well, if nobody goes to war thinking their the bad guys, who's to say is the bad guy? Them? Us? Who's standards do we use to make that determination? Theirs? Ours? Is there some universal standard, and how's to make THAT determination?

I dwelled on that alot. I have been to alot of places and done many things i didn't agree with. So, the answer i came upon was this:

It's all relative to perception, and you have to make a stand in the world somewhere, and we are NOT always right. Many times we are wrong. But, as Right or as wrong as we may be, It is still MY country, It is still MY home, and this i would defend.

Platapus

07-26-10, 09:06 PM

Well put, Decimus.

And most though provoking. I too have helped my country do things that may not have been right, nor even necessary.

Perception is the key. The people we are fighting are as dedicated to their mission as I am to mine. Maybe even a little more dedicated. Their belief in the justice of their cause is as strong or perhaps stronger than mine.

The United States has been lucky in that "our side" writes the history books, but that luck won't last forever.

I wonder what will be worst for our cultural cognizance

Losing a just war or winning an unjust war?

It will be a cultural shock when we are the bad guys. :yep:

Ducimus

07-26-10, 09:26 PM

The people we are fighting are as dedicated to their mission as I am to mine. Maybe even a little more dedicated. Their belief in the justice of their cause is as strong or perhaps stronger than mine.

And what makes which side any more "right" then the other? How to arrive at that determiation? Who's standards to make it by? Their standards? Ours? yeah, i thought about that way too much. Pity the world doesnt work in black and white, but in shades of gray.

The only time the world really works in black and white, is when you get up at Odark 30 for a real world "bag drag", put on your uniform, and look at yourself in the mirror and realize that who you are as a person means nothing. You can be the most kind, graceful person on the planet, be the devoted father or husband, Help old ladies accross the street, or give your last dime to charity, ect. But none of that means a god damn thing to the rest of the world. No, it isn't who you are, but what you are that means EVERYTHING. If you wear the uniform, people will try to kill you for what you are. (edit: acutally, come to think of it, you don't even have to wear a uniform this day and age, people will still try to kill you for what you are )

It will be a cultural shock when we are the bad guys

To insinuate otherwise is considered unpatriotic by many. We're raised in a culture that being American's makes us right by default. I came to realize this, and i accept we're not always right. But again, right or wrong, it's still home.

Zachstar

07-26-10, 10:00 PM

Except when it puts national security and lives of servicemen in danger. No, they didn't do this for any public good, real or perceived. They did this because they'd get more attention, ratings and money. I hope all responsible get the beatdown of their lives.

So you advocate violence against those who expose dear leaders.. Nice... :down:

Wikileaks has done a great deed for the country. Of course because they expose fraud business practices and lies of politicians they are branded so many different things from the right as expected. But keep your violence out of the forum please.

Ducimus

07-26-10, 10:07 PM

Whatever, smart guy.

Captain Vlad

07-26-10, 10:15 PM

I seem to remember reading about the release of this material months ago...

Skybird

07-27-10, 06:48 AM

Because we have voluntarily taken an oath of honour to serve the civilian leadership of our country.

- Whether we agree with the politician or not is irrelevant.

I recommend to be more choosey regarding whom you voluntarily offer your loyalty.

- Whether our political party of choice is in power or not is irrelevant.
All parties are the product of the same poltical culture mechanism. they suffer all from the same basic flaws, and are object to the same factors and distortions of democracy that hijack them.

- Whether we believe or do not believe in the specific action is irrelevant.
Nice for a robot.

- Whether our personal morals agree or disagree with the government's is irrelevant.
Nice for a robot.

- Whether our government appreciates or does not appreciate our service is irrelevant.
One of my complaints about the Iraq war and the Afghnaistan war is that the government even dispises the soldiers, even when they reutrn home wounded. Not only becasue the army gets send of claimed lies, but for example the bush adminsitration even cut pensions for disabled.

We "military folks" have taken an oath on our personal honour to serve. This is why no one is, or should be forced to serve. To some it is a duty to serve, to others it is a honour to serve. To some it is a desire to serve. To all, it is service upon our honour.
I prefer not to seve a country or a government, but people living in it. And serving that way you can do in many other ways than just miolizary ones. If you think soldiers are the more honourful being or the better citizens, then you are wrong. The man serving the community in some "ehrenamtliche" work, is serving his people. The medic working unpayed overtime while there are other servicemen available, serves the people. the teacher engaging himself in his private time for trying to influence kids towards longing for a better future, serves the community.

And when you start risking your own lifes, you really should have better qualitative criterions that define what you find it worth to die for, than just a term of honours that in all my life so far no military ever was able to define to me. If you think you just owe it to the buddies in your company, then this is a selfish way of defining war - because by that you make it your own private war and declare the right that you may have this private war of yours.

To those who have not served, it may be difficult to understand. And I don't mean that in an insulting manner at all. Service to your country is difficult to understand even for those who serve. But we do it, because we feel that it is, for myriad reasons, the right thing for us to do.

I aoso do not want to offend you, or soldiers when calling them naive in their willingness to always take the words of their poltical leaders literally withoiut questioning them. There is just no better term to describe it then "naivety". If oyu have been around long enough, you may remember that even in the hot and angry debates in 2003, 2004, I hardly, if ever attacked the military and the soldiers for the Iraq war, only when the personal failing were obvious, like in case of war crimes or the guards in Iraqui prisons absuing the prisoners. I always focussed my attacks and criticism on the political leaders, becasue they decided for or against the war, and they messed up the way in which the war was managed, or better: was not managed.

It is thoughts like all this, that has kept me away from seeking a career in the military after school. Having lift in West-Berlin at that time, I was not drafted, but I nevertheless was seriously considering to volunteer. But time and again I found myself asking the question: do I trust these kinds of modern politicians to act respoinsibly with the decisions on war and poeace, and how wars would be fought. And since 25 years now i time and again answer that question with a sounding "No, I do not trust them at all". And Iraq 91, Iraq 03 and afghanistan all have proven me right both regarding foreign governments, and the German government as well. Plus the several other operations the bundeswehr is enaged in, from the somali coast to the mission offshore Lebanon - I have stroing reservatiuons against the way these missions get run, and abused for prestige reasons, and tax money gets wasted all for just political face-saving.

these things are not worth to risk my life for. Or yours. Or that of any western soldiers currently fighting in the mentioned places. They all get betrayed, and all their willingness to serve gets abused by their political superiors for the lowest of selfish reasons of politicians at home. serving the home nation, serving one's own people, has not much to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. It is about serving the selfish interests of the few elites on top - at the cost of the people at home, and the legitimate freedom and securityinterests of one'S own nation. when I attacked Bush and Blair so harshly in the past, ohne of the reasons also was a motivation to defend American soldiers against their abuse of powers. This abusing of the good will of those in services is what makes me so angry about politicians, and this is the reason why I since years want the tropps getting brought home from Afghanistan. They are not there for the reasons that once has been given to them. They are there for political party interests at home. they should not wear national emblems, but emblems of political parties and economic corporations that laugh about them.

What has "honour" to do with this, hm? I differ poride from honour. with pride I do not know what to do with it, and relgiously it evens rates as a sin in Chriostian tradition. "honour" I quite respect, it has a meaning to me. but part of honour is not only what forms this honour, and the behavior it results in, part of honour also is the motivation of the individual that decides for what it invests it's resspurces, and for what not. And I cannot save most military people I ever met (and I met deployed Germans, British and French personally) from telling them that their good will gets abused and that they allow to get abused, and that they are too uncritical in believing their polical leaders. And that at least puts a dark spot on their image of honour.

the military is a very traditional institution, insisting also on certain rites and rituals. This is, imo, becasue people are qquite aware that in their profession they deal with life and death and possibly face their own death whuile serciving. In the face of this uncertai8nty, this exietntial dojbt, man finds it ghard to find peace of mind and calm ness if he does not think that there is something that makes it worth it to take these risks. Man must beleive that somehow it nevertheless makes sense, and that in his action he is "on the right side" of a conflicting situation. Thus the rites and rituals you have in the military, and thus an underdstanding of the term "honour" that is very stiff and solidified. It serves as an armour to protect against the doubt, that exisxtential doubt that comes aspart of the job. Because this job of being a warrior is not just like most others. This jobs handles with life and death - that of others, and that of oneself.

Anyhow, I just want you to understand that I am neither mindless nor trying to be insulting when I mentioned "naivety" in the context I did. I mean it very factual (if that is the right word), not emotional and not rethorical. Offence is not meant when saying "naivety". But I stick to the term, and the statement in which I used it.

:salute:

August

07-27-10, 07:44 AM

This is a bit off topic but I must say that i've always been intrigued by this mostly European concept that the government of their country is some separate and autonomous entity that they can just divorce themselves from ideologically.

Maybe it comes from generations of serf ancestors who lived or died at the whim of some tyrannical potentate who claimed divine authority to rule over them. Maybe it comes from the Parliamentary system where leaders are appointed by political parties rather than the voters themselves. Maybe it's a combination of all that and something else. I don't claim to be an expert.

All I know is that thankfully here in the States this self destructive belief system isn't nearly as pervasive. All of our leaders as well as our President are constantly reminded that they were elected by the people they represent and they have to either produce for us or we'll demand to know why.

"Government for, by and of the People", it's not just a fancy concept.

Skybird

07-27-10, 08:44 AM

I have not voted for this government, I will not vote for any of the parties in the parliament now, becasue none of them is worth thr trust. People voting for a party often give me the strong impression that they take their program as literal as fundamentlaist take the bible literal. A politicans gets voted, he gets a certain rank or title or iffice and thus he has authority and reputation from thart, acoridng to the military saiyng "you do not greet the man but his rank". But I see this pltical system as deeply rotten and corrupted, torn apart by reckless selfishness and lobbying efforts that try to work around the vote of the electorate and claim legislative powers althoiugh these lobbies (their masters) have no democratic legitimation by the electorate to do so. That is what makes lobbyism a ursurping (?), a corruption of powers without needing to face being held responsibility by the only one sovereign there is in a democracy: the people. The office, the title does not enooble the man - the man must enoble his title and office. But mostly, politicians today do not act like that. They abuse the powers given to them, powers that they have obtained by fraud during election procedures when they used manipulative words to lull the voters and get their votes through promises, catch phrases and desirable words.

So, rejecting loyalty to such a poltical system, to such politicians, is no moral or reasonable failure - to me it is a moral imperative, else you become guilty yourself.

