Obama Wants Allies To Go After WikiLeaks

krou writes "Coming on the back of human rights groups criticizing WikiLeaks, American officials are saying that the Obama administration is pressuring allies such as Australia, Britain, and Germany to open criminal investigations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and to try limit his ability to travel. 'It's not just our troops that are put in jeopardy by this leaking. It's UK troops, it's German troops, it's Australian troops — all of the NATO troops and foreign forces working together in Afghanistan,' said one American diplomatic official, who added that other governments should 'review whether the actions of WikiLeaks could constitute crimes under their own national-security laws.'"

How does

[Dyinobal]

How does a little egg on the Governments face = endangering troops? Seems to me sending them to Afghanistan and Iraq puts them in more danger than anything wikileaks could ever publish.

Re:How does

[Anonymous Coward]

endangering troops

They mean endangering their ability to lie effectively.

Lying for what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's not beat around the bush. What they REALLY mean is that wikileaks is threatening their justification for spending. Spending is what makes the business of government incredibly lucrative for the elite few, not lying. Lying is merely a means to more spending.

The defense industry is worth billions of dollars per year, and the vast majority of that cash comes from government. The more money passing through the hands of the elite at the top, the better their position to exploit that flow of cash for personal gain.

Am I saying that money is the primary motivator of war, and the underlying objective of defense spending? You're damn right I am.

"War Is a Racket"

[Doc Ruby]

Everyone should read War is a Racket [wikipedia.org], written by Marine Major General Smedley Butler [wikipedia.org] in the early 1930s:

In War Is A Racket, Butler points to a variety of examples, mostly from World War I, where industrialists whose operations were subsidised by public funding were able to generate substantial profits essentially from mass human suffering.

The work is divided into five chapters:

      1. War is a racket
      2. Who makes the profits?
      3. Who pays the bills?
      4. How to smash this racket!
      5. To hell with war!

It contains this key summary:

        "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

In another often cited quote from the book Butler says:

        "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Re:"War Is a Racket"

[AhabTheArab]

An excellent read indeed, wish I had mod points. Smedley Butler is touted as a hero in Marine Corps boot camp. That's not inaccurate - he is a hero. He is one of the most decorated men in US Military history, with two Medals of Honor and a Brevet. What most Marines are not taught in boot camp is this side of him - when he started criticizing the motives behind the wars he was in (Philippines, Boxer Reb., Banana Wars) and was one of the first ones to talk about the Military Industrial Complex. Nor do they mention that he was essentially "in line" to be Commandant of the Marine Corps.. once again, until he started pointing out the collusion between Government and Big Business.

He truly is a forgotten hero.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Don't forget Red State Stupidity.

[anagama]

Democrats==Republicans for the most part. They only try to distinguish themselves by adhering to one side or the other of a limited number of hot-button issue.

I think what we need is a constitutional amendment to allow voluntary secession of the states. The system is beyond fixable, and it would be nice to be able to start over locally.

Re:Don't forget Red State Stupidity.

[jythie]

If nothing else, it shows how little power the president REALLY has. No matter who you put in office, if they want to get anything done, they have to play the exact same games with the exact same players as the previous one.

Re: How does

[Black Parrot]

How does a little egg on the Governments face = endangering troops? Seems to me sending them to Afghanistan and Iraq puts them in more danger than anything wikileaks could ever publish.

Because it's actually about the egg. The troops are just an excuse.

Re: How does

[Seumas]

Bingo.

Freedom of the press only applies to the press that the government can directly or indirectly influence and control. If the domestic press is so valiant, why is it that Wikileaks is left to uncover and document this sort of thing? Simply, because the press is largely fed by the people and processes they cover, much like game reviewers are fed by the game developers and publishers that they cover. Abide by their rules or be squeezed out in favor of others who will. And few bother with their own reporting anymore, beyond parroting press-releases dressed as AP news wire.

I certainly don't take Wikileaks at face value, but they seem to be adhering closer to the true worth of a free press than anyone domestically.

What absolutely baffles me is how many months after the "Collateral Murder" tape was released, we're all still watching our sit-coms, sipping our lattes, and arguing about Arizona and immigration and having mild debates over whether or not Wikleaks should give the government a tug-job instead of calling them out with documented evidence.

I mean, if we as a nation aren't livid over watching a video of outright condoned and covered-up murder in our name and on our dime, then what are we ever going to be upset by? How much Lebron is going to earn on a basketball team and how much we love Twilight?

This is why I get so upset at other seemingly meaningless stories, like the whole "girl quits job on whiteboard hoax". Because small unquestioned stories like that are indicative of the lack of questioning and critical thinking that people in general exhibit toward more vital stories like *these*.

Re: How does

[Rene S. Hollan]

Are you going to take up arms and march on Washington?

Didn't think so.

But here's a dangerous question for you to ponder (dangerous in the sense that when I asked it in another forum, I was accused of making death threats and being a terrorist):

How many people, armed, and descending on seats of government with the intent to kill treasonous legislators, judges, and executives, after deciding that no other recourse for their grievances was possible would it take for you to rise up and join them?

10? 100? A thousand? A million? A force larger than the standing military forces combined? How many?

Realize that to do this, you (a) have abandoned all hope in justice being available in the present government, and (b) have embraced the notion of dying on your feet for your beliefs instead of living on your knees: the liberty you might secure probably won't be your own. That's a heck of an altruistic stance to take.

Re: How does

[Psmylie]

My answer to your question is that, if I truly believed my government to be corrupt beyond redemption and that the only way to recover would be to clean the slate and start over, it wouldn't really matter how many others were marching as well. I'd go alone, even if that meant I'd have to go all Guy Fawkes on the situation.

The thing of it is, I don't believe our government, even as corrupt and lost as it currently is, is anywhere near irredeemable. Or, at least, pragmatically speaking, any worse than what we would replace it with after an armed uprising. The existing system to enact change CAN still work, if enough people actually learn and vote and get the right people into office. It all comes down to the fact that we simply get the government we deserve. Lazy and uninformed voters are the root of all the problems we have. Everything else (government corruption, stripping of liberties, etc) follows from that.

If the vote is ever suspended, or if our current or future President enacts martial law for anything other than a verifiable emergency and refuses to end it once that emergency is over... yeah, that would be the kind of situation that would encourage me to take up arms.

