Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
2046

Wikileaks releases classified documents

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

So we have all heard by now probably about how Wikileaks obtained and released about 90,000 classified documents, most with the second-highest “secret” status, which contain information of civilian deaths, including accusations of “war crimes,” a Taliban stronger than its ever been (killing American airmen with US-given Stinger missiles), and reports that both Iran and Pakistan's intelligence agency is aiding the Taliban.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/26/wikileaks-condemned-by-white-house

Reactions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Supposedly, there is much more sensitive documents about to be released. Not all classified documents are created equal: a document is classified up to its highest marker, but there are generally caveats to establish proper releasability. This is a terrible crime that should be punished to the maximum extent to remind people of their responsibilities and the rule of law. Additionally, it is an embarrassment to the DoD and intelligence community in general. The immature Army Specialist they have in custody for the Iraq video doesn't need a plea deal and probably none of the other culprits do either; they have nothing of value that we need to know--charge them the max for every document released and law broken.

Furthermore, the Army needs to ramp up SAEDA investigations on all appropriate sections, as well as on individuals and elements without much access to anything, such as infantry or others who like to take inappropriate photographs. Things have been too lax for way too long, but that's also because there is a war going on.

As far as the information released, I'm not too concerned about the backlash of the American public toward the government. While the government may have misrepresented something, I think the public is going to be more angered about the leak itself--anyone who thinks they can tell how a war is going by the media is deluded anyway, so not many should be surprised that they haven't gotten the 'whole picture.' It should also come out, hopefully by someone who is knowledgeable of the subject, that much of the reports released (INTSUM's) contained information from HUMINT sources. This type of intelligence, while absolutely crucial and most beneficial, cannot be taken out of a long term context or view of prior intelligence. There are many factors involved when it comes to using such intel. What should be the primary concern with the release of these documents is the threat to handlers, infantryman, sources, intelligence integrity, foreign relations, and projected operational capability.

Edited by RussK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in full support of the whistle-blowers.

As for the commentary:

"information of civilian deaths, including accusations of “war crimes,” a Taliban stronger than its ever been (killing American airmen with US-given Stinger missiles), and reports that both Iran and Pakistan's intelligence agency is aiding the Taliban."

All of these things are true based on my past research as well as book reading. Especially this last part about Iran and Pakistan, and we are funding the latter....

The immature Army Specialist they have in custody for the Iraq video

Can you clarify which video you are referring to? Are you speaking about the one where that US Apache helicopter killed two Reuters cameramen on the streets of Baghdad?

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in full support of the whistle-blowers.

As for the commentary:

All of these things are true based on my past research as well as book reading. Especially this last part about Iran and Pakistan, and we are funding the latter....

Can you clarify which video you are referring to? Are you speaking about the one where that US Apache helicopter killed two Reuters cameramen on the streets of Baghdad?

Can you clarify why or how you support these 'whistle-blowers?' Furthermore, what exactly do you find wrong with current actions and behaviors of the government, specifically the DoD and presidential administrations, since the act of whistle-blowing implies somebody stepping forward to reveal some gross, misdeed of some sort. As for the Baghdad video: yes, I was writing of the video showing the death of two Reuters cameramen and several civilians killed by Apache helicopters.

It doesn't matter how much yours or my analysis--although, I will not give an opinion referencing any of the intelligence from the illegally distributed reports--matches up with what has been released. Besides putting people, Americans and foreign local nationals in harms way, whoever has released these documents has committed a crime and abnegated duties and responsibilities that they took on by their own choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Wikileaks has finally hit the Mainstream Media, one phrase that you'll hear repeatedly is the "compromise" of classified military intelligence. "Classified" being another word for secret, of course, for the sake of the military having less friction while operating in war. In order to maintain superiority, a military must maintain such a high level of security, for if even a single sinew in the complex matrix, that is military intelligence, fails, then the whole system will fail. This is a given.

Now imagine that the actions of our military were astronomically expensive, imperialist, unconstitutional, but most importantly, unjust (wild idea, I know).

Imagine that debt was created simply for its continuation.

Imagine that 729 bases in 130 countries worldwide diminished the international standing of the United States.

Imagine that our Founding Fathers warned against creating these spheres of influence and entangling alliances, so much so, that The Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land states that carrying out such a fiscal irresponsibility would be treason.

Imagine hundreds of thousands of civilians (possibly millions) have been killed.

Imagine that war paranoia in the United States is the greatest incentive for Americans to give up their civil liberties.

Imagine no progress has been made.

So... there was a president... whose administration initiated these two wars. During this administrations, the so-called opposition party continued to finance these wars. Then, the so called "change" president was voted into office to end both wars. Nothing happened.