That the military usually is extremely concervative in orientation, both politically and relgiously, is not for no reason; I think this too is a symptom of what I described earlier as man's need to gain self-assurance about his motives when dealing with the existential doubt his profession of handling with life and death invitably brings. Somewhere I called it an armoud that should protect against this doubt. When it is in your power, as a soldier, to bring tremendous destruction and death upon others, then you need to put your trust into something that assures you that you are doing the right thing. And all too often, this trust becomes symbolised by the government. The president. and in extreme situation: the Führer.

Blind loyalty never is a good thing. Trust must be earned, it should not be given for free. After all, both in Germany now and America, if I recall it correctly, soldiers do their oath not on the goivernment, a president or any given name, but the people. And the people thus is the most superior soverieg there is, not a givernment. A government can, but most not act in representation of the people. and most time today, it does not, but serves lobby interest, plitcal power interests, party interest - often in explicit ignorration of the will or the legitimate interest of the people, the higher being of the nation, the community.

In Germany, the coalition government has messed up so extremely that it has no majority in the population to support it. Germans are sick and tired of it - after just 9 months. Nothing works in this coalition, both partners are fighting bitterly against each other, so do their official frontline figures. 8 key figures of the conservatie party have turned their back on Merkel in anger and frustration over her, leaving the party without any strong leading character. If there would be lections this week, the opposition would be able to form a government by strong absolute majority immediately. One coalition partner possibly would not even make it into parliament anymore, having dropped from 17 to 5%. This government is not representative for a majorty of voting people anymore. It has no majority, seen that way. Even the majority in the Bundesrat has been lost. A mere bureaucratic formality, a timing factor, is all that saves it from falling apart immediately. Now, it does not matter whether I agree with the political goals of the coalition or the opposition (I don't agree with any of them, btw). But this puts a bit into perspective what you said about "government representing the people", and the link between both. Elections do not establish a cuasal link between the will of the people and a government's policies, because election campaigns are pure propaganda stunts - and everyone who takes the show serious, cannot be helped. In an ideal world, in an ideal democracy, there should be such a causal link between a nations policy and the people's will, it should be like that. In such an ideal world people also would be noble and would form reasonable, altruistic decisions (only on this basis the idea of deo9icracy can function - egoism only inevitably leads to it's erosion and corrpution, turning it into a hidden oligarchy). but neither is the world like that, nor is man. Man is greedy, selfish and highly irrational, easy to be manipulated if you press the correct buttons in him. this is what made the idea of communism failing, and this is what makes the conception of democracy just an utopia as well. Both fail over massively wrong assumptions about the nature of man.

I'm a fan of Machiavelli. Not because he was like they say about him, that he was evil, unscrupoulous, underhanded, but becasue he was a preicse observer of masses and indovidual'S behaviour - and he did not allow his observations by sentimental daydreams about how it better should be and by emotions. He said if you want the crowd to do nthis or that for you, you treat them this and that way, you do this or that thing yourself. machiavelli was extremely precise in identifying the correct procedures in order to secure political power. but that does not make him an evil man or a tyrant. He was not, inf act he was a very sensible, modest man - he just did not close his eyes before man's nature. and he identified this nature to be anything but reasonable and logical. his recommendations do not reflect any will to be evil for the sake of being evil. They are just the logical consequence of how crowds and people behave. He was brilliant. And he is possibly the most misunderstood and misinterpreted political theoretician in western history.

Zoomer96

07-27-10, 09:18 AM

I believe that these leaks are being used to attack my country by those who hate it.....ie they hate me and mine. People who have given information that has assisted in the fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda will die because of this and in my opinion the person who leaked the info should be taken out and shot! The UCMJ isn't good enough for this traitor.
Sorry, no arguement will change my attitude and to be honest I do not want to hear it. I don't entirely agree with everything that is going on over there and I wish we had been able to take out the Taliban and Al-Qaeda a little quicker, but American servicemen are over there doing their duty and so are Servicemen from all over the world so the dirty little snitch should pay.

SteamWake

07-27-10, 11:13 AM

Website [Wikileaks] Collaborated With Mainstream Media on Afghan Leaks After Previous Scoops Failed to Win Enough Attention

Thats borderline treason I believe.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704700404575391594145777642.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_world

Skybird

07-27-10, 12:31 PM

that the leaking of the material is nillegal, is beyond question. However, my question is what weighs heavier: a treason by governments that start and run wars in the shadow of smokescreens they raise and try to maintain, or the btreason that reveals this treason of governments. My answer is clear: compared to the government's treason, the illegal act of revealing this governmental reason is relatively minor in criminological importance. what counts is that the masks gets ripped off the faces of the governments, for they betrayed their own people and their own soldiers.

I do not limit this to the amerian givernment only. The material leaked is about Germany as well, for example. And on the Germans, the material seems to prove the simply unbelievable, tremendous, monumental, most infantile naivety that Germany is basing it's Afghanistan policies on.

I can't say who kills my nerves more effectively, the Americans, or the Germans. Both are so very much unique and so very much bizarr in their ways and reasons to have messed it up completely.

Tribesman

07-27-10, 01:03 PM

This is a bit off topic but I must say that i've always been intrigued by this mostly European concept that the government of their country is some separate and autonomous entity that they can just divorce themselves from ideologically.

It is because they have outgrown the "my country right or wrong" mentality.

All of our leaders as well as our President are constantly reminded that they were elected by the people they represent and they have to either produce for us or we'll demand to know why.

Yet you still end up with the same suits but different faces election after election.

"Government for, by and of the People", it's not just a fancy concept.
You are right, its a catch phrase the audience can repeat so they feel they are really part of the show.

mookiemookie

07-27-10, 01:18 PM

August

07-27-10, 01:56 PM

that the leaking of the material is nillegal, is beyond question. However, my question is what weighs heavier: a treason by governments that start and run wars in the shadow of smokescreens they raise and try to maintain, or the btreason that reveals this treason of governments. My answer is clear: compared to the government's treason, the illegal act of revealing this governmental reason is relatively minor in criminological importance. what counts is that the masks gets ripped off the faces of the governments, for they betrayed their own people and their own soldiers.

But where in those thousands of stolen documents is the actual betrayal? You know that if they had revealed anything of importance the news would be trumpeted by anyone with an axe to grind against the US government but that hasn't happened. It leads me to believe that there is little substance to them at all. I mean except putting our troops and the Afghans who help us at risk.

Wolfehunter

07-27-10, 02:17 PM

Because we have voluntarily taken an oath of honour to serve the civilian leadership of our country.

- Whether we agree with the politician or not is irrelevant.

- Whether our political party of choice is in power or not is irrelevant.

- Whether we believe or do not believe in the specific action is irrelevant.

- Whether our personal morals agree or disagree with the government's is irrelevant.

- Whether our government appreciates or does not appreciate our service is irrelevant.

- Whether our government rewards us or ignores us is irrelevant.

We "military folks" have taken an oath on our personal honour to serve. This is why no one is, or should be forced to serve. To some it is a duty to serve, to others it is a honour to serve. To some it is a desire to serve. To all, it is service upon our honour.

To those who have not served, it may be difficult to understand. And I don't mean that in an insulting manner at all. Service to your country is difficult to understand even for those who serve. But we do it, because we feel that it is, for myriad reasons, the right thing for us to do.

Personally, I never look down at someone who chooses not to serve, nor do I especially encourage someone to serve. I don't even think I have any special feeling of pride for serving my country, in one form or another, for going on 30 years. My service to my country goes far deeper than pride or patriotism for I am neither a prideful nor a patriotic man . It goes to a level that defies words. My service to my country just is.

Perhaps you may understand it a little better now, but if you don't, that's OK too.I can respect this. Especially if a Government values its people and protects there interests over there own.

I can't understand why someone would serve legal criminals who serve there own personal agenda for greed or power. Government who can send kids to kill more kids. I can't work for criminals its against my morals.

mookiemookie

07-27-10, 02:36 PM

But where in those thousands of stolen documents is the actual betrayal? You know that if they had revealed anything of importance the news would be trumpeted by anyone with an axe to grind against the US government but that hasn't happened. It leads me to believe that there is little substance to them at all. I mean except putting our troops and the Afghans who help us at risk.

Friendly fire incident coverup: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/26/wikileak-afghanistan-canada-soldiers.html

August

07-27-10, 02:44 PM

Friendly fire incident coverup: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/26/wikileak-afghanistan-canada-soldiers.html

Except that:

The veracity of the WikiLeaks document hasn't been determined, and Drapeau acknowledged that the incident report could be wrong and not corrected.

and:

One of the soldiers' mothers said she believes the military. "The vehicle that he was in was hit by an RPG — that's a rocket-propelled grenade — and some of the shrapnel from it hit the turret and some of the shrapnel from the turret hit him in the neck. He bled to death," Avril Stachnik told The Canadian Press in an interview in Waskatenau, Alta.
"One of Shane's best friends was with him at the time and that's what he told me as well," she said.

So I guess if you buy the government cover up theory that must mean that Shanes best friend is a part of the cover up as well right?

I think you're going to need a clearer smoking gun than that dood...

mookiemookie

07-27-10, 03:03 PM

I think you're going to need a clearer smoking gun than that dood...

Haven't read much of this closely, but it's just the first thing I came up with on a quick search.

Platapus

07-28-10, 08:57 AM

Wikileaks has done a great deed for the country. Of course because they expose fraud business practices and lies of politicians they are branded so many different things from the right as expected. But keep your violence out of the forum please.

I would be very interested in reading citations that indicate that Wikileaks has done a great deed for the country.

If a government employee obtains information that they truly believe reveals illegal activities, there are myriad cleared channels that the employee can bring this up to. If they do not feel comfortable working within their own agency, they can contact the cleared IG if another agency.

If they believe that there is absolutely no agency in the United States that can help with this (which would be an impossibility), then the employer can contact the Senate or House IG that is cleared....

If they believe that the entire congress can't be trusted, then there is the Judicial system, which has cleared people to rule on this.

The point I am making is that there already exists multiple levels of oversight that a concerned employee can go to handle these issues correctly without blowing it to the press.

The fact that these people leak to the press/internet indicates that

1. They are unaware of these other appropriate venues.

2. They don't care about handling it appropriately

So the conditions, as I understand it distill down to either ignorance or arrogance. Neither of which bodes well for the IC.