Re: How does

[KarrdeSW]

The only real difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary is who wrote the history book.

FTFY

Re: How does

[Rene S. Hollan]

I think it's more than "the cause". I think it's the moral justification that matters: developing as objective as possible a sense of law (to replace the existing corrupt one), and having sufficiently many subscribers to it to lend some credence of neutrality and respectability, knowing full well that it is technically illegal under existing law.

At the worst, you just have an armed and aggressive "gang" that wins not through taking the moral high ground, but through sheer force. At best, you have a manifesto that truly external observers can examine and conclude you are in the right.

Look at the U.S. Declaration of Independence, and the U.S. Constitution. The declaration of independence makes clear why the colonies were rejecting British rule. The U.S. Constitution sets clear limits to the government. While there is a process for it's interpretation, and revolution usurps that process, contrary to other legal frameworks (with the possible exception of the Magna Carta), it establishes those restrictions on government that can be judged by anyone to see if they are violated, not just the established judiciary.

We can all examine government action and decide if we think it is unconstitutional. While only the established courts (ultimately the supreme court), have legal weight in the present regime, it doesn't take a legal scholar to know something is corrupt when a confirmed supreme court judge (Elena Kagan) is on public record as believing that indefinite incarceration without trial may be acceptable when that is clearly disallowed in the Constitution she swore to uphold!

The bottom line is that any legal framework expressed in imprecise language is subject to linguistic hacking to achieve any political purpose, and therefore, can not be overcome by lawful means within that framework: revolution is ultimately necessary if the state does not yield to the aggrieved and continues to have their numbers grow.

The Magna Carta was significant because it first recognized limits to the King's rule, and the U.S. Constitution is unique because it recognized that the state power is not only limited, but bounded as well: with "all other rights reserved to the States and the people". In effect, these documents provide the impetus to justify the very overthrow of the governments they establish when they have become corrupt (as all concentrations of power eventually do). This does not mean they are immune from the hackery of linguistic interpretation, but it does mean that ultimately the "user" has a "plug" they can pull and they display a big arrow as the where that plug is.

Re: How does

[jythie]

Which still depends on who writes the history books. If you look at most modern terrorist groups, once you get away from press releases and individual rants, they generally have a very specific manifesto, grievances that can not be address through the current legal framework or political process.

Al Quaeda for example has a very specific goal:
Drive Americans off "Muslim soil" (most notably Saudi Arabia)
Topple Western backed local dictatorships in the middle east.
Destroy Israel
Build Muslim nations based on the first Caliphs.

Which functionally comes down to 'we want independence, to form a government of our choosing based off XYZ rues'. While the methods and final government are different, the basic idea is pretty much the same. A similar thing could be said for the IRA too. 100 years from now, just like America today, they will be judged on if they win.... until then the weaker party in a conflict is almost always called a 'terrorist'.. well, unless your local government wants them to win; then they get pained as 'revolutionaries' and are given public support ^_^

Re: How does

[IndustrialComplex]

I don't see how blowing up sidewalk cafes and city buses could EVER be counted as revolutionary.

If Italy had soldiers with full military equipment in my hometown, and said I had to vote in this new election to select my new representatives for a government that Italy was kind enough to setup for me. What are my options for resisting these Italian troops after they have confiscated my arms and replaced my police force with their own appointees.

Italy could be doing it for all the 'right' reasons. But I understand why someone would lash out at the only target that was available.

Re: How does

[jythie]

When your options are 'hit soft targets' or 'give up because hard targets are not viable', generally people who are willing to die for a cause will go after the targets that have the highest return for the lowest cost. Humans rarely take 'you can not win because you can not beat us by our rules' very well. America's own revolutionary army did not.

Re: How does

[jbssm]

Replace a plutocracy with a more socialist-minded system, ask cubans, chinese, russians, and many other nations how well that shit worked out for them.

Yeah, ask those poor Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Finish, Icelandic and mostly ask the French. Poor lost souls. Oh the humanity.

Re: How does

[jbssm]

What do all of those countries have in common? No immigration whatsoever.

See, that's why we Europeans, call you Americans stupid. You are here, in the net, could easily check the fact before open your big mouth, but you choose to say just the shit you hear in Fox News. Some of these countries have in fact MORE immigration than the USA. 12% in Sweden against less than 10% of population in USA. So what about find another excuse?

Re: How does

[spyfrog]

Oil? In Sweden? You are thinking about Norway - Sweden doesn't have any oil and have never had any oil.

Re: How does

[Rene S. Hollan]

I suggest to you that 51 million Americans, armed with clubs and the odd rifle, descending on each seat of state and federal government on a few hours notice, could overthrow it. Especially with another 50 million ready in the countryside.

Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have proven that conventional military does not do well against guerrilla forces. They have technological might, but not agility.

Re: How does

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

5.1 million people who are eligible to vote, but do not, could legally replace the great share of the national, state and local government if they'd only VOTE. It takes far less to swing an election that you'd think, most are not more than 60%-40%

No revolution, less people, and no violence.

Re: How does

[salesgeek]

If you think we fight wars only with people who don't look like us, you are ignoring history and blind to economics. "Supporting the troops" is simply a way to voice that you understand that they are in harm's way on your behalf, despite your opposition to the fact they've been put in harm's way for reasons you disagree with. Those that say you can't support the troops while opposing the war have issues with simple logic.

Re:How does

[dc29A]

I don't think the leaked Afghanistan war documents are a 'little egg'. It's clear proof that the war is lost and there is no hope for winning. This whole fuss about the leaked documents are a diversion for other serious issue the current administration failed with: BP, the economy, watered down regulations, broken campaign promisses, etc ...

Re:How does

[dreampod]

It is really sad. I want to like Obama, I really do but he and his administration/party make it so damn hard. While he is undoubtedly better than the Cheney/Bush administration, I strongly dislike how he is continuing the exact same types of policies in regards to 'national security' so that it legitimizes the horrendous evils that the previous administration engaged in rather than marking them out as significant abberations in the United States moral code.

Re:How does

[erroneus]

I'm with you. I want to like Obama too. I'm not convinced that he is to blame. I am more inclined to believe that there are limits to what he can do in the face of extremely powerful opposition. I think that it wasn't until he assumed office that reality smacked him in the face. There are faceless and nameless people in power. There have been a good number of interesting journalistic works investigating these people. One of them is Dick Cheney's lawyer, for example. Wish I could remember his name. And there are countless other unknowns as well I am sure.

