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. ;)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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 )

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.

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.