Skybird

07-28-10, 01:01 PM

A plea for common sense

It is difficult for politicians to admit they were wrong. But when it comes to Afghanistan, the consequences of not doing so could be high. It is time for the West to cut its losses and withdraw.

The most difficult thing to do in politics is to change course -- admitting that everything that was right yesterday is wrong today. It is a particularly challenging maneuver when the decision is between war and peace.

Winston Churchill, stubborn as he was, never could admit that he had made a mistake in 1915 when, as first lord of the Admiralty, his strategic error helped lead to the bitter defeat of the Entente troops at the hands of the Ottoman Empire at Gallipoli. Similarly, it took 30 years for former US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to acknowledge that the Vietnam War had been a mistake.

The German government, NATO and the West shouldn't wait that long. Together they should realize -- and admit -- that the war in Afghanistan is not going to end in success. We have failed. The war has been lost. The country that we leave behind will not be pacified. It is possible that we could have been successful had we understood earlier how the country works. But now, we are no longer a part of the solution -- increasingly, we have become part of the problem. It is best just to leave now, before additional blood is spilled. The secret war logs given by WikiLeaks to SPIEGEL (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708314,00.html) confirm as much.

Led by the US, NATO and other Western allies have been trying to pacify Afghanistan for almost 10 years -- with little success. War aims have changed frequently. None of them, however, has been achieved. The intervals between the large-scale Afghanistan conferences, from Berlin to Paris, London to Kabul, have become ever shorter, but the list of problems has only grown. The country remains a potential breeding ground for terrorism as it was prior to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks in the US. And little that the West has imported to Afghanistan since then has put down such deep roots that it would survive a pullout for long. Girls' schools, wells and newly paved roads are pleasant side effects of the NATO mission in Afghanistan. As a justification, however, they are not enough.

Clearer from a Distance

"Nothing is good in Afghanistan," said Margot Kässmann, then-head of the Protestant Church of Germany, a few months ago. The angry response from German political leaders was quick and biting -- and showed that she had touched a nerve. Her comments were criticized, with some justification, for having shown a lack of detailed knowledge of NATO's mission in Afghanistan. But sometimes things are clearer from a distance.

Afghanistan is a nightmare, a graveyard of empires. The British came first, followed by the Soviets; now NATO and the UN are losing their innocence on the battlefields of Afghanistan. In total, the US, its allies and private security firms have almost 200,000 soldiers stationed in the country, roughly equal to the number the Soviets stationed there in the 1980s. It wasn't enough then, and it won't be enough now. And increasing that number would be militarily difficult and politically impossible. The West has bitten off more than it can chew.

When sending troops abroad, governments take out a kind of loan from the populace -- a loan of trust. This is particularly true in Germany. Should payments not be made on that loan, the electorate eventually calls it in completely. And without the support of the populace, overseas missions become increasingly difficult. This point has been reached already in Berlin and in a number of NATO capitals.

Losing with Dignity

It is difficult to ignore the political parallels to the Vietnam War. The Western alliance has reached the point where calls for patience and for continued support have become increasingly shrill, even desperate. Politicians' words are sounding increasingly hollow. In a recent government statement, Chancellor Angela Merkel was so uninspired that she resorted to borrowing former Defense Minister Peter Struck's famous formulation that Germany's security is being "defended in the Hindu Kush."

Before the Afghanistan mission's aim becomes only that of saving face, we should withdraw. Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger demanded in 1971 that his country should lose the Asian war with dignity. To achieve that aim, the US stayed in Vietnam for two more years -- years which resulted in the deaths of additional hundreds of thousands of people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

One can hear similar expressions of desperation these days. Only recently, German Development Minister Dirk Niebel said on television that Germany has to stay in Afghanistan. Berlin owes it to those who have lost their lives, he said.

One wonders how much longer we will have to listen to such justifications.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708850,00.html

I personally hate to lose. But since years I am preaching that this conflict already has been lost since 2002, 2003. America messed it up beyond repair when it shifted forces away from Afghanistan, and into Iraq. It should have stayed focussed - in strength - on Afghanistan. and even if that would have happened, I would have given the possibility of success a chance of 50:50 - at best, and under most optimal conditions.

It was a mission difficult in the opening years. After 2003, it had become a mission impossible. Time to stop wasting resources in a cause already lost since many years. the altwermnative would be tom open unlimited war against Pakistan, and against Iran. We all know what the chances for this decision are: they are almost nil.

August

07-28-10, 02:36 PM

Told ya:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100728/wl_sthasia_afp/uspakistanafghanistanmilitaryintelligenceinformant s;_ylt=Ag7o_UnnMBAn9s.gVvobGyNH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTQ5Y zVycWtkBGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMDcyOC91c3Bha2lzdGFuYWZ naGFuaXN0YW5taWxpdGFyeWludGVsbGlnZW5jZWluZm9ybWFud HMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM0BHBvcwM0BHNlYwN 5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDcmVwb3J0d2lraWxl

WASHINGTON (AFP) – Informants whose names appear in the documents posted on the whistleblower site WikiLeaks have reason to fear for their lives, a Pentagon spokesman said Wednesday. At least one person who named appeared in the documents has already complained to US officials in Afghanistan, said Colonel David Lapan.
"Anyone whose name appears in those documents is potentially at risk," he said.
"It could compromise their position, it could be a threat on their life, and it could have an impact on their future conduct," Lapan said, referring to fears the massive leak could dry up intelligence sources.
The more than 90,000 classified military files span a period from 2004 to 2009 as the US and NATO war effort in Afghanistan ran into a rising Taliban insurgency.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said earlier this week that the documents were checked for named informants and that 15,000 such documents had been held back.
But the British newspaper The Times reported that after just two hours of combing through the documents it was able to find the names of dozens of Afghans said to have provided detailed intelligence to US forces.
The Times cited one 2008 document that included a detailed interview with a Taliban fighter considering defection.
The man, who names local Taliban commanders and talks about other potential defectors, is identified by name, along with his father's name and village.
In another case from 2007, a senior official accuses named figures in the Afghan government of corruption.
"The leaks certainly have put in real risk and danger the lives and integrity of many Afghans," a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry, who declined to be named told The Times.
"The US 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 US/international access to the uncensored views of Afghans," the Afghan official told the newspaper.
Major General John Campbell, head of the 101 Airborne Division and in charge of a key regional command in eastern Afghanistan, said that the leaks have not resulted in any changes in military operations.
Campbell, speaking to reporters via satellite from Afghanistan, said that most of the information he has seen from the leaks was "not new news."
However, he feared that any named informants would be reluctant to further collaborate with coalition forces.
"I can see that there will be a detriment down the road," said Campbell.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-28-10, 04:26 PM

The point I am making is that there already exists multiple levels of oversight that a concerned employee can go to handle these issues correctly without blowing it to the press.

Most of which, if they even bother to annoy another agency because one person complained to them, will let said agency know who blabbed. Which will be de facto curtains for that person. And with so many governmental bodies colluding in this case, what is a safe body to complain to...

Told ya:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100728/wl_sthasia_afp/uspakistanafghanistanmilitaryintelligenceinformant s;_ylt=Ag7o_UnnMBAn9s.gVvobGyNH2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTQ5Y zVycWtkBGFzc2V0A2FmcC8yMDEwMDcyOC91c3Bha2lzdGFuYWZ naGFuaXN0YW5taWxpdGFyeWludGVsbGlnZW5jZWluZm9ybWFud HMEY2NvZGUDbW9zdHBvcHVsYXIEY3BvcwM0BHBvcwM0BHNlYwN 5bl90b3Bfc3RvcmllcwRzbGsDcmVwb3J0d2lraWxl

The link doesn't work. In any case, I'm not that shocked, as I said, with 92,000 documents statistically it had to be there somewhere.

Ducimus

07-28-10, 08:09 PM

Platapus

07-28-10, 08:42 PM

Looks like they may have tracked down the traitor.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/28/afghanistan.wikileaks.suspect/index.html?hpt=C2

If he did it, I hope the entire weight of the UCMJ comes crashing down on his head.

EDIT: Right along with a reduction of rank to Private Basic, Confinement at Fort Levenworth for the next decade, followed by a dishonorable discharge. May he never hold a job in the US ever again with that kind of DDForm 214.

Not to mention the felony conviction that will follow him for jobs. :yep:

If guilty, he deserves nothing less. If he is guilty, he is a man without honour and our society is justified in shunning him from any position requiring honour or ethics.

And, of course, there will be the civil suites against him, to make sure he will really regret betraying his oath. :yep:

Ducimus

07-28-10, 08:47 PM

Not to mention the felony conviction that will follow him for jobs. :yep:

Oh yeah, i forgot about that. As a member of the military you fall under civil law, AND the UCMJ. Who ever said military members aren't held to a higher standard? :haha:

August

07-28-10, 09:03 PM

The link doesn't work. In any case, I'm not that shocked, as I said, with 92,000 documents statistically it had to be there somewhere.

But, but, but... those self appointed protectors of truth have assured us that any identifying information had been removed!

Yet:

The man, who names local Taliban commanders and talks about other potential defectors, is identified by name, along with his father's name and village.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-29-10, 12:49 AM

But, but, but... those self appointed protectors of truth have assured us that any identifying information had been removed!

Yet:

I suppose they made an honest attempt, but perfection is impossible.

Let's put it in perspective. As I understand it, out of 92000 documents, only 76000 of them are actually put out because the others actually do contain something sensitive in Wikileak's judgment.

So, suppose that as the score finally ends, we'll find that Wikileaks has a 1% error rate. So, 760 documents that shouldn't be released were, and 160 documents were denied to us even though they are OK.

So that's 920/92000 documents they screwed up on. Compare that to the government screwing up on the disposition of 75400/92000 documents.

Do remember that in our society of democracy (using that term broadly so don't try and tell me the US is a republic) and freedom of speech, only things that have legitimate reasons to be classified should be. The amount of classified material should be restricted to an absolute minimum. From that viewpoint, every time the government classifies something that does not endanger security, it is a screwup on their part.

Looking it in perspective, you will find it much more forgivable.

Skybird

07-29-10, 04:19 AM

The latest news in those documents is more than 7 months old. Missions, operations of the past 7 months cannot be effected.

