Wikileaks To Publish Remaining Afghan Documents 711
Albanach writes "WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange has been quoted by the Associated Press as stating 'the organization is preparing to release the remaining secret Afghan war documents.' According to Assange, they are halfway through processing the remaining 15,000 files as they 'comb through' the files to ensure lives are not placed at risk."
Are these leaked by the CIA as well? (Score:1, Interesting)
Afghanistan produces around 85% of the world's poppies. There was NOT ONE MENTION of poppies, heroin, or opium in the released documents. What are the odds of that?
Anon Y. Mous
My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks... (Score:4, Interesting)
My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks is how it divides us. We now have the privilege of mostly being sorted into two rather neat piles:
A) This stuff should never have been secret, and anyone who would hide it is un-American
or
B) These secrets are property of the government, and anyone who would divulge them is un-American
The framing is succinct, and I doubt there will be another issue of this type within my lifetime. No matter which camp you're in, from a certain point of view, you're right. Personally, I hold that nothing need remain secret for very long, and that our government should be in the business of printing this material itself. Others are calling for Pvt Manning's execution.
Amazing times to live in...
Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (Score:2, Interesting)
more than just 2 camps, though.
how's this for a take: yes, afgans will (perhaps) be at risk. they will learn not to trust us (ever again).
this could be a good thing! it means we have ZERO chance of 'fixing that country'.
yay! we can go home. there's zero point in spending time, money, lives over there if its impossible to 'win' the war.
now, I think its impossible. 100.0% impossible. they won't trust us ever again.
time to go home. seriously.
Wikileaks isn't balanced in it's coverage (Score:1, Interesting)
They are focusing on the US and the Global War on Terror, there are no thousand page releases from the Sudan, Congo, Burma, Russia, Iran, North Korea, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or even Israel.
It's mostly focused on the US and to a lesser extent on some corporations.
I'd love to see what happened if they leaked 15,000 documents on Israeli operations in the West Bank or posted data on Israeli positions in the Golan.
Re:Now it's "Julian Assange, Intelligence Analyst" (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, I really wish he'd asked the White House or Pentagon for help in redacting these documents.
After all, they're the ones who are best placed to check that sort of thing, right?
Surely they would have wanted to minimize damage to the troops, right?
Surely they wouldn't want to just cover their asses, right?
Oh wait he did and they said no.
Hmm.
Re:It's a good thing (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Good for Them (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, you hear plenty about it. It is spun into stories like "bringing democracy to Afghanistan," "fighting the terrorists who wish to hurt us" (and its utterly moronic sibling "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"), "defending America," "helping Afghans resist the Taliban," and the rest of the claptrap promoted in the commercial media.
We had no reason to go into Iraq, now we're apparently saddled with decades of military occupation. We went into Afghanistan, ended Taliban rule, but allowed Al Qaeda top brass to escape into Pakistan. We are still fighting the Taliban, who represent no threat to us. If they once again become a threat, we remove them again. Why, however, did we not approach Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates about official and unofficial support of the Taliban and a variety of other extremists? What about Pakistan, funded officially and by means of private donations by SA and the Emirates to support the Taliban and other extremists? How do they end up being our allies in all this? Al Qaeda is still operational in Pakistan, apparently.
The War on Terror is a scam, backwards and forwards. It cannot withstand even cursory quetioning of its purposes or the means used to achieve them.
Re:Mr Assange: Remove the grid-squares!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless say, your house was the one documented in an artillery strike and such a document could give you evidence that it was one specific faction or another that blew up your house and killed your family.
Or say that local Taliban leaders have been claiming that deaths were caused by the Americans, but no artillery or mortars were used by US forces in that immediate vicinity. These documents could show that the US is not to blame for everything.
In either case, when you're talking about the specific coordinates of small arms fire and an air strike from 5+ years ago, there is no risk to current operations.
Informants names shouldn't be in documents classified as 'Secret' anyway, they should be in 'Top-Secret' or above. As I said in the last thread on this. 'Secret' clearance is insignificant in the military. When I was active duty I knew an individual who was in under don't-ask-don't-tell, a couple of alcoholics, and even one enlisted guy that wound up getting convicted of dealing drugs, all with secret clearance. None of them were over the age of 21.
Secret classification is one step up from Sensitive (SSNs, addresses, phone numbers, etc...) and it isn't very well controlled. How else do you think some lowly E-3 is going to get his hands on tens of thousands of documents?
-Rick
Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry, I don't like the fact that we are there either, I wish we had never gotten into either, and I agree on your assessment of Iraq, but...
The US had (and still, to my knowledge, HAS) UN approval and support to occupy Afghanistan. Our prime suspect in a major terrorist act, one Osama Bin Laden, was strongly suspected to be in Afghanistan and the then-current government, the Taliban, was refusing the US entry to go find him and arrest him. The US, supported at the time by most of Europe, Australia, Britain, and a generous mittenful of others (many of whom also pledged troops in support of the mission, and some of whom still have troops there) entered Afghanistan to find Bin Laden. The force then met resistance from the Taliban and (under UN authorization) removed the government.