I hoped that Obama was the new JFK. JFK was an ambitious leader who wanted to make great things happen. And the more he did, the more upset certain parties became. We know what happened to him. Obama is wise to choose his battles carefully.

I want huge change. Obama won't deliver it. I doubt anyone can at this stage.

Re:How does

[cusco]

"There are faceless and nameless people in power."

And some of them own/employ mercenary companies.

Re:How does

[valeo.de]

Don't forget Guantanamo Bay. Didn't he win the election in part thanks to those promises to shut that hellhole down?

Re:How does

[dave420]

You have to remember that Obama can't change the current situation too much, even if he wanted to. He is still an American president, after all, and there are some things so deeply engrained in the US common psyche, across great swathes of the center of the political spectrum, that any attempt to change would result in the president being removed from office as humanly possible. Foreign policy and the military are two of those. The US, as long as it is capable of doing so, will always be the asshole bully of the world. It will always be drenched in hypocrisy, as it actively seeks to undermine democracies in order to further its own goals while simultaneously worshipping democracy at home like Jesus, and so on and so forth. It's the way of the world - superpowers are superassholes. It's been that way forever, and I doubt it will change.

Re:How does

[Space cowboy]

Well, since you ask, here's some off the top of my head - there are lots more...:

Obama vs Bush:

• Can string a sentence together without making up words or stumbling over words with more than one syllable.
• Has not prematurely announced 'mission accomplished' when the mission is barely started.
• Actually seems to give a shit about health-care for other-than-the-rich.

Obama vs Cheny:

• Thus far at least, he hasn't shot anyone in the face, and then had the victim apologise (!)
• Doesn't, to my knowledge, keep a man-sized safe in his office. Always been curious about the 'man-sized' thing...
• Doesn't support the indefinite holding of suspects without charge in internment camps. One measure of a society is how you treat undesirables, and Guantanamo bay is an indelible stain on the Bush/Cheney years.

Simon.

Re:How does

[Bobb Sledd]

Obviously you haven't thought this through:

Obama vs Bush:

        * Can string a sentence together without making up words or stumbling over words with more than one syllable.

and he needs a teleprompter to do it...

* Has not prematurely announced 'mission accomplished' when the mission is barely started.

Aside from the fact that he hasn't actually accomplished anything, he did get the Nobel Peace Prize for... what was it again?

* Actually seems to give a shit about health-care for other-than-the-rich.

Which healthcare bill are you reading? Because mine sure has a lot of pork in it. For the rich.

Obama vs Cheny:

        * Thus far at least, he hasn't shot anyone in the face, and then had the victim apologise (!)

Hey I'll give credit where credit is due.

* Doesn't, to my knowledge, keep a man-sized safe in his office. Always been curious about the 'man-sized' thing...

I'm not even sure what your point is.

* Doesn't support the indefinite holding of suspects without charge in internment camps. One measure of a society is how you treat undesirables, and Guantanamo bay is an indelible stain on the Bush/Cheney years.

OK, completely wrong. Obama even said during his campaign that he would close Guantanomo bay. Well??? Why hasn't he? The fact that he hasn't makes it just as much fault as Bush/Cheney.

Re:How does

[Surt]

Obviously you haven't thought this through:

Obama vs Bush:

        * Can string a sentence together without making up words or stumbling over words with more than one syllable.

and he needs a teleprompter to do it...

Unlike bush, who couldn't manage it even with the teleprompter.

* Has not prematurely announced 'mission accomplished' when the mission is barely started.

Aside from the fact that he hasn't actually accomplished anything, he did get the Nobel Peace Prize for... what was it again?

So Bush was surprised when he showed up and saw that banner?

* Actually seems to give a shit about health-care for other-than-the-rich.

Which healthcare bill are you reading? Because mine sure has a lot of pork in it. For the rich.

A lot of pork that is less than the previous massive amount of pork is still less pork for the rich. Or viewed another way, there was a wealth transfer from one group of wealthy companies to another group of wealthy companies and the poor. The poor are clearly better off, and the companies will rebalance the equation by adjusting B2B pricing.

Obama vs Cheny:

        * Thus far at least, he hasn't shot anyone in the face, and then had the victim apologise (!)

Hey I'll give credit where credit is due.

* Doesn't, to my knowledge, keep a man-sized safe in his office. Always been curious about the 'man-sized' thing...

I'm not even sure what your point is.

* Doesn't support the indefinite holding of suspects without charge in internment camps. One measure of a society is how you treat undesirables, and Guantanamo bay is an indelible stain on the Bush/Cheney years.

OK, completely wrong. Obama even said during his campaign that he would close Guantanomo bay. Well??? Why hasn't he? The fact that he hasn't makes it just as much fault as Bush/Cheney.

So if my predecessor creates a huge problem, and it takes me time to find a solution that his cronies won't block, that makes the huge problem just as much my fault? To me there's at least a bit of difference between ineffective and evil.

Re:Wrong on all counts

[Space cowboy]

It's hard to read the above, so I'll just say that it was supposed to be semi-humorous, I don't really think electing people due to their safe-size is an important criteria, I didn't really expect 'informative' [sigh]

However...

• Bush couldn't read the words, even *with* the teleprompter.
• I've yet to see the use of a warship-sized banner in any of Obama's speeches..
• That money-grab is still (unbelievably) a better deal than was previously available. Sad but true.
• The shooting has to be a personal action to count, in this instance. Cheney has "shot" lots of people as well, if you count other-than-personally-doing-it statistics.
• The emphasis here was on 'man-sized', not on 'safe'. I'm reasonably sure the Oval Office uses safes, but maybe not 'man-sized' ones in his *office*
• Gitmo is still open, but people are at least being processed now. Starting an atrocity and stopping it are two completely different things.

So, only "wrong on all counts" if you have a sufficiently-twisted world-view...

Reply if you must, but this is the last comment from me on the subject, as I said, it was only supposed to be humorous, with one serious thing thrown in for each of them.

Simon

Re:How does

[Moryath]

and no NEW states secrets policy is more stringent than anything that came before

Uhm... reality check.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/02/congress-considers-rules-for-invoking-state-secrets.ars [arstechnica.com]

- That new state secrets policy that is WAY more stringent than anything before.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090313/1456154113.shtml [techdirt.com]

- The Obama admin claiming that the details of a copyright treaty are "state secrets."