Also, the wH and others has well have soon started tocampaign against this leak by playing it down (while at the same time yelling about it), putting information into doubt, saying rightout that there is much wrong stuff, and that it nevertheless can do this damage and hurt that intention. When Pentagon officials now say that persons have been put into risk, then I do not automatically believe it (it is those saying so who keep the real face of teh war a secret since 7 years, mind you). It may be like that, or may be not. But the accusartions comes from sources who have an interest in damaging wikileaks, and who have a prominent reputation in putting up endless lies themselves.

So - at least that puts it a bit into relation.

Letting the war run on in cover and hiding, and allowing politicians to continue basing on self-deceptions as well as producing lies to the public, still is the much much greater risk, putting much more lives into question. I cannot help myself, but I simply am strictly againt making financial and material and human investements into a military cause that since many years is hopelessly lost and beyond acchievability. I did not compare afghaniostan ti Vietnam too often in the past, in the first ears there were differences, but now, in what I see as the endgame, the parrallels are striking - in Vietnam, after the US realised that they could not win and could not acchieve even a minimum of wanted own goals, it took them another couple of years befoe they finally stopped fighting and retreated. In those years, many more lives got lost as a direct result of the American presence in a war already lost - American soldiers', civilians', Vietnamese combatants' lives. One had messed up long before, and for too long a time, and one had made decisive, unforgivable mistakes already at the very beginning from which the later "gameplay" was impossible to recover.

In these regards, Afghanistan is not different to Vietnam these days.

Skybird

07-29-10, 04:35 AM

Looks like they may have tracked down the traitor.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/28/afghanistan.wikileaks.suspect/index.html?hpt=C2

Interesting quote in that news:

Maj. Gen. John Campbell, the U.S. commander in eastern Afghanistan, told reporters Wednesday that he doesn't believe the release has had "a great impact currently on us."
"We have not changed any of our operations or any strategy here based on that leak," he said.

Aha.

August

07-29-10, 09:21 AM

Looking it in perspective, you will find it much more forgivable.

I don't find it at all forgivable. You mention Wikileaks "judgment", well that doesn't impress me one bit. Who made these determinations? What is their experience in reading and deciphering these reports? What criteria did they use?

All we have is somebodies word that these classified documents were even reviewed at all. If they're have the usual civilians attention to detail then the release of these reports is definitely going to get people killed.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-29-10, 09:45 AM

I don't find it at all forgivable. You mention Wikileaks "judgment", well that doesn't impress me one bit. Who made these determinations? What is their experience in reading and deciphering these reports? What criteria did they use?

Since we've gone to comparing their ability to decipher between sensitive and non-sensitive, a false positive is a screwup as much as a false negative. By that measure, the signs say the US military is only over 70,000 points behind...

All we have is somebodies word that these classified documents were even reviewed at all. If they're have the usual civilians attention to detail then the release of these reports is definitely going to get people killed.

As for whether they are reviewed at all, I'll put coins on the side They Did, if only for their own self interest. They know the vectors their critics will use to attack them...

August

07-29-10, 11:19 AM

By that measure, the signs say the US military is only over 70,000 points behind...

This isn't a game Kaz. Do you think who is ahead on points is going to make difference to the family of that man and his father if the Taliban comes knocking on their door?

As for whether they are reviewed at all, I'll put coins on the side They Did, if only for their own self interest. They know the vectors their critics will use to attack them...If they did actually review them they did a piss poor job and people are going to die because of it. When that happens those of you who take Wikileaks side in this are going to have blood on your hands too.

Skybird

07-29-10, 11:44 AM

Blood will be shed anyway, with or without Wikileaks. the querstion bbeign asked at the end is what your intentions have been when accepting that bloodshed, and whatammounts of blood have been shed. the one people say this war has no cause anymore that is worth it, and it cannot be won, so even minor bloodshed is unacceptable, especially for one'S own troops. the other prfeer to reject reality, living by an illusion that if only enough decades get invested the war will be "won", and by that they help to create a mutliple times bigger bloodshed from now on.

The match is lost. It is FUBAR. Since years. Let's come to our senses and accept realities, instead of behaving like arses and willing even more bloodshed from our hands for no other motive than to delay the revelation of our failure. Our presence there is no remedy to their problems. Our presence there is part of the problem, and we have lost control many years ago, becasue we gave it out of hand, carelessly, mindlessly, foolishly. And it is like this since many years.

If the leaked material has any message, any value, than this.

I again remind of the fact that wikileaks did not feel competent to sighten the materiual and evaluate it all by themselves. The major part of the work was done over several weeks by teams by the NYT, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel. Wikileaks simply does not have the ressources to handle something of this size all by themselves, their ressources and their staff is relatively limited. The main work in this was done by the newspaper teams. and one woudl assume that these papers did not send their amateurs. The list of names for Der Spiegel's evaluation work for example includes two of their chief editors and outspoken experts on ME affairs.

claims by the government how much damage has been done, and how much harm people have received, or such claims by the Pentagon, I would take with extreme care, since they are running a campaign in dfeence of their own interests. Third sources of independent nature need to confirm such claims before I am willing to take them serious. Until then, any such complaints and horror stories likely are just propaganda lies aiming at destroying wikileaks reputation. And so far the american military said, as quoted above, that they saw no need to change their strategies or operations due to the material leaked. If that is so, it cannot be all too harmful in revelaing sensible information.

August

07-29-10, 02:07 PM

The main work in this was done by the newspaper teams. and one woudl assume that these papers did not send their amateurs. The list of names for Der Spiegel's evaluation work for example includes two of their chief editors and outspoken experts on ME affairs

Apparently such assumptions are not borne out by results. Already sensitive information has been discovered in the released documents, so if those were the news organizations best people then that doesn't say much about their competence.

Now some folks might say that these oversights are acceptable but I would bet it's not their families who are put at risk.

Skybird

07-29-10, 04:57 PM

Letting the war run on like in past years - in hiding and over illusive goals - puts even more families at risk, also causes more civilian deaths and thus directly raising hostility by the Afghan people. Their loyalty already is minor only, and aids given to Afghanistan to wide degree get used by local warloards to battle each other for their own power.

Losses in war are no just matter, but mathematics. that's not fair, that is not moral, but fairness and morals have nothign to do with it. Either you have low losses, or high ones. and if you accept high losses, then the issue really should be worth it. I think the sisue is not worth it, and thus we shoudl try to minimise losses now until we have gotten out there. And we should get there soon, since there is nothing we can improve anymore. We make things worse by being there.

Let's turn this into a porper coutner-terrorism operation: infiltrating the ISI and the Afghan and the Talebans, targetting Pakistani key personal and Iranian key personal. Counter terror operations is no big war business with flags and fanfares and the cavalry charging. It is good "police" work, investigation work, infiltration, intel gathering, special operations, counter espionage.

And since years I say that one needs to start fighting against the Pakistani, their intel service as well as the taliban sympthising part of their majors, colonels and generals. Get rid of that breed, and keep the size of the follow-up breed as small as possible.

and stop paying billions and billions to the Pakistani for their "assistance" in the war on terror. One could as well pay the Taliban directly, or launch terror bombs in Kashmir against the Indians oneself. with "friends" like the Pakistani you do not need "enemies" anymore.

Lets get outta there. It's just tapping around blindly inside the afghan maze. It leads nowhere.

Ducimus

07-29-10, 05:27 PM

Aha.

If the documents are "old" or not, is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that PFC acted on his own, abused his position, abused his security clearance, and distributed classified documents without authorization. His actions were belligerent, go against the oath he took, and put Operational Security at risk. That's what's relevant, and hopefully he will answer for it to the fullest extent allowed by the UCMJ and civil law.

In in my opinion he's also guilty of a gross and dishonorable dereliction of duty. He may as well have walked over to any number of our enemies and personally handed them the documents himself.

Skybird

07-29-10, 05:52 PM

If the documents are "old" or not, is irrelevant. What is relevant, is that PFC acted on his own, abused his position, abused his security clearance, and distributed classified documents without authorization. His actions were belligerent, go against the oath he took, and put Operational Security at risk. That's what's relevant, and hopefully he will answer for it to the fullest extent allowed by the UCMJ and civil law.

In in my opinion he's also guilty of a gross and dishonorable dereliction of duty. He may as well have walked over to any number of our enemies and personally handed them the documents himself.
The lives of all people, soldiers and civilians that get needlessly killed while continuing a war in hiding and over a casue that is alreaedy lost, weighs much heavier.

If operational security is breached, then I wonder why the US commander in West Afghanistan has said that they hve not changed strategies or procedures due to the breach. Maybe becasue info that is 6 months to 6 years old, is not that sensitive anymore at all? However, that all is not the point. The point is that this leak increases pressure to withdraw - and it does so by fueling critical questions being asked, revealing that the war runs much worse than what we are made to believe, and strengthening resistence to continuing the war. This war must end, because it only produces costs, but no gains, and cannot be "won" anymore. All loss in life, and all destruction - is in vein. Compared to that goal of trying to reduce these wasted, needless losses of the imminent future by getting out of Afghanistan, your complains are just bureaucratic formalities. yes, the guy leaking it, acted against rules and laws. Compared to the crime of the government to will the needless loss of money, time, life, health and material - just to hide that the war has been messed up -, his crime is so small that it means almost nothing. the much bigger treachery has been committed by the government(s), and that means not only the Us government but the german and British as well. german illusions are different than American illusions, but illusions is it what both governments are driven by.

Everything that makes western nations finally getting out there earlier than later, is acceptable to me. It is not acceptable in principle, and I would not will it in any given case - but in this situation of most urgent emergency and speciality and un-normality, un-normal irregular ways seem to be the only thing that could get governments moving their treacherous a#####. Becasue they are out of control by legal means. The mission is a disaster, and this disaster has to be stopped immediately, better yesterday, better six years ago. We are 6 years over time already. Thousands of troops and civilians payed with their lives in these six years - for nothing. We won no friends, we just increased the number of our enemies and turned once neutral civilians into hostiles. By dpoing so, we have formed a wonderful harbour for the Taliban to land in and to establish themnselves again once we are gone there. and do not deceive yourself - you will not defeat the Taliban there. Not as long as you have not blown Pakistan to the dark side of the moon first. For them, Afgjanistan is part of their war against India, it means what military planners and analysts call "strategic depth" to their setup. And they will not give it up.

Platapus

07-29-10, 06:49 PM

If operational security is breached, then I wonder why the US commander in West Afghanistan has said that they hve not changed strategies or procedures due to the breach.