What went horribly wrong was twofold (and I'm sure my oversimplification is glossing over a lot of detail, too bad):
- Bin Laden then (almost certainly) fled over the border to neighboring Pakistan, possibly even before we invaded, and there was too much resistance to allowing the UN force to cross the border. There still is, and there's a strong suspicion he's still there. The invasion of Afghanistan might never have had a chance of accomplishing its stated goal due partly to the delays in getting UN approval and making it all legal. Making it legitimate probably made it ineffective. There's irony in there somewhere.
- Once the chase was done, there was little reason to stay in Afghanistan except to clean up the mess, and there's little political capital to be gained from cleaning up - successful invasions get votes, holding maneuvers get called "Vietnam III" and "Korea II" and get your ass thrown out of office. Unless, of course, you can have a successful invasion to cover it up.
Oh, yeah. Iraq.
- A false connection was drawn between OBL and Iraq, seemingly because George W Bush wanted to be able to resolve a problem (Saddam Hussein's long-running game of cat and mouse with the UN) that neither his daddy nor Clinton was able to resolve, and almost certainly because Afghanistan needed to stop being mentioned on the headlines. "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED", as they say.
- That invasion dropped visibility of Afghanistan in the eyes of the American public so we could forget we had a Vietnam going on. It also had the unfortunate side effect of reducing available resources to handle Afghanistan, and in many ways the job there was largely ignored and the country was allowed to degenerate further until we needed lots more resources on the ground to fix it all up.
The focus is on Afghanistan at the moment, since Barak Obama obviously wants to focus on the invasion that at least once had legitimate UN support and would rather not have people talking about Iraq.
Re:Now it's "Julian Assange, Intelligence Analyst" (Score:2, Interesting)
He did. They declined.
Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the thing - nothing really can remain secret for long. At least, not from the guys you're actively engaged in fighting against. Beyond immediate operations, the only people you can hope to hoodwink for long are your own citizens by way of information control and propaganda.
It's not a given that every military secret will be discovered. Look through history and you'll find examples of secrets that were uncovered and secrets that remained secret for years. It all depends on the nature of those secrets and the actors involved.
Are there ethical (and practical) issues involved in releasing this info? Are there similar issues involved in not releasing this info? Certainly. But in all likelihood, the harm involved in releasing it will be very limited. Anyone who could make use of it in a military sense probably already knows most of this stuff. Not all...but probably most. So what remains? It seems like it would be reasonable to conclude that the main effect is to inform the American public and international community - people the American government very much wants to keep in the dark, but people who they have no right to keep in the dark.
I don't believe it's a given that there is not sufficient military value in this information. Nor do I agree that there is significant information for the public. I find the documents fascinating (and more than a few incidents described tragic) - but there seems to be a distinct lack of smoking guns in the mix.
Anyway, the cat's out of the bag now. Everything you're seeing is spin control - it's not like making a big fuss over this is going to make it be un-leaked. On the other hand, if the government puts a big enough spin on it, the odds are that they can strongly diminish any informing effect it would have for the public. They can't go back and hide it from the people they're fighting, but they have a pretty good shot of hiding it from their taxpaying voters and from the international community. Does it make any sense to hand them a win on that front? Any damage the info could do in a military sensehas already been done.
I doubt anyone in the DoD thinks they can un-leak the documents. But what they can do is make an impression on those in a position of controlling similar secrets. And possibly weaken the support structure around organizations like Wikileaks. This is more than simply muddying up the waters to ensure limit the scope of public education.
Having said that - to be sure, there's a huge PR issue involved. The US Government is certainly going to be involved in that fight as well. But the propaganda is thick from all parties involved. One should be wary of everything that touches this subject.
Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:We recognized the legitimacy of the Taliban (Score:3, Interesting)
Another thing you won't hear on Faux News is that the Taliban offered to remand Binladdin to any third country for trial if the US could supply a minimal amount of evidence linking him or his organization to the WTC attacks. The Bush Madministration just insisted on him being handed over because they said so, no evidence needed. To this day the FBI doesn't have enough evidence to charge him with the 2001 attacks, just the earlier attacks on the embassies in Africa.