So considering that the rationale for ending the war is completely logical, constitutional, and just (along with countless other positive adjectives, how is the anti-war constituency supposed to act once they realize that the political process is a deceptive facade?

Enter Julian Assange, creator of Wikileaks.org. This site had its first post back in 2006, regarding a US assassination contract for a Somali citizen. The site got tons of buzz earlier this year when a video from 2007 was posted onto the website. This information was leaked from a US army private, Bradley Manning. It was footage from the gun camera position of an Apache Longbow helicopter, killing civilians gun camera position of an Apache Longbow helicopter, killing civilians who made no such "hostile action" towards the helicopter.

Manning has been arrested by the Department of Defense. Assange retains freedom in Australia, but is no doubt being monitored for the "crimes" that he has committed.

That's the story in a nutshell, I ask that you do more research yourself, but that's not my point.

Going back to my previous points about:

1) "compromise"

2) anti-war constituency response to an unresponsive political process

First, you will hear from the war sympathizers, that the leaked information is a compromise of U.S. military operations [and now everything is ruined { I have a microscopic violin, and I've been practicing}]. From the media, you will hear pundits and anchors speak of Private Bradley Manning as a war criminal and Julian Assange as a "radical leftist".

Let's assume, just for the sake of... I don't know... logic, that more things can be accomplished in peace than in war, and let us remember that the first casualty in war is always the truth.

So by complying with U.S. military actions, sure... we may be contributing to the solidarity of OpSec (operation security), but then we, are compromising our morals, liberties, and beliefs about the size and scope of government. The question is simple: for King and Country? or for Truth and Justice?

In tandem with a populist refusal to comply with U.S. foreign policy, we should recognize that THIS is how we should act. As the facade of elections becomes more and more apparent, we should become more apt to take action, pound for pound, against this UNcompromising leviathan that we call the U.S. government.

Usually, the Nightly News is a horse and pony show, but to see how this plays out [how the DoD punishes Manning and pundits exact damage control] should be interesting.

"Survival hinged on the ascent by the humble, and the sirens wail as the empire crumbles" -Jonny 5

See Wikileaks founder's response to those claiming released information is "sensitive" or a "security risk" or a risk to the troops:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/jul/25/julian-assange-wikileaks-interview-warlogs

I contend that transparency during all wars should be on the level of Vietnam in its later stages of conflict (televised and uncensored footage ON the warfront)

At any rate, we aren't going to win the war in Afghanistan anyways, we will come out of there in defeat, I cite one source of my reasoning in this respect below:

Ellsberg:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3 is in the related videos section of part 2.

As for the Apache/Reuters controversy, I supplement my military friends commentary (I have censored the curse words used):

Sorry for the resume I'm about to list but I would like to establish my credibility before laying down my two cents.

MOS: 7565: USMC Cobra Pilot.

Combat tours: (2) OIF: Aug 04 to Feb 05, and March to Sept of 06.

Non-Combat Tour: (1) as a Forward Air Controller (FAC) with an infantry battalion.

Bases flown out of in Iraq: Al Asad; Al Taqaddum; Al Qaim; FOB Najaf; Balad; Mudayasis; Camp Ramadi; Blue Diamond; Camp Fallujah; COP Rawah; Camp Gannon; The Haditha Dam; and FOB Abu Ghraib.

Major Battles I participated in: Najaf; Phantom Fury; and the entire summer of '06 was a long fight for Ramadi.

I have a serious issues with one major point and it all has to do with the mechanics of what appears to have happened in that video.

Most importantly: Where the f**k were the ground troops to verify the targets that the Apaches were about to strike? I know the Army employs their helicopters as separate maneuver units, but in a urban environment, it is frowned upon (for almost too many reasons to count). So simply: If that ground controller told those helos to hold their fire until boots on the ground could get there to verify they were legit targets, no tactical advantage would have been lost and the real bad guys would have exposed themselves and been wasted appropriately.

Now before any of you bleeding hearts (if you are out there) jump up saying "but that would expose the grunts to a hostile situation" sit the f**k down! I've supported grunts on that exact type of mission and have never lost either a Marine, a Soldier, or an Iraqi Soldier while doing so (with the exception of Phantom Fury. The other missions I'm talking about were single battallion or company level operations). It's what we get paid to do.

Having been in the exact situation myself as in the video, Having been controlled by an Army FAC in support of Army Soldiers getting shot at, And having to prevent collateral damage to noncombatant adults and children in an urban environment, while also successfully just killing the enemy, I can tell you from my first hand experience, that the FAC AND the PILOTS in that video F***D UP, and should have waited. I can tell you story after story where Marines and Soldiers wanted revenge for their buddies getting killed (by an IED or some other fucked up scenario where the enemy was hiding), did not IMMEDIATELY retaliate, but eventually did get the b*****rds (killed or captured them) that did it and improved ties with the local populace while doing so.