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/02/10/obama [salon.com]

- Obama administration invoking "state secrets" FAR MORE OFTEN than the previous administration

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/foia-filtered [wired.com]

- Obama administration having political appointees vetting FOIA requests intended for the Dept of Homeland Security, and making decisions on what can be released on the basis of political expediency...

The question of no "new" Gitmos - Yes, but the one we have isn't anywhere close to shut down.
The question of "no new pointless, unwinnable wars have been started" - How many are we on the brink of still?

Re:How does

[Sir_Lewk]

If you then proceed to open that bag of shit, and smear it all over yourself and embrace the fecal stench? Yes, I think I can blame you for stinking. Did you even read the post you just responded to?

Re:How does

[salesgeek]

Obama asked for the sack of shit. I believe he campaigned on his ability to handle sacks of shit better than the other guy.

Re:How does

[IICV]

When you own three mansions each in a very nice, quiet neighborhood, you're using far more of the police's time and money than someone who rents a shitty rathole. When you have a bunch of stock options in the market, you're using up far more of the SEC's time and money than someone who keeps their savings in a sock under the mattress. When you drive a huge hummer or an expensive sports car, you're wearing down the roads far more than someone who is too poor to afford to drive. When you have made your money by employing cheap laborers who come in to work on busses, you are implicitly using far more public infrastructure than your laborers.

Being wealthier almost inevitably leads to using more public resources, which means you should commensurately pay more in taxes.

Re:How does

[Duradin]

You can only win a war that doesn't exist in the history books.

War was never declared. There is no clearly defined enemy. There is no victory condition. There is no exit strategy.

Afghanistan is a conflict, not a war. Calling it a war gives it undue merit (and we ourselves haven't lived up to the standards that a 'lawful' war would require).

No context

[ThrowAwaySociety]

I don't think the leaked Afghanistan war documents are a 'little egg'. It's clear proof that the war is lost and there is no hope for winning. ...

Bullshit. The Wikileaks documents a lot of out-of-context reports, mostly from low-level soldiers and unit commanders. Essentially, it's an internal bug-tracking database for the war.

Look at any internal bug-tracking database for any reasonably-sized project and you'll immediately conclude that the project is a horrible steaming pile of crap that everyone hates. That does not necessarily mean that the project actually is worthless. Imagine what the MS Windows (or OS X, or whatever) internal bug database must be like. Millions of known, incompatibilities, crash reports, and unsubstantiated error reports. And yet MS and Apple make shit-tons of money from them, and millions of people use them every ay.

Of course there are major problems with the war. It's a fucking war.

Re:How does

[Godskitchen]

From TFA:

"The initial document dump by WikiLeaks last month is reported to have disclosed the names of hundreds of Afghan civilians who have cooperated with NATO forces; the Taliban has threatened to hunt down the civilians named in the documents, a threat that human-rights organizations say WikiLeaks should take seriously."

Maybe not troops, but civilians were apparently endangered.

Re:How does

[Jedi Alec]

Gotta love the wording...

"The initial document dump by WikiLeaks last month is reported to have disclosed the names of hundreds of Afghan civilians (emphasis mine)

In other words, "I didn't actually check it myself but I gotta write this piece so I'll just go with whatever sounds the worst"

Re:How does

[carp3_noct3m]

I have in fact perused the data, and while it is overwhelming, I can assure you that I have yet to run across a single one with a name on it. I would like to know, exactly how many names were released, and examples. This entire thing stinks of craftily made government PR machine (the MMM included), to demonize Wikileaks. When they say it endangers troops, I call the bullshit, as they are simply using the age old tactic of misdirection of the public to focus ire at Wikileaks in order to minimize their fallout. Make no mistake, the real issue here is not Wikileaks, or that the documents were leaked (as I have explained in other posts, they tell those of us aware of the situation anything new, we always knew the war was going badly and that Pakistan is a problem) The issue is that we should not be there in the first place. If I send a squad of men to rush a machinegun next minutes before Arty is supposed to drop, and then someone says "Hey, I have information that this guy is sending guys unnecessarily to their deaths" Who is really endangering troops lives here? It is the entire military chain of command, and the politicians who are a threat to our troops well being! As I posted before, "Bottom line, Iraq and Afghanistan are literally not only unwinnable (barring decades and more of perseverance) but were and are indeed mismanaged, misunderstood, unnecessary, and even morally questionable."

Re:How does

[ClioCJS]

Well, you see, The Taliban kills when they have "reason" to - and they just gave them more reasons. (I'm pro-leak.)

Re:How does

[HermMunster]

The Taliban kills, period. Please don't give credit to an evil group of people.

Re:How does

[Fulcrum of Evil]

They aren't stupid - give them a list of people who've informed on them and they'll round them up, kill them, and say that this will happen to anyone else who cooperates with us. Now, has this actually happened, or is it just more Wharrgarrbl?

Re:How does

[localman57]

Since the names started showing up on Wikileaks.

Meh

[Anonymous Coward]

So bring the informants to United States already. They did their jobs. I'm sure there will be new informants to come forward.

Do you let a spy stay in foreign country if (s)he's been exposed?

Re:How does

[delt0r]

As I just said... Where are these names? I can't find any informants names... Admittedly i haven't read everything... but you know perhaps a little citation would be helpful.

Re:How does

[e065c8515d206cb0e190]

By revealing strategic/tactical information?
By naming afghan civilians who cooperate with NATO troops?

Abuses need to be reported. Fine. Just outing information for the sole purpose of outing information is plain stupid.

Re:How does

[bigpat]

As George Bush and Hillary Clinton both so eloquently pointed out "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." and "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. " respectively.

As Orwell put it: "If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other."

The logic is inescapable. When people take sides and start shooting at each other then they are going to start noticing who you line up with. There is no free press in war.

Too bad he doesn't show as much zeal

[Black Parrot]

for bringing our own war criminals to justice.

Would you care to point out who?

[Sycraft-fu]

Also make sure to say what war crime they committed as per 18USC2441. Then please provide evidence of said crime to at least the standard of a reasonable cause to believe (what is normally required for a grand jury indictment).

If you are talking about the helicopter video then no, sorry. While there were civilian casualties, that is not illegal. War is not pleasant and the rules of war are very different from normal civilian law.