Re:Good for Them (Score:3, Interesting)
I feel as one who is telling everyone but so few listen. You are absolutely right (I am a former USMC Iraq combat vet btw) when you say that it cannot withstand questioning. We must ask the most fundamental questions here.Whil I would love to take the time to answer them here and now, and bust many bubbles, I will leave it to the reader. Why are we in Iraq/Afghan? What is the end goal? What would constitute success? What are the chances of that happening? Where is the greatest threat to national security coming from? How much are we spending? (944b) How many lives are being lost on all sides? Is the current rate of progress sustainable? What does history say about these countries and cultures in relation to war? What are our long term political and strategic goals for the ME? These are only a few of the question, that when answered honestly, instantly reveal the pure imbecility of pursuing the paths that we have. The problem? Its that those in power are doing a good job at maintaining that power, that those below them don't have enough courage to stand up for what is right, and the general apathy and pure stupidity of the American public (political republicans, democrats, and those in between are too busy fighting partisan battles to wake up, and are if anything even more to blame for the current situation, by having failed in their "due diligence") Bah, sometimes it seems like we are still, as Hitchens says, in "the bawling infancy of our species" and I'm fucking tired of it.
Re: save lives by exposing military tactics.... (Score:4, Interesting)
heya,
Err, no, I think they're both pretty s*itty situations. But if you're a women, living under Taliban rule was much, much worse.
You say that Afghan women were "safe" under the Taliban? What are you smoking.
I mean, the most recent copy of Time magazine floating in my house has a photo of an Afghan women with her nose cut off. Apparently she ran away from her wife-beating husband, and the Taliban went after her, held her down while her husband watched (and I assume cheered), and cut off her nose. She's currently residing with some care organisation, I believe, after they left her for dead.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2007269,00.html [time.com]
Oh, and just look here for some classic examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women [wikipedia.org]
I mean, the Taliban would rather they die slowly than get medical aid, because *gasp* male doctors can't treat female patients. Oh, and since women are denied education after the age of 8, it's hardly like they're going to become doctors, is it?
The thing is, any society like this is eventually going to run itself into the ground, or degenerate into some pre-Industrial revolution tribal free-for-all. The thing is, as developed Western countries, many of us find it somewhat difficult to stomach something like that happening in our backyard. That sort of widespread damage being caused to people...I think we have a phrase for that...hmm...human rights abuse?
Now, that wasn't the primary reason for ousting the Taliban - their support and harbouring of Osama Bin Laden, and continued funding for Al Qaeda was, but hey, it's not that bad a thing, what we're doing in Afghanistan, giving them the vote, and emancipating their women.
Also, it's funny how now that the American public has revealed themselves as spineless and without enough stomach to see things through to the end, and the US government has opened up the possibility of negotiating with the Taliban. Guess who's screaming the loudest "NO! NO!" - gee, gosh, how about the Afghan people themselves? I think most of the 22 million people in that country wouldn't want that pack of sadistic and heartless sycophants back.
Cheers,
Victor
Re: save lives by exposing military tactics.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Letting informants live and continue to inform risks the lives of freedom fighters trying to shake off the bonds of occupation.
What makes the US military and its sympathizers and collaborators so much more important than other factions in this idiotic and unnecessary war?
Lets not forget, if the tables were turned, and we were Afghani, these people would be "traitors".
-Steve
An astonishing assertion that demonstrates how dire the situation is. We have completely lost our compass and the world will be 10,000 times poorer for it. Your smug little world is doomed - in one of two ways.
To get it clear.
1. The Taliban are not freedom fighters
2. The other factions seek to enslave and murder you and your family, after (of course) having enslaved and murdered anyone who they don't like in their own country - women, intellectuals, christians, jews, muslims that they don't agree with, scientists, doctors; and that list is just a start.
3. If the tables were turned you would be dead, your house would be burned, I would be dead, my family would be dead. The internet would be off, the power would be off, almost all books would be burned.
I would hope that we would be able to muster the will and resources to stop these people without recourse to collapsing our democracy and freedoms, but comments like yours make my blood run cold and the realization dawns on me that in fact this may not be the way that things play out. We do not, as a society, share the collective understanding and values that will allow us to do this. Since the alternative is unthinkable (see above) we are going to go down the route of totalitarianism and a military state.
Welcome to 1000 years of a boot stamping down on a human face, again, and again and again.
My advice, to everyone, keep your head down, be kind to those around you, preserve what you can, bury it if necessary. Wait for the knock at the door and go quietly when it comes, for the sake of your children.
Hope that some bright morning in the future someone finds what we have hidden.
Re:Related news: Reporters w/o Borders join critic (Score:3, Interesting)
When groups like Amnesty and Reporters Without Borders start warning you, it's really time to stop and consider whether what you're doing is really helping or hurting freedom.
I went to amnesty.org and searched for wikileaks. The most recent hit was from 26th July, regarding the original release by wikileaks with Amnesty calling for NATO to provide a clear and unified system for accounting for civilian casualties in Afghanistan. They go on: "The leaked documents support Amnesty International's concern ..."
If you could cite the warning from Amnesty to Julian Assange it would help, thanks, else I'll continue to believe what I read on Amnesty's site to be a true reflection of what Amnesty actually has to say on the matter.