Because if he were to change strategies, or say he will change the strategies, it would clue-in the people reading the documents which ones were accurate and which were not. What the military/government is engaged in now is called "spill control", which means above all else, don't make the information spill worse by confirming or refuting any of the claims made by people unauthorized to handle the material.

Please keep in mind that what a general says to the public and what the general really thinks and does may be very different. This is a case where the professionals need to handle this situation.

Nordmann

07-29-10, 07:14 PM

I wonder how many informants, plus their friends and family, are going to wind up dead because of this.

Sometimes I think freedom of the press has gone too far.

August

07-29-10, 07:25 PM

This could also be a giant disinformation campaign designed to sow distrust and suspicion among and between AQ the Taliban and the Pak intelligence service. Think about it, 92k documents largely about what is already publicly known but with a few names and events ad"ded.

Now maybe some of these were redacted by Spiegels and the NYT's "Intelligence Analysts" but we all know that the complete versions of the notes will become public soon enough.

Platapus

07-29-10, 09:12 PM

I wonder how many informants, plus their friends and family, are going to wind up dead because of this.

Sometimes I think freedom of the press has gone too far.

There is nothing wrong with freedom of the press as long as there is a concomitant responsibility of the press.

I am afraid that the press, now being in the entertainment business, has forgone any "responsibility of the press".

Everyone cries for freedom, but fewer recognize that for every freedom there is an associated responsibility.

Freedom without responsibility is anarchy.

Skybird

07-30-10, 04:32 AM

Because if he were to change strategies, or say he will change the strategies, it would clue-in the people reading the documents which ones were accurate and which were not. What the military/government is engaged in now is called "spill control", which means above all else, don't make the information spill worse by confirming or refuting any of the claims made by people unauthorized to handle the material.

Please keep in mind that what a general says to the public and what the general really thinks and does may be very different. This is a case where the professionals need to handle this situation.

So the claims of how hurtful some infos leaked are - could also be "spill control" in an effort to discredit wikileaks? So we have contradicting efforts of spill control - some claiming that the data released is dangerous enoiugh to put poperations and lives at risk, others claiming that it is not dangerous enough to change operations or protecting lives. I assume this confusion raised also is part of the smoke screen.

What is clear now, at least, are two things: what is flying around in attacks and critcism now, should not all taken literally. And that the real thing people now bang their heads over, is not so much the documents themselves, but the question they have brutally pushed into the focus of public attention again: should the war fought on, or should one end it. And obviosuly regarding the latter question two camps collide that could not be more apart.

I can only quote one distant friend of mine, who served two terms in Afghanistan as officer in the staff of the Bundeswehr there, and who said in resignation already in late 2007 to me: "Was wir in Afghanistan gefunden haben, ist ein Haufen Scheiße. Und unser Ministerium (defence ministry, he meant) exportiert noch mehr Scheiße nach Afghanistan." With the latter he meant the German naivety and illusions and the lacking plltiical support grounded on a sense of realism. Many german officers and the official political opinion in germany, are lightyears apart. Last time I telephoned with him, was Spring this year. He only said "Es stinkt."

August

07-30-10, 09:29 AM

...brutally pushed into the focus of public attention again

The impact wasn't as great over here as you're imagining it was.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-30-10, 12:36 PM

This isn't a game Kaz. Do you think who is ahead on points is going to make difference to the family of that man and his father if the Taliban comes knocking on their door?

Nor would it make an inch of difference to soldiers that were killed because the American people were blindfolded.

If they did actually review them they did a piss poor job and people are going to die because of it. When that happens those of you who take Wikileaks side in this are going to have blood on your hands too.

So anything less than 100% perfection = "piss poor job" while screwing up most of them (are they even trying to solve the questions?) by the other side = "OK"?

There is a case to be made, to be fair, for the relative severity of screwing up, but when the error rate difference is looking to be orders of magnitude, to the point the picture being painted actually warps, things are different.

Besides, if you must think that way, the US military and government must take some of the blame. It is actually their job to intelligently decide the minimum set of data that must be held secret, and then release the rest.

In failing to do so and taking the lazy (or butt-covering?) path of classifying as many things as they think they can get away with, they have not only failed one of their duties, but they ensure that if it ever leaks, something like this is going to happen.

Skybird

07-30-10, 12:39 PM

The impact wasn't as great over here as you're imagining it was.

But here and in Britain, it seems. The headlines in the national mpapers give me the impression that every nation seems to focus on a different slice of the pie, if that wordgame is allowed. In the US the pakistani connection seems to be the major theme, in Germany it is the US commandos in the German sector, and the German reports about inadequate mission handling, lacking equipment and political naivety.

Right now it is not certain anymore that the government will get through another extension of the mission for one year. and the left opposition is especially pissed by US commandos not capturing but assassinating key personell of the enemy in the German sector. Don't forget that Germans still fight over the question whether or not this is a war at all. We both probably can agree that this complaint is naive and pathetic, but it has the potential to fundamentally change the political support for the mission in Germany, even more since doubts also have caught conservatives, and the Dutch are in full pull-out currently - which serves as a precedent example for some.

The Third Man

07-30-10, 12:54 PM

But Mr. Obama said Afghanistan was a just war, the correct war. It was Iraq which was the unjust and evil imperialism.

Should I believe the US CinC or Julian Assange ?

August

07-30-10, 02:09 PM

There is a case to be made, to be fair, for the relative severity of screwing up

Relative severity is debatable but totally irrelevant to the point that myself and some others here are trying to make. Regardless of your favorit side in the issue it is obvious that all Assange has done is double the number of screw up sources.

Ducimus

07-30-10, 02:11 PM

August

07-30-10, 02:22 PM

Taliban Says It Will Target Names Exposed by WikiLeaks
Militants were alerted to the leaked documents, which reveal details of informants, by news reports.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/taliban-says-it-will-target-names-exposed-by-wikileaks.html?GT1=43002

And there you go, from the mouth of the enemy themselves. This is why I say that relative blame games are unproductive. Assange, the NYT, Speigel and The Guardian have put a death sentence on people just to improve their ratings.

The Third Man

07-30-10, 02:46 PM

Skybird

07-30-10, 03:39 PM

Should I believe the US CinC or Julian Assange ?
Believe none of the two. Believe those who wrote the reports - the seargeants and lieutenants in the field who wrote the majority of the leaked reports and who sit in the middle of the action seeing it with their nown eyes, risking their own olives andnthat of their subordinate crews adn troops. I do not care for a president, he is an opportunist and a liar by definition, else he would not have become president, nor do I believe Assange - but assange maikes no statements on the situation in Afghanistan, does he. All he said in a german interview was that he even holds no opinion on whether the war should be ended now, or not. He said in that interview what he was about is that the many things functioning ill, the many things going terribly wrong, the misperception of realities need to be corrected and adressed.

the Taliban may or may not try to kill informants more than before, fact is they try to do that all the time and try to intimidate villagers anyway. whether or not the leaked material makes it easier for them or not, is no question the western military and politicians or the taliban should be accepted as objective, honest sources for providing a true answers. Because both sides are engaged in a real war as well as a propaganda war and a war of intimidation.

the question is only this - once this war has come to an end with Western withdrawel - will the extension of the war have costed more or less lifes than any possible and maybe real acceleration of earlier withdrawal, or not? In the end, no matter how long we stay anymore, we will not have left behind a stabile, democratic regime or state that is immune to the regional islamists and conspirating regional powers taking it over. Taking it over they will - sooner or later. The Kabul government throughout the history of Afghanistan was always extremely corrupt and extremely weak, it means nothing to the country. The political realities get forged by local tribe leaders and warlords, patriarchalic chieftains and Islamic jihadis. and neither democracy nor freedom wetsern style is high on their agenda. It is about power, weapons, money, drugs, and islamic regime.

Every Western soldier losing his life there - is giving his life for just this, and nothing else. Is it worth it? I say loud and sounding: NO. It never was worth it, it still is not worth itl and it never will be worth it. It's a dirty little hellhole on this planet, but it is not in our power to enforce it to become a better place and bypass several centuries of own-made evolutional history and developement.

So isolate them, shoot off their head and hand when the aim a terror bomb at us beyond their own border, and beside this - leave them alone. It is not in our reach or power to force them to do it differently and in accordance with our ideas of how they should do things.

Skybird

07-30-10, 03:45 PM

KABUL, Afghanistan -- NATO announced Friday that six more U.S. troops have died in Afghanistan, bringing the death toll for July to at least 66 and surpassing the previous month's record as the deadliest for American forces in the nearly 9-year-old war.

Under international law can the founder of WikiLeaks , Julian Assange, be tried for war crimes?

Do you want to imply there is a causal link between both sentences? that this is the most lethal month for US troops, because the wikileak publication? That would be absurd. The youngest news in that material is more than half a year old since thehn a whol chnage of strategy has taklen place by presidential order, and the leaked reports got released just two days ago, so how could they influence the events of the past weeks and month? The rise in violence there is taking place since several months now, and according to some of the leaked material, the general violence level is much higher than what the public in the West gets told anyway.

And trying Assange for "war crimes"? We are a bit emotional and thus irrational now, aren't we...? On war crimes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

War crimes are "violations of the laws or customs of war"; including "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Labor_camp)", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Prisoner_of_war)", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".[1] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-black_book-0)
Similar concepts, such as perfidy (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Perfidy), have existed for many centuries as customs between civilized countries, but these customs were first codified as international law in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Hague_Conventions_(1899_and_1907)). The modern concept of a war crime was further developed under the auspices of the Nuremberg Trials (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials) based on the definition in the London Charter (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/London_Charter_of_the_International_Military_Tribu nal) that was published on August 8, 1945. (Also see Nuremberg Principles (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles).) Along with war crimes the charter also defined crimes against peace (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Crimes_against_peace) and crimes against humanity (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Crime_against_humanity), which are often committed during wars and in concert with war crimes.
Article 22 of the Hague IV ("Laws of War: Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907") states that "The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited"[2] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-1) and over the last century many other treaties have introduced positive laws that place constraints on belligerents (see International treaties on the laws of war (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/International_treaties_on_the_laws_of_war)). Some of the provisions, such as those in the Hague conventions, are considered to be part of customary international law, and are binding on all.[3] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-2) Others are only binding on individuals if the belligerent power to which they belong is a party to the treaty which introduced the constraint.