So if you really believe there are people who need to be indicted, then let's here specifics. If you are just grandstanding and/or talking without understanding what a war crime really is, then please stuff it.

Re:Would you care to point out who?

[Bemopolis]

I'm pretty sure he was referring to *cough*cough* higher-ups in the previous administration. Violations of the Geneva Convention are war crimes a priori.

Re:Would you care to point out who?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Violations of the Geneva Convention are war crimes a priori.

I think if you check you'll find that no-one in the previous Administration violated the Geneva Conventions.

Alas, while it's still inconvenient as hell, the only part of the Geneva Conventions binding on the USA are the parts we're actually signatory to.

Even more inconvenient, the parts we didn't sign onto include all those bits about treating guerrillas as the same as soldiers....

Re:Would you care to point out who?

[clarkkent09]

Geneva Convention doesn't apply to just any asshole with a gun (a pretty good description of both Taliban and Al-Qaeda), only to uniformed soldiers of an official army of an actual recognized country and to unarmed civilians. Armed people in civilian clothes using civilian facilities, unmarked vehicles and tactics like IEDs and suicide bombers are a fair game and have been routinely shot on the spot in every war without any legal repercussions.

You Know You've Made the Big Time

[DarkKnightRadick]

You know you've made the big time when the Big O goes after ya through diplomatic channels. :p

Re:You Know You've Made the Big Time

[HermMunster]

I viewed Obama's actions as simply a way for him to skirt our laws. We have laws that protect whistle blowers. Other do not. I have the impression that this is his way of overcoming that legal limit--get your allies to attack when our laws fail you, even if they are there to protect against retaliation.

What about the US?

[warpmoon]

What about investigations into the crimes that US troops (among others) and people higher up in the chain of command have conducted?
Why do they never get put on trial and punished?

Naive to think that they ever will be perhaps, but still...

I love it

[Pojut]

"These documents that this website released endanger the lives of men and women around the globe. THESE DOCUMENTS. THESE DOCUMENTS RIGHT HERE."

If you don't want people to know about what's in the documents, stop fucking talking about them.

Typical bully tactic

[alexo]

The US is just doing what it does best: being a bully.

National Secret vs National Embarassment

[dreampod]

They would get a lot more support for this sort of action if the leaked documents were legitimately classified due to national secrets rather than just because they are embarassing. Revealing that the US government has been lying to its citizens and the world about what is happening in Afganistan and Iraq is certainly something they wouldn't want but keeping the electorate in the dark prevents them from providing direction to the country by electing officials to serve its aims

Re:National Secret vs National Embarassment

[jeff4747]

Then why were the documents being kept secret?

Because they contained classified information. Such as the names of informants. WikiLeaks claims to have redacted the names, but it turns out they weren't very thorough. Hundreds of names were left in. And in cases where the name was redacted, they left in details like the village the informant lived in and the name of his father. Even without that, the date of the reports would likely be enough to track down the informant, as it's just a large logic puzzle ("This one didn't know about the bomb plot on that day, so he's out. That leaves this guy. Go shoot him.")

Now that this information is out, it's quite likely that these informants will die. Informants dropping dead stops the information flow, and makes it a lot harder to get new informants. So the documents were kept secret.

Why wouldn't the Pentagon help in redacting them before Wikileaks published?

Because:

1. They weren't asked to
2. It would violate federal law.
3. The redacted versions would be unacceptable to Wikileaks, since all of the content would be redacted.

Infoquake...

[rwven]

Anyone read the Jump 225 Trilogy by David Louis Edelman? This garbage sounds like a page right out of those books... The govt needs to keep their mouths shut and their hands off before they end up looking even stupider than they already do. Information wants to be free. If wikileaks dies, it's not like something else won't come up to replace it.

Really?

[PontifexPrimus]

“It’s amazing how Assange has overplayed his hand,” a Defense Department official marveled. “Now, he’s alienating the sort of people who you’d normally think would be his biggest supporters.”

You know, you could replace Assange's name in this quote with Obama's and it would read equally true. Trying to drag us Europeans in as allies to support what looks like a war on exposed government cover-ups will not do wonders for how the US government is perceived over here.

How about that...

[maugle]

Gosh, it's as if our government doesn't appreciate it when people leak videos of our soldiers murdering civilians! You'd think they'd be grateful, since it gives them a more accurate understanding of why the civilians there are turning to extremism.

Re:How about that...

[dreampod]

In Iraq and Afganistan it is extremely common for men to go about their daily business armed because of the instability and danger created by the US invasion. Unless the US is announcing where they will be conducting operations in advance, how do you propose that armed men avoid being in 'an area of U.S. operation'?

There is no 'battlefield' in Iraq which is the entire problem with treating it like a war with 'rules of engagement' instead of a police action. These were men that were meeting in the street while armed, not engaging in any sort of overtly hostile acts. I bet that you could find a similar situation in any Texas city on a saturday afternoon.

The fact of the matter is that they weren't combatants, no matter how many times you or the military claim that they are. Neither was the unarmed man who drove his van in to take the wounded to hospital. Nor were the children in his van which, while the helicopter weren't aware of them, is a strong reason not to shoot up a non-threatening vehicle just because you want to.

The laughing while killing helpless targets and general chatter during the entire incident was profoundly disturbing. While you and many members of the army would have murdered those men too, it doesn't make it right. Ignoring the post production captioning (which was the only addition, and only to one version of the released tape) there was absolutely nothing that had been done that was threatening when the gunship opened fire, there was no indication that there was specific intel on the targets, and there was no indication that they had any idea who the targets were. Imagine for a moment that the reporters had been doing an interview with some Iraqi police force members, the situation would have looked exactly the same - a bunch of men with rifles talking on the street.

It isn't monday morning quarterbacking to point out that the entire system we have in Iraq is designed to produce these sorts of outcomes. The military insists on keeping treating this like a war when it is a combination of police action and guerilla attacks. Once they stop treating it like something entirely unrelated to the real situation this sort of thing could be considered a tragic accident but until then it is an ignorant inevitability.

Lastly people become 'extremist' out of those factors along with moral outrage. If you had your friends, family, and acquaintances murdered because a negligent bunch of imperialists invaded your country (say Iran to stop the outrageous seperation of church and state) you would act in the exact same way that these people do in taking up arms. If armed gangs of dangerous men wandered around your city you would probably ensure that you were armed when going out to. The populace supported invading Iraq because the US government lied about WMD being developed and no matter how hard you and your ilk try to change history there is recorded proof of the false claims that were made.

