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

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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]

Originally Posted by August

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.

Letting the military choose means none of it ever will. Sometimes, the security provision does serve a useful purpose (with almost 92000 documents to choose from statistically some may well have critical information), but governments have developed too many bad habits in using it to deny information, thus shafting it of its original purpose.

[mookiemookie]

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

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]

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

Anyone any idea where the leak came from?

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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. :/

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by krashkart

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

[CaptainHaplo]

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Skybird

...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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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?