Colloquial definitions of war crime include violations of established protections of the laws of war, but also include failures to adhere to norms of procedure and rules of battle (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Battle), such as attacking those displaying a peaceful flag of truce (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Flag_of_truce), or using that same flag as a ruse of war (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Ruse_of_war) to mount an attack. Attacking enemy troops while they are being deployed by way of a parachute is not a war crime.[4] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-3) However, Protocol I, Article 42 of the Geneva Conventions (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Geneva_Conventions) explicitly forbids attacking parachutists who eject from damaged airplanes, and surrendering parachutists once landed.[5] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-4) War crimes include such acts as mistreatment of prisoners of war (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Prisoner_of_war) or civilians. War crimes are sometimes part of instances of mass murder (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Mass_murder) and genocide (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Genocide) though these crimes are more broadly covered under international humanitarian law (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/International_humanitarian_law) described as crimes against humanity (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Crime_against_humanity).
War crimes are significant in international humanitarian (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Humanitarianism) law[6] (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/#cite_note-5) because it is an area where international tribunals such as the Nuremberg Trials (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials) and Tokyo trials (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East) have been convened. Recent examples are the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_the_former_Yug oslavia) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/International_Criminal_Tribunal_for_Rwanda), which were established by the UN Security Council (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/UN_Security_Council) acting under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/United_Nations_Charter).
Under the Nuremberg Principles (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Nuremberg_Principles), war crimes are different from crimes against peace (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/Crimes_against_peace) which is planning, preparing, initiating, or waging a war of aggression (http://www.subsim.com/wiki/War_of_aggression), or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements, or assurances.
(...)

Calm down, I would recommend, Assange is not even close to committing "war crimes", and volume is something different than argument.

Tribesman

07-30-10, 03:49 PM

Under international law can the founder of WikiLeaks , Julian Assange, be tried for war crimes?

Name the war crime?

The Third Man

07-30-10, 03:49 PM

Do you want to imply there is a causal link between both sentences? that this is the most lethal month for US troops, because the wikileak publication? That would be absurd. The youngest news in that material is more than half a year old since thehn a whol chnage of strategy has taklen place by presidential order, and the leaked reports got released just two days ago, so how could they influence the events of the past weeks and month? The rise in violence there is taking place since several months now, and according to some of the leaked material, the general violence level is much higher than what the public in the West gets told anyway.

Why woud that be absurd? Why wouldn't Her Assange, an admitted anti-war zealot, not give the info to the Taliban/Al Queda, before releasing it world wide? Is this such an outrageous idea? I think not.

The Third Man

07-30-10, 03:50 PM

Name the war crime?

I don't have one to name. I am just asking the question.

antikristuseke

07-30-10, 04:04 PM

Why woud that be absurd? Why wouldn't Her Assange, an admitted anti-war zealot, not give the info to the Taliban/Al Queda, before releasing it world wide? Is this such an outrageous idea? I think not.

Evidence or STFU, as with everything.

As to the rest of this leak thing, it is not right in my book, some people need to be held accountable for what they have done, but not crucified for what the could have done.

The Third Man

07-30-10, 04:24 PM

Evidence or STFU, as with everything.

As to the rest of this leak thing, it is not right in my book, some people need to be held accountable for what they have done, but not crucified for what the could have done.

Wow. After being excluded for ten days because of my signature on this forum, to be told STFU is a shocker. I can only hope that justice is served equally on this forum.

Skybird

07-30-10, 04:27 PM

Why woud that be absurd? Why wouldn't Her Assange, an admitted anti-war zealot, not give the info to the Taliban/Al Queda, before releasing it world wide?
What he did is not a war crime. A war crime is not the same like just any "crime committed in times of war". It even is questionable that the publication is a crime in itself - the legal status of the act is being hotly debated, and the moral status is hotly debated as well. For the legal status, it next would depend whose nations' lawcode you want to base on. What the american government may base on in laws can be something different than the German law. The british law. The laws of other nations the leaked reports comment on. the americans can only legally claim to prosecute the original source of the material, the whistleblower that is, if he is american and/or violated american institutions or procedures when copying the material. The crime, imo doesnot lie in the publication, but in the copying and steakling of the material. That that theft was illegal, imo is beyond doubt. Morally, I weigh this against the bigger crime of misleading the public, mismanaging the war since many years, deception over the political incompetence and the military probelms that have caused much bhigher deatzh tolls then admitted, and come to a result that compared to the government's big guilt the thief's guilt is absolutely minor only, a fromality that got violated in order to shed light on a much more severe and lethal crime that happens on and that governments conspirate over to betray their own people.

It is not a war crime what Assange did. Not more or less than it was "sexual harassement". The term war crime is a legal term defined in international treaties. Have a look at the Wikipedia link I gave for a first brief summary. Assange may be a narcisstic egocentric guy, he may crave for publicity or not, and may dream of more support for Wikileaks or not, but of all the four perpetrators - governments, military, the thief of the material, and the publisher - Assange is the one with the smallest guilt, if any at all. The overwhelming share of guilt lies with the governments.

mookiemookie

07-30-10, 04:27 PM

Why woud that be absurd? Why wouldn't Her Assange, an admitted anti-war zealot, not give the info to the Taliban/Al Queda, before releasing it world wide? Is this such an outrageous idea? I think not.

And now for the insane-dreamland-pull-stuff-out-of-my-butt-with-no-basis-in-fact-truth-evidence-or-reality portion of our show....

The Third Man

07-30-10, 04:39 PM

And now for the insane-dreamland-pull-stuff-out-of-my-butt-with-no-basis-in-fact-truth-evidence-or-reality portion of our show....

So after approving the surge, and designating/senate approved, GWB's general it would be A-OK for Mr. Obama to declare surrender and leave Afghanistan with his tail between his legs?

I'm playing devil's advocate and asking you to either support the war or Barack Obama.

The Third Man

07-30-10, 04:44 PM

What he did is not a war crime. A war crime is not the same like just any "crime committed in times of war". It even is questionable that the publication is a crime in itself - the legal status of the act is being hotly debated, and the moral status is hotly debated as well. For the legal status, it next would depend whose nations' lawcode you want to base on. What the american government may base on in laws can be something different than the German law. The british law. The laws of other nations the leaked reports comment on. the americans can only legally claim to prosecute the original source of the material, the whistleblower that is, if he is american and/or violated american institutions or procedures when copying the material. The crime, imo doesnot lie in the publication, but in the copying and steakling of the material. That that theft was illegal, imo is beyond doubt. Morally, I weigh this against the bigger crime of misleading the public, mismanaging the war since many years, deception over the political incompetence and the military probelms that have caused much bhigher deatzh tolls then admitted, and come to a result that compared to the government's big guilt the thief's guilt is absolutely minor only, a fromality that got violated in order to shed light on a much more severe and lethal crime that happens on and that governments conspirate over to betray their own people.

It is not a war crime what Assange did. Not more or less than it was "sexual harassement". The term war crime is a legal term defined in international treaties. Have a look at the Wikipedia link I gave for a first brief summary. Assange may be a narcisstic egocentric guy, he may crave for publicity or not, and may dream of more support for Wikileaks or not, but of all the four perpetrators - governments, military, the thief of the material, and the publisher - Assange is the one with the smallest guilt, if any at all. The overwhelming share of guilt lies with the governments.

Thank you for your reply but it doesn't seem to answer the question. Under international law can the founder of WikiLeaks , Julian Assange, be tried for war crimes? Too much opinion not enough law. A good lawyer could argue what he has done is a war crime for the many who have died in Afghanistan since he was in posession of the classified information..

antikristuseke

07-30-10, 04:49 PM

Wow. After being excluded for ten days because of my signature on this forum, to be told STFU is a shocker. I can only hope that justice is served equally on this forum.

You are free to report my post if you were offended by it. If the mods see this as a breach of rules on my part, they will pass out appropriate punishment. Personally I see it as an appropriate acronym to use given what you effectively accused a person of without any evidence.

The Third Man

07-30-10, 05:04 PM

. Personally I see it as an appropriate acronym to use given what you effectively accused a person of without any evidence.

Which from my reading happens regularly on this forum without the invective you used toward me. I consider it unacceptable.

Skybird

07-30-10, 05:08 PM

Thank you for your reply but it doesn't seem to answer the question. Under international law can the founder of WikiLeaks , Julian Assange, be tried for war crimes? Too much opinion not enough law. A good lawyer could argue what he has done is a war crime for the many who have died in Afghanistan since he was in posession of the classified information..
Your question was answered. He cannot be sued for war crime because his action does not qualify the legal definition of "warcrime".You could as well ask if he could be sued for raping somebody. If you see somebody stealing a car you hardly can sue him for forging some elections.

Take note of that the term "war crime" is not randomly chosen, or is not arbitrarily in content, but is defined in international treaties and conventions. If you use the term, stick to these. If you don't, do not use the term as well.

Tribesman

07-30-10, 05:13 PM

A good lawyer could argue what he has done is a war crime
Even a really bad half trained failed lawyer wouldn't try to argue that.
As Sky said you are using specific terms where they cannot possibly apply in law.
As was asked earlier, name the war crime?
Unless you casn find some legal basis your questions about war crimes are pointless.

The Third Man

07-30-10, 05:18 PM

Your question was answered. He cannot be sued for war crime because his action does not qualify the legal definition of "warcrime".You could as well ask if he could be sued for raping somebody. If you see somebody stealing a car you hardly can sue him for forging some elections.

Take note of that the term "war crime" is not randomly chosen, or is not arbitrarily in content, but is defined in international treaties and conventions. If you use the term, stick to these. If you don't, do not use the term as well.

Thank you again . Can you show the parts of international law which specifically exempt Herr Assange from prosecution under international law?

yep I want you to do the leg work. But I want you to look for the negative. Good luck!

Skybird

07-30-10, 05:24 PM

You start to behave like troll. Your original question has been precisely answered. The answer to your question whether or not he could be sued over war crimes, has been given. The hint to a summary and quick overview what the legal understanding of "warcrimes" is, I now give to you for the second AND THE LAST time. Either you get the answer to your original question now, or you don't. The historic background of how the term emegred and got anchored in international conventions and bills, is included. If you would have read it the first time, you would know it by now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crime

The Third Man

07-30-10, 05:39 PM

You start to behave like troll.

Like most questions they don't end wit the answer given. but engender new questions. To label me a troll only shows the weakness of your answer(s).

Start over and perhaps you can see my question as something more than a ideological exercise, and help you in your effort to believe what you are saying. Just a thought.

