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

[Zachstar]

Originally Posted by The Third Man

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

Herr Assange

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

[August]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

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]

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]

Originally Posted by August

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]

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

[August]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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]

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/...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/...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]

wow, long thread, not read all of it 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]

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.

[Skybird]

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.