Stenographic reporting of anonymous sources

[CedarPlank]

I'll do the Glenn Greenwald thing and point out the pathetic "stenographic reporting". When you anonymously quote a political body supporting itself as news, you are a tool of that political body. Here are the sources cited in the article:

American officials say
Officials tell The Daily Beast
American officials confirmed last month
Now, the officials say,
an American diplomatic official
a Defense Department official marveled.
American officials say.
An American military official tells The Daily Beast

Re:Stenographic reporting of anonymous sources

[dreampod]

Anonymous sourcing. All the benefits and none of the responsibility.

Is it any wonder that government officials demand it for any and all discussion since 'reporters' are unwilling to have a backbone and refuse it when there is no justification.

So much for freedom of speech

[erroneus]

I know I will hear a lot of counter-arguments to this but I'm going to say it anyway.

The documents were leaked by people who are in a position of disagreement with their orders and the behavior of the military and political officials. Simply saying "I don't like it" isn't enough of a statement for anyone's needs or purposes. If they are in the know and have evidence that "bad things" are happening, presenting proof of these bad things is the only true means of expression.

The U.S. and its involvements (interference) in the affairs of other sovereign nations is simply not appreciated by the majority of the world and this is especially true more recently. If there is anything that threatens the U.S. national security more than anything else, it is the increased disapproval of the U.S. in the world. People who are intent on sharing facts and truth wouldn't be as much of a problem if the U.S. was on the straight and narrow.

The notion of "if you haven't been doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear" has been used by governments against its citizens for a very long time. But when directed against governments, we see a pretty different set of standards.

Re:So much for freedom of speech

[bobetov]

I'm not going to jump on you, but you're living up to your handle here a bit.

Prosecuting war (or police actions, or whatnot) is an ugly business. It has to be - armed men, bombs, etc are dangerous. Soldiers are fallible. They have seconds to make the right call, and quite often, screw up. This is a fact of war, and no one disputes it.

In an ideal world, full transparency would be great. If a country were being responsible in its usage of force, for every mis-called bomb strike or innocent victim there would be hundreds of examples of making the right call, calling off the troops just in time, doing the job professionally. A neutral reviewer could say "Yes, there were several major errors, but on the whole, the US troops are doing well in a very difficult situation."

But that is not how the world actually works. One single graphic image, video, or similar can be taken from the overall picture, blown up, put on the front page of newspapers, and tar the entire country and all its soldiers. We see this all the time with politics in the US - good people done in by a goofy on-camera moment (Dean's scream comes to mind) or poorly chosen word or phrase (potatoe!).

This is not to say that all transparency is bad. Simply that full transparency, in this real world we live in, is not all good. We still need something like wikileaks for the next Mai Lai massacre, or similar, where the authorities who should prosecute those who willfully screw up fail to take action. But we don't need full 24/7 coverage of every piece of the conflict. And in my personal opinion, the most recent set of disclosures crossed that line.

We aren't responsible enough as a society at viewing all that information fairly to be trusted with it indiscriminately.

I saw a uniformed General speaking on this

[GodfatherofSoul]

Maybe a week or so ago. He simultaneously stated that there was nothing new or dangerous in the leaked documents, yet called it irresponsible for WikiLeaks for release this information. Normally, I'd take into consideration the "this will harm our intelligence assets" argument, but this has been going on for 9 years and every time we get a peek behind the curtain, we see that the public face on the war is a complete lie.

Journalism

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks is journalism, and this is a test of the American principle of "Freedom of the Press".

Sometimes the press publishes embarrassing, inconvenient, or dangerous information.
Those are the times when society is asked, "Is the freedom to publish a core value enshrined in a special place in our society or not?"

As an American, I hope the answer continues to remain "Yes".

What Crime?

[profplump]

For the sake of argument, let's assume that releasing these documents was morally and/or pragmatically wrong/harmful. I'm not entirely convinced of that, but I'll cede the point for this discussion.

What actual *crime* was committed in releasing these documents, that would justify a criminal investigation, limited travel, and general harassment by the government? Certainly the person with original access to the documents committed a crime in releasing them to unauthorized persons, but once that happened, what further crimes have occurred that would justify governmental interference?

Re:What Crime?

[gknoy]

I didn't realize you could commit Treason against a country of which you are not a citizen... but the wording of that seems to imply it, since it says Person and not Citizen. I'm curious if I'm missing something important.

Names of Afghan civilians

[oreaq]

From TFA: "The initial document dump by WikiLeaks last month is reported to have disclosed the names of hundreds of Afghan civilians who have cooperated with NATO forces". Has anyone checked if this is true? Are the names of Afghan civilians in the disclosed documents?

My! What a surprise; Shoot the messenger

[Pengel the squib]

So when did reporting secrets become illegal Reporters do it all the time, it's their job. Half the time it's the politicians who leak the information in the first place. I really didn't see much in the stuff that everyone didn't already know or suspect anyway. Anyone remember the Pentagon Papers?

Important to note

[Robotron23]

The leaked files were in possession of Wikileaks for months. During that time they contacted the Pentagon for assistance in minimizing the damage to informants that would likely be a consequence of the leaks.

The Pentagon and US military railed against the idea of helping to mitigate the damage and condemned the notion of making this data public, and so after a few months of fruitless negotiation the entire 91,000+ files were leaked unaltered. The perception that this all happened in the space of a few days is false and not worth entertaining.

Do note that Assange has subsequently been cavalier over the notion that people could die should the Taliban employ the documents to locate them; his comments have been of the blunt 'ends justify the means' flavour. Whether a person's life is worth the US losing this amount of face over controversial events in Afghanistan is down to individual perception but my point is that this situation isn't quite as clear cut as much of the mass media depict - and this goes for those in favour Wikileaks actions as well as those against.

Re:Important to note

[TubeSteak]

and so after a few months of fruitless negotiation the entire 91,000+ files were leaked unaltered.

What now?
My understanding is that (1) Wikileaks tried to redact names from the documents (and wasn't completely successful)
and (2) Wikileaks held back 15,000 or so files which they deemed too sensitive to release right now.

Unfortunately, the story about Wikileaks' failures at redacting is going to (in the long term) completely overshadow the massive document dump.