August

07-30-10, 06:44 PM

Taliban Says It Will Target Names Exposed by WikiLeaks
Militants were alerted to the leaked documents, which reveal details of informants, by news reports.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/taliban-says-it-will-target-names-exposed-by-wikileaks.html?GT1=43002

Requoting Ducimus to put this thread back on the track.

So what about this? Some folks here have cast doubt that this might happen. Some folks seem to think the media has done an acceptable job protecting real people from this exact thing.

No comments?

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-30-10, 07:14 PM

Requoting Ducimus to put this thread back on the track.

So what about this? Some folks here have cast doubt that this might happen. Some folks seem to think the media has done an acceptable job protecting real people from this exact thing.

No comments?

If you want mine, I've given them. Sad, but perfection is impossible or at lesat impractical, and trying to hold one side's feet to the fire for a small number of errors while not for the other side's (when it is really their job, and their failure to do it precipitated this) large amount of errors is hypocritical.

August

07-30-10, 07:38 PM

If you want mine, I've given them. Sad, but perfection is impossible or at lesat impractical, and trying to hold one side's feet to the fire for a small number of errors while not for the other side's (when it is really their job, and their failure to do it precipitated this) large amount of errors is hypocritical.

Again you talk like this is the score of some game. Media 1, US Military 0?

Where do you get off saying that I don't hold my government responsible for their mistakes? I want to see the traitor who released this information court martialed, and if found guilty, given the maximum penalty allowed under the UCMJ. Is that enough for you not to see me as a hypocrite?

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-30-10, 08:22 PM

Again you talk like this is the score of some game. Media 1, US Military 0?

ON the question of whether they are competent (which you asked), one objective way to do so is by comparing the percentage they got right vs wrong.

To answer your point about consequences, permit an analogy. Suppose we are both architectural students. I get about 99% of the questions right on the exam, so I become an architect. You can't get 20% of them right, so you don't. One day, unfortunately, in an understaffed project (so I have to carry a heavy workload with little redundancy) I make a few errors among countless decisions and calculations in designing a building, and unfortunately it was in a bad spot so the building folded. Obviously, that the building collapsed is my responsibility, and the consequences of my error quite large compared to yours in the sxam. But it does not mean I'm less competent than you as an architect.

Where do you get off saying that I don't hold my government responsible for their mistakes? I want to see the traitor who released this information court martialed, and if found guilty, given the maximum penalty allowed under the UCMJ. Is that enough for you not to see me as a hypocrite?

I know you are blaming them for this direction. Unfortunately, you are forsaking the forest for the trees.

August

07-30-10, 09:03 PM

ON the question of whether they are competent (which you asked), one objective way to do so is by comparing the percentage they got right vs wrong.

Irrelevant. By publishing these documents they have created a completely new source of military intelligence for our enemy that is in addition to whatever wrongs that you imagine the US Government to have done.

Why can't you understand that?

You are defending something because you feel it's not as bad as different things done by someone else. That's like excusing rape because others have committed murder.

Bottom line here is that people will die directly because of the publishing of these documents for ratings and profit. Now either you think that is inexcusable or not.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-30-10, 09:42 PM

Irrelevant. By publishing these documents they have created a completely new source of military intelligence for our enemy that is in addition to whatever wrongs that you imagine the US Government to have done.

Why can't you understand that?

You are defending something because you feel it's not as bad as different things done by someone else. That's like excusing rape because others have committed murder.

Bottom line here is that people will die directly because of the publishing of these documents for ratings and profit. Now either you think that is inexcusable or not.

What happened to the possibility US government's concealment of these documents (even you must accept that most of them are actually clean) being motivated by selfish desires? One side must be selfish and the other is purely altruistic? How politically reliable you are!

August

07-30-10, 10:29 PM

What happened to the possibility US government's concealment of these documents (even you must accept that most of them are actually clean) being motivated by selfish desires? One side must be selfish and the other is purely altruistic? How politically reliable you are!

Yeah ok. Like any government ever has provided a higher level of access to ongoing military operations than the US has.

Perhaps you define "selfish" as not wanting to risk the lives of our soldiers as well as those who are working with us by giving our enemy detailed insight into our day to day operations.

Yeah that must be it. After all how else could you even try to justify the half assed editing job we both know the media did?

The Third Man

07-30-10, 10:35 PM

My feeling is that if Mr. Obama had wanted to stop Herr Assange from divulging this information he could have done so easily.

In fact he wouldn't be walking freely at this moment, Herr Assange, that is.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-30-10, 11:34 PM

Yeah ok. Like any government ever has provided a higher level of access to ongoing military operations than the US has.

And that's because the people always pressed for it. It would not continue if every person simply blindfaiths into the military propaganda.

Perhaps you define "selfish" as not wanting to risk the lives of our soldiers as well as those who are working with us by giving our enemy detailed insight into our day to day operations.

No that's altruistic. What's strange is how you can only think about such motives when it comes to the US military, while for its critics you can only come up with selfish ones.

As for half-assed editing, again, they are having a much higher hit rate on these 92000 documents than the US military.

If you want to say that given that it is impossible to guarantee perfection, and given the high consequences of an error, it would be better to withold the information, that's at least a defensible, if tactical position. To say that they are incompetent for failing to meet an impossible standard isn't.

August

07-31-10, 01:02 AM

As for half-assed editing, again, they are having a much higher hit rate on these 92000 documents than the US military.

What do you mean "higher hit rate"? The US Military is not deliberately releasing this information, the media is. These documents were stolen by a traitor who i hope they hang for his betrayal and your darlings in the international media are publishing it where our enemies can read it for no other reason than to make a profit.

So you can defend the media all you want but doesn't change the fact that they are amateurs playing with peoples lives for money and they are aiding the very people we're trying to defeat.

Zachstar

07-31-10, 02:12 AM

I don't have one to name. I am just asking the question.

Bet you diddnt ask that about Bush and Waterboarding.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-31-10, 02:16 AM

What do you mean "higher hit rate"? The US Military is not deliberately releasing this information, the media is.

In a society that is supposedly democratic and respectful of free speech ... etc, the default state of all information, certainly all of potential public interest is Free-flow, and the decision to stop and keep stopping something of potential public interest from being released is in itself a proactive decision which can be judged on its merits.

One can even go as far as to say that all Wikileaks is doing is liberating 76,000 documents (out of 92,000) to their natural state in democratic, open, free-speech loving America, a set of decisions that was overwhelmingly correct. Yes, it is possible a few informers might get revealed and popped - that's a possibility I took into account from the beginning.

After all, it is not like American PGMs have never inflicted collateral damage and casualties, but no one (at least of your political orientation) says the bombs are a mistake - it is accepted as a reasonable cost.

Now, I'm not such an idealist as to think that the parties involved in this release are entirely altruistic, but neither am I so politically indoctrinated (maybe it helps here I'm not American) as to think that the American generals and politicians are keeping data classified for purely altruistic or even operational (in the military sense) motives.

Skybird

07-31-10, 04:15 AM

So you can defend the media all you want but doesn't change the fact that they are amateurs playing with peoples lives for money
Strange that by their record in Afghanistan I think exactly the same way about the political leadership, yours and ours, Bush's and Obama's, Schroeder's and Merkel's - just that often they do not even do it for money anymore, but home-located political power- and party-interest.

As long as the war keeps running, the debate on whether or not it was worth it, and who was responisble for what, will run very muted, at best. And that is the reason why some want to run the war forever, no matter it's lacking perspectives. Troops risk their lives for preventing this debate. They should not wear their nation's emblems, but symbols and colours of the political parties at home.

Skybird

07-31-10, 04:21 AM

Herr Assange

Mr. Assange. He was born in Australia and he is of Australian nationality.

August

07-31-10, 09:56 AM

Yes, it is possible a few informers might get revealed and popped - that's a possibility I took into account from the beginning.

So the bottom line is you hardly care if a few people and their families get killed. You even attempt to marginalize them by calling them "informers". Heck you should have just swung for the fences and called them "collaborators" or even go old school and call them "Quislings".

Let me clue you in on something dude. The "default state" of classified military intelligence reports is just that, classified. You, Assange. Manning, or the NYT do not have a right to decide which of it is ok to give to our enemies.

August

07-31-10, 10:08 AM

Strange that by their record in Afghanistan I think exactly the same way about the political leadership, yours and ours, Bush's and Obama's, Schroeder's and Merkel's - just that often they do not even do it for money anymore, but home-located political power- and party-interest.

I do not necessarily disagree with any of that Skybird. The point I am trying to make is that putting sensitive classified information in the hands of yet another group of incompetents, especially ones who have even less concern for the peoples whose lives they are risking than your average politician is not helping anyone but our enemies.

Tribesman

07-31-10, 12:31 PM

You even attempt to marginalize them by calling them "informers".
Can you think of another word?
Informant would be the one used by the bodies involved and it means informer.
So how is it attempting to marginalize when he is using the very word the politicians and military have been using?

heartc

07-31-10, 02:35 PM

Nice to see all the "peace lovers" having no problems with families getting butchered now. Shows their true face, if there was any doubt in the first place. They are no peace lovers - they are either closet commies / nazis or Islamist sympathizers, rooting for the downfall of our system and way of life, because they themselves can't deal with it and need some sicko pseudo political apparition / leader. They care about peace and lives no more than Stalin did.

Kazuaki Shimazaki II

07-31-10, 07:44 PM

So the bottom line is you hardly care if a few people and their families get killed. You even attempt to marginalize them by calling them "informers". Heck you should have just swung for the fences and called them "collaborators" or even go old school and call them "Quislings".

If you twist my words like that, by analogy, when the US bombs people, they don't care if a few people get killed, since as we all know precision-guided bombs are not perfectly reliable, as are the intelligence used to target them.

Let me clue you in on something dude. The "default state" of classified military intelligence reports is just that, classified. You, Assange. Manning, or the NYT do not have a right to decide which of it is ok to give to our enemies.

Wrong. The default state of information in the military is unclassified. Then someone places a Classified stamp on it. Don't confuse the sequence of events.

Now, here's a question for you: If this whole story had involved the operational details of another country, say perhaps it was 92,000 reports of Russian activities in Chechenya, would you be saying good job to whoever leaked it?

antikristuseke

07-31-10, 07:50 PM

I am more inclined to agree with August on this one, the default state of information in the military is classified.

August

07-31-10, 08:15 PM

Wrong. The default state of information in the military is unclassified. Then someone places a Classified stamp on it. Don't confuse the sequence of events.

No, it's you who is wrong. An Intelligence Report, which is what we're talking about, is classified from the moment that the writer puts pen to paper. All notes and material associated with the report, every picture, every draft, unfinished, incomplete, spelled wrong, or whatever has to be handled according to regulations governing classified information.

Now, here's a question for you: If this whole story had involved the operational details of another country, say perhaps it was 92,000 reports of Russian activities in Chechenya, would you be saying good job to whoever leaked it?

No I wouldn't. Would you feel the lives of some poor village headman and his family are worth having a few more details to things you already knew?

Skybird

10-23-10, 04:59 AM

The announced second wave of leaked documents has been released, this time about Iraq, featuring almost 400,000 individual documents, mostly field reports. Again American, German and British newspapers cooperated to survey the material.

DER SPIEGEL, the London Guardian and the New York Times have analyzed and reviewed the documents together with other media sources. As was the case with the around 77,000 Afghanistan war logs published by WikiLeaks in July, SPIEGEL has taken every measure possible to ensure that lives are not put at risk. This includes redacting the names of those individuals who could be targeted for revenge or of those places at risk of being targeted for collective reprisals. The danger publication of the reports could create for informants and soldiers in Iraq is the primary concern of the US government, which is currently seeking to take action against WikiLeaks.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,724845,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/war-logs.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/iraq-war-logs

http://wikileaks.org/

Is it even worthwhile to add another 391,832 documents from the years 2004 to 2009 to the existing flood of books, reports and other documentation?
Two institutions that are archenemies appear to think that the answer is yes.
In one respect, the US Armed Forces, which compiled these documents, and the website WikiLeaks, which is now publishing them, share a common interest. Both organizations view the documents as an inside look at the Iraq war -- the most precise, detailed and comprehensive proximity to the bloody truth yet.
What is new about these documents is that they are written from the perspective of the Americans themselves. It is the US soldiers themselves who depict the drama of the war, dramatic events that occurred again and again at checkpoints, where the excessive nervousness of the soldiers led to hundreds of deadly incidents. The logs mention civilian deaths 34,000 times. It is the authors of the military reports themselves who are documenting the mass civilian deaths in Iraq -- deaths that occurred in both insurgent and US military attacks.
Another new aspect is that the US military itself has documented how disastrous Operation Iraqi Freedom actually was -- and with what brutality Iraqis who had been liberated from dictator Saddam Hussein acted against each other. This will not come as a surprise to anyone who has read the news over the past few years, but the Iraq documents don't merely depict single events -- they provide an image of reality that is comprised of a total of 391,832 parts which will serve as the basis for writing any history of the Iraq war in the future.
DER SPIEGEL, the London Guardian and the New York Times have analyzed and reviewed the documents, together with other media. As was the case with the tens of thousands of Afghanistan war logs published by WikiLeaks in July, there are no doubts about the authenticity of the documents. They are first-hand reports that also reflect the confusion of the moment and the notorious "fog of war."
(...)
The allegation that WikiLeaks is acting irresponsibly has been one of the main points of contention from the US government. "Innocents will die" because of the leaks, former CIA Director Michael Hayden wrote, referring to the previously published Afghanistan documents. Admiral Mike Mullen, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, even accused WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange of having the blood of young Afghan families on his hands.
US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has since put those accusations into perspective. "The review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by this disclosure," he wrote in a letter to Senator Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Still, he wrote that he took seriously threats by the Taliban that Afghans found cooperating with the United States would be punished. The letter, dated August 16, has only just been made public.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,724855,00.html

All together it seems to illustrate how brutally things have unfolded in Iraq, and how helpless and clueless the American army acted in the face of this asymmetric enemy (whether that could have been avoided or not, is another debate, for the time being I mean that as a factual assessment of realities only - the war was fought the way it was fought, and not any different, obviously). Torture has to be expected in any realistic assessement of war operations and their aftermaths, no matter whether legally or illegally, but it seems to be clear beyond doubt that the US knew of it and tolerated it, even encouraged it, and that it is no rare exception from the rule.

jumpy

10-23-10, 01:47 PM

wow, long thread, not read all of it :oops: but hearing of this most recent 'leak' and the reactions of politicians on the radio this afternoon (specifically regarding Iraqi's torturing other Iraqi's and the knowledge of this by coalition forces), I am not at all surprised.
The public face of 'lets bring democracy to a former dictatorship' and its mixed results, appears naive, but I doubt very much that that this comes as any shock to anyone in the forces stationed over there, or their leaders, military and political.

I do find the accusation, that these leaks will lead to many more innocent deaths, complicated. In some ways it's closing the stable door after the horse has bolted; many incidents could have been prevented, by coalition intervention, allegedly. On the other hand, whilst there may be some light shed on what might look like complicity with torture and murder of Iraqi's by Iraqi's, the statements in the press from government etc smacks of double standard. I don't know, perhaps it's the way it's reported - I find the reactions seemingly more concerned with the possible fallout, embarrassment and thoughts of culpability, than any regard (thus far lacking or otherwise) of further deaths of troops and civilians other than is required for making 'official statements'. It comes across as a bit cold, if you see what I mean.

As for the bit I heard today about the helicopter crew asking what to do with 'insurgents' who were attempting to surrender, and were told to kill them because there was no military doctrine (I guess?) for that situation...
Well, there's several points to make here.
1) tough call, not one I'd like to make or follow orders on.
2) ok, how is a helicopter supposed to detain such men without using a resource better suited elsewhere, or being placed in a more vulnerable position by landing or whatever?
3) it's not the best way to show honour, or respect, to know that if you try and surrender, 'the americans will kill us anyway'. Anyone who survives such an encounter can and will only be more motivated to fight back and encourage others to do the same because the 'invaders' will only kill you anyway. Kind of defeats the saving you from dictatorship angle peddled by western governments- though I strongly suspect that has as much to do with presenting the right face for going to war to the voters back home, as to the people of iraq.

I think the reality of the situation was inevitable and all parties involved knew this from the start. But where would the public be if such understanding had been explicit in the reasons, justification and planning for war and its aftermath in the middle east? I certainly remember nothing of it at the time. Indeed, I admit to having trusted certain points made for those very justifications. I am not so certain they were so valid after all and as a consequence, view much of the official line from the british government of the day, as strongly biased and highly dubious. The same could be said for my regard for the past and current american policy.
However there is a further complication of support for men and women who do a very dangerous job at the behest of their political masters. Whilst you can point the finger of contempt at those few who have abused their responsibility and committed brutal acts outside of the so called rules of war, most of these people don't deserve such regard. Quite the opposite.

One thing for sure, it's a right bloody mess.

Platapus

10-23-10, 02:23 PM

Why would any foreign national cooperate clandestinely or covertly if they know that the US government can't prevent these leaks?

When this type of information is leaked out, it will hurt future recruitment and cooperation efforts.

US Government: We want you to work with us covertly

Foreign National: But I am afraid of the risk to me and my family.

USG: Trust us, we will protect your identity and your relationship with us

FN: One word "wikileaks"

USG: I guess our conversation is over huh?

The jerks who work for Wikileaks do not have a legal obligation to protect sensitive information. Evidently they don't care at all about the moral issues.

However, somewhere there is a person who, via their NDA, has the legal responsibility to protect this sensitive information. And they have violated their legal and moral obligation. These are people without honour and we need to find them.

How anyone can voluntarily sign an NDA, garner all the benefits from the position of trust (accepting the queen's shilling, as it were) and then betray that oath of honour? The only conclusion I can make is that they are devoid of honour and have no concept of being a professional.

I have nothing but disgust for these scum and I hope they are caught and punished for their betrayal. :yep:

Skybird

10-23-10, 03:25 PM

I am still convinced that

- the stupidity and arrogance to launch the Iraq war,

- and the level of incompetence and naivety being displayed by American political leaders and the administration that even gagged and minimised influence by real experts in the field who demanded at least better preparation,

still represents the far and multiple times greater crime against the people of both Iraq and America/Britain/nations of the coalition of the willing, and against the American troops who have been ordered into the line of fire for nothing but lies, lies, and more lies.

Compared to that, the seriousness of revealing these lies although in an illegal manner, fades. Legally, these lies would not have been revealed, that simple. The overkill argument that the leak puts American troops at risk, I do not buy, at least not to that ammount the Pentagon tries to sell it. And the American defence minister seems to share that assessement, as the qzuote I gave above indicates. The claim is just being raised in order to win the propaganda war over wikileaks.

You asked why any foreign national cooperate may cooperate with the US if the US cannot prevent such leaks, Platapus. But you forget to also ask the second question which maybe is even more important, no, it certainly is more important: why would any foreign national cooperate with the Us if the US is lying over the goiung of the war and the mtoives for the attack so long and tgries to hide the unwanted truths until the end, even deceiving its closest allies over the real reasons...??? If it would be 2003 again, with the expertience and knowledge we have gained since then, I can assure you that if again wanting to attack Iraq, the Us would have immense problems to find any allies marching in line with them and sending troops again. I am very sure that even the British would not get talked into this kind of adventure again. Especially the military leadership is anything but pleased with the way the "cooperation" with their American cousins has been handled by the American side.

Catfish

10-23-10, 04:48 PM

Platapus wrote:

" [...] I have nothing but disgust for these scum and I hope they are caught and punished for their betrayal. :yep:
__________________
As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.- Christopher Dawson "

Your "motto" in italics is interesting, in direct comparison to what you wrote above.
So you think only governments should have the right to lie, and that they should do so ? What about immoral governments belying their population ? I tell you what, a politician is amoralic by profession.

IMHO it is good that all people on the world see how war looks like, and has ever looked like. There is nothing "immoral" about it other than withholding such information and telling the people at home that "our boys do the job just right". The west is living on the dictatorship and exploitment of others, just think of China and big business, or AFrica and resources. How comes Saddam's Iran was attacked, but not the CHina of the chinese communist party, or North Korea ? Something like Bethlehem steel in World war 1.

The people who send the material are heroes, and they know damn well at which risk they sent it for publishing. I just hope this has consequences for the politicians who started the mess. I just doubt it, because they will always get through with the "great old man" farce.

Regarding the cluster bombs dropped in Aghanistan, Iran or wherever, as one general said as a reply to the question "do they all explode ?", or become a threat for future generations, his answer was " .. the only damn sure thing is they don't stay up in the air."

Greetings,
Catfish