Key part of article...

[eepok]

The key part of the article, of course on the second page, is the following:

"Pentagon wants to bankrupt us by refusing to assist review," he tweeted on Monday, referring to the effort by WikiLeaks to convince the Defense Department to join in reviewing the additional 15,000 documents to remove the names of Afghan civilians and others who might be placed in danger by its release. "Media won’t take responsibility. Amnesty won’t. What to do?"

Wikileaks went to the Pentagon and/or White House and asked them to assist in the redaction of sensitive things... like the names of civilians. They refused to do so thinking it would prevent the release of the documents. Instead, Wikileaks simply did a cost-benefit analysis and found that the potential danger of the Taliban acquiring the documents, sifting through them, picking out suspect names, and then targeting them was not as valuable as releasing all these documents to the public.

Now, the government is going to try to demonize Wikileaks in every possible way... not because they're endangering lives or missions, but because they are willing to unveil damaging secrets. It's the Pentagon Papers all over again. The government will lose this battle in the long run.

Then again, as the immediate effects of the leaking of the Pentagon Papers showed, the public doesn't care. Ideally, people would be marching on DC, enraged at military mismanagement and lack of direction, but, just like before, they get excited by the sensationalism and then they forget.

Lose-Lose

Re:Key part of article...

[nomadic]

"Media won't take responsibility. Amnesty won't. What to do?"

Take responsibility himself? Or is that asking too much? Why is it everyone else's responsibility?

Instead, Wikileaks simply did a cost-benefit analysis and found that the potential danger of the Taliban acquiring the documents, sifting through them, picking out suspect names, and then targeting them was not as valuable as releasing all these documents to the public

Who is competent at Wikileaks to do such a cost-benefit analysis, though?

More outsourcing...

[jameskojiro]

Why don't we outsource our War on Terror to India or China, we could pay them 1/4 for what we currently pay and they would be happy for the money. Save money and if we outsource to the Chinese we won't have to worry about the enemy not understanding we are serious.

Bush light?

[formfeed]

It has been noted before, that none of the Bush administration "special powers" have been revoked yet. The same overreaching control, but since it's the good guys now, it should be okay..

So, this doesn't come as a surprise either. Similar foreign policy, not as blatantly arrogant as Bush, but not better as Clinton's. The right answer to the leaked documents would have been: "Of course the documents talk about human right abuses. That's why we have these documents. It just shows that we are investigating every claim and are really committed to justice..." Next step: work with international support (Amnesty International) to have names redacted ("in the interest of Afghan civilians" maybe). Not the dumb old "really bad if our dark secrets become public"-statement. That might work with some super-patriotic Americans but will damage any trust other countries had in the new administration.

The European reaction to American pressure tactics? Quite predictable. European politicians will complain but play along, but the public will grin even more about the American claim that they are the champion of free speech.

Not that the government wouldn't have a justified interest in keeping at least some war related documents secret for at least a period of time, but the way they are going after the leak is more damaging than the leak itself. It reminds people of past cover ups. Obama is about to loose all the good-will bonus he got after the election. His hope-slogan carried the hope that things could be done differently and not the same-old. Now it's the same old "pressure the Allies"? Well, that's how Reagan created the Green party in Germany. Maybe Obama can help the pirate party.

Nice to see the whisper game isn't dead.

[GrumpySteen]

A quote from an "American diplomatic official" becomes the Obama administration's position in an article and then becomes what Obama himself wants in the /. story that links to it.

The next step will probably be someone linking to the /. article and suggesting that God wants the world's nations to rise up against Wikileaks.

Then make *ALL* information on troops classified

[tekrat]

How about their credit scores? How about their social security numbers? Why isn't the theft of their identities treated as a netional security concern? Why isn't the buying and selling of their medical records, shopping history, the web pages they surf all a matter of national security?

Why is Wikileaks being targeted, but not TransUnion, Experian and Equifax? The government can't have it both ways (well yes, they can and often do), as it seems they are setting a double standard. It's OK to publish information about the troops if you're selling it to advertisers, but not OK to publish on Wikileaks?

Who's to say that the information TransUnion is selling is any less a threat than what's in those redacted documents? Imagine a soldier with a bad credit history being pressured to do something against national interests by someone claiming they can "fix" the credit history of the soldier...

Re: And just who are these "officials"?

[Black Parrot]

Wow, who is being alienated?

There has been quite an outcry from various humanitarian organizations who think the documents were not redacted well enough to hide the identities of civilians who may now become targets of reprisals.

Re: And just who are these "officials"?

[dreampod]

I find myself torn on the subject. While the Taliban was undoubtedly a terrible organisation that harmed the nation of Afganistan I don't believe that we have the right to unilateraly invade and 'make' them change. After all I imagine that during WWII that the Germans would have been extremely upset if records of their collaberators were released but we laud the French freedom fighters for discovering and executing them. The only difference in this case is that our side is the 'good' guys in this one.

All Part of the Campaign

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

There has been quite an outcry from various humanitarian organizations who think the documents were not redacted well enough to hide the identities of civilians who may now become targets of reprisals.

There has been a bought and paid readings of a prewritten script as part of a coordinated effort to progressively demonise, discredit and finally destroy Wikileaks. The PR divisions of most organisations, charities included, can simply be viewed as part of the modern media sector. And as part of that sector, their primary purpose is to echo the opinions and worldview of their benefactors.

No-one cared about these civilian risks when the documents were first released; the Pentagon was still reeling from the shock of encountering actual investigative journalism. The scriptwriters were called in, but it took them a week or two to come up with hooks. The civilian risks has so far been the most successful way to paint the leaks in a negative light. The mainstream media, literally incapable of digesting the data load it was faced with, has swallowed this propaganda far more easily, and found it more palatable than doing the job they claim to do--showing truth to power.

The powers said that the war in Afganistan was going well; that the US and the UK were winning. The Wikileaks expose proves that they were lying. The war was going terribly all along. See what that is there? That's journalism; not paid propaganda. Wikileaks did the people of the US and the UK a enormous service, virtually unparalleled in history. And instead of their thanks, Julian Assange is going to be drawn and quartered.

The Western free press is dead; Dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead, dead. It is not possible to expose hard truths or challenge those in power in any modern Western state(or at least the Anglo-Saxon ones). Those who try will be destroyed, discredited or simply ignored. This is made possible by the modern media, which has become a propaganda complex of terrifying size, power, and influence.

The definitive proof of all this will be the fate of Assange, which is now playing out before our very eyes. He is going to be torn apart by the monstrous media; A feral pack--on leashes. He is finished. No idealistic journalists, no cadre of bloggers, no editorials, no law, no person, no country can save him now.

And if you try anything similar, they'll get you too.

Re:Good, get the pencil neck

[Anonymous Coward]

Im starting to think , there is professional trolling behind those posts.

Slashdot has always had many different oppinions and POV's...Yet as soon as the US goverment "officially" spoke against Wikileaks there has been an increasing number of obtuse and retarded "think of the troops" posts claiming assange is a jerk...

I know several boards who are regularly troled for commercial interests but... wtf this is slashdot.

Re:Good, get the pencil neck

[_Sprocket_]

Or, possibly, Wikileaks and it's leadership aren't beyond criticism.

Re:Good, get the pencil neck

[Anonymous Coward]

Credibility?

He doest fucking need credibility.He's(and wikileaks) the messenger not the author.

Got leaked information.

Asked the original source( not the leaker) for help in redacting out sensible information.

Got told to fuck off.

Published the information with whatever redeacting they could do themselves.

Can you blame wikileaks for displaying(quite often) embarrasing information about powerfull entities? Hell Yes.

Can you blame wikileaks for whatever you learn through that information, spoecially since they refused to hel redacting it? Fucking Not.

Stop shooting the messenger.

Re:Good, get the pencil neck

[Cyberax]

"by redacting all of the names"

Which they actually did.

Re:Good, get the pencil neck

[Cyberax]

Assange told in an interview that informants' names were tagged with special code. So they just removed all of them, only 3 names have slipped. Undoubtedly, some more names can be deduced from indirect data.

However, there's nowhere close to hundreds of informants's names leaked that Pentagon wants us to believe.

Re:Good, get the pencil neck

[FriendlyLurker]

While not necessarily directly harmful to the Allied forces, the leaks include the names of informants and those sympathetic to Allied forces.

To Shillnonymous and friends. Reality: Out of the thousands of records only three records contain a name of an "informant". One of which died and another was a pro-Taliban double agent. Not to mention that the White House also had the opportunity to redact names via the New Your Times contact, but declined to do so - they could not have cared less

All those news channels (and there are many - mostly US based [google.com]) all all standing on very shaky moral ground [guardian.co.uk], considering the news channels and their parrots talking about "thousands of Informants exposed" just happen to NOT talk about the murdered 20K+ civilians. What is more important - actual deaths or your self delusion/lies over thousands of imaginary Informants "and their families" dying.

Re:Just a thought

[AxemRed]

This is my thought too. I think it's a good thing to have a venue where evidence of wrongdoing can be leaked. For example, I didn't have an issue when they leaked the video of the Baghdad strike that killed the Reuters journalist and other unarmed civilians. The military was trying to cover it up, and the video showed evidence of possible wrongdoing. But they shouldn't leak something just because they can. There are perfectly legitimate reasons for the military to keep much of their information classified.

Re:It's not even limited to "troops"

[Flea of Pain]

So instead of redacting names, why don't they just replace the names of the informants with the names of some Taliban fighters and start an internal war. Am I the only one who thinks spreading FUD into their ranks might be better than handing over our informants?

Re:It's not even limited to "troops"

[rotide]

You know, I was starting to believe this as true just because its reported everywhere. But can anyone point me to _one_ civilian name, let alone a "comprehensive list". Google just gives me the run around. Every link says it's "reported to have a list" but there is no evidence that I can find. Sounds like it's BS made up to turn people against WikiLeaks. Then again, maybe someone can prove me wrong?

Re:It's not even limited to "troops"

[FriendlyLurker]

No, they cannot prove your wrong since it is damage control [dissidentvoice.org] - the only shaky moral ground [guardian.co.uk] they can invent to stand on. Notice that these shills never talk about the 20K+ innocent Afghan civilians who are already murdered - not even an apology, or feign of concern - like they want you to think it never happened.

Re:It's not even limited to "troops"

[PitaBred]

Wait, there's a list of hundreds of informants? Because Wikileaks took a hell of a lot of time trying to redact actually materially dangerous information (vs the politically dangerous info) for there to be hundreds of informants names available still... I haven't looked myself, but stating things as fact without evidence to back them up seems a hell of a lot like you're falling for the propaganda.

Re:It's not even limited to "troops"

[IICV]

Where? Where in the documents are these civilians outed? It's been weeks now, and I haven't seen anyone say "these are the locations in the documents where a civilian was outed".

Look, if these accusations are true, there's no problem with you posting where the civilians were outed. Like I said, it's been weeks - every intelligence agency in the world knows where the civilians are outed in the documents by now, so there's really no harm in pointing it out so I can look for myself and maybe come up with a real count instead of "hundreds".

Re:It's not even limited to "troops"

[IICV]

Thus the "comprehensive list" that I referred to is one that the Taliban (and/or other enemies) are compiling, not some handy-dandy list to which someone can simply point. ...
That stated reason that the NYT and other news agencies are not even referencing a single name in particular or location in any document as to where this information can be found is to avoid placing said persons in jeopardy -- that is, more jeopardy than they are already in anyway.

Like I heavily implied, that reasoning is specious bullshit. It's been weeks now. Our enemies in Afghanistan have already sucked all the useful information out of those documents; there's no operative reason not to cast more substantial criticism against Wikileaks now. We should see people saying "In this document on this page, you guys didn't redact someone's father's name and now he's in danger". Instead, all we're getting is vague statements that Julian Assange "has blood on his hands" and that "hundreds" of civilians were put in danger.

Do your goddamn jobs, reporters! Don't just parrot the government's line that "civilians have been killed"; find out which ones, find the document excerpts that killed them, and nail Mr. Assange with it. If he's responsible for the deaths of hundreds of civilians, he deserves to have their names and the pages he revealed that killed them beaten into his skull by every radio station and every newscaster. Don't be shy; if he's been the cause of a significant number of civilian casualties, you'd be totally in the right by executing the man in the court of public opinion, and you'd have the support of almost every mainstream government and non-government organization.

Of course, this takes more effort than just uncritically repeating what your next anonymous source at the Pentagon said, so I'll probably have to wait for the Daily Show to talk about it.