I'm all for the expedient and violently explosive killing of any stupid mother f****r that threatens the lives of my fellow country men and women, on US soil or abroad. But my time in Iraq taught me this: patience is a virtue.

If you have seen me play paintball you know I like to wait until the battle develops until a weakness is exposed... and have then seen me give a bunch of dumbasses a few bruises to think about what just happened.

If you want more detailed explanations PM me for my phone number.

Bernie.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Wikileaks has finally hit the Mainstream Media, one phrase that you'll hear repeatedly is the "compromise" of classified military intelligence. "Classified" being another word for secret, of course, for the sake of the military having less friction while operating in war. In order to maintain superiority, a military must maintain such a high level of security, for if even a single sinew in the complex matrix, that is military intelligence, fails, then the whole system will fail. This is a given.

Now imagine that the actions of our military were astronomically expensive, imperialist, unconstitutional, but most importantly, unjust (wild idea, I know).

Imagine that debt was created simply for its continuation.

Imagine that 729 bases in 130 countries worldwide diminished the international standing of the United States.

Imagine that our Founding Fathers warned against creating these spheres of influence and entangling alliances, so much so, that The Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land states that carrying out such a fiscal irresponsibility would be treason.

Imagine hundreds of thousands of civilians (possibly millions) have been killed.

Imagine that war paranoia in the United States is the greatest incentive for Americans to give up their civil liberties.

Imagine no progress has been made.

So... there was a president... whose administration initiated these two wars. During this administrations, the so-called opposition party continued to finance these wars. Then, the so called "change" president was voted into office to end both wars. Nothing happened.

So considering that the rationale for ending the war is completely logical, constitutional, and just (along with countless other positive adjectives, how is the anti-war constituency supposed to act once they realize that the political process is a deceptive facade?

Enter Julian Assange, creator of Wikileaks.org. This site had its first post back in 2006, regarding a US assassination contract for a Somali citizen. The site got tons of buzz earlier this year when a video from 2007 was posted onto the website. This information was leaked from a US army private, Bradley Manning. It was footage from the gun camera position of an Apache Longbow helicopter, killing civilians gun camera position of an Apache Longbow helicopter, killing civilians who made no such "hostile action" towards the helicopter.

Manning has been arrested by the Department of Defense. Assange retains freedom in Australia, but is no doubt being monitored for the "crimes" that he has committed.

That's the story in a nutshell, I ask that you do more research yourself, but that's not my point.

Going back to my previous points about:

1) "compromise"

2) anti-war constituency response to an unresponsive political process

First, you will hear from the war sympathizers, that the leaked information is a compromise of U.S. military operations [and now everything is ruined { I have a microscopic violin, and I've been practicing}]. From the media, you will hear pundits and anchors speak of Private Bradley Manning as a war criminal and Julian Assange as a "radical leftist".

Let's assume, just for the sake of... I don't know... logic, that more things can be accomplished in peace than in war, and let us remember that the first casualty in war is always the truth.

So by complying with U.S. military actions, sure... we may be contributing to the solidarity of OpSec (operation security), but then we, are compromising our morals, liberties, and beliefs about the size and scope of government. The question is simple: for King and Country? or for Truth and Justice?

In tandem with a populist refusal to comply with U.S. foreign policy, we should recognize that THIS is how we should act. As the facade of elections becomes more and more apparent, we should become more apt to take action, pound for pound, against this UNcompromising leviathan that we call the U.S. government.

Usually, the Nightly News is a horse and pony show, but to see how this plays out [how the DoD punishes Manning and pundits exact damage control] should be interesting.

"Survival hinged on the ascent by the humble, and the sirens wail as the empire crumbles" -Jonny 5

See Wikileaks founder's response to those claiming released information is "sensitive" or a "security risk" or a risk to the troops:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2010/jul/25/julian-assange-wikileaks-interview-warlogs

I contend that transparency during all wars should be on the level of Vietnam in its later stages of conflict (televised and uncensored footage ON the warfront)

At any rate, we aren't going to win the war in Afghanistan anyways, we will come out of there in defeat, I cite one source of my reasoning in this respect below:

Ellsberg:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3 is in the related videos section of part 2.

As for the Apache/Reuters controversy, I supplement my military friends commentary (I have censored the curse words used):

Such compromise of classified material affects every intelligence department, including the behavior of government officials, such as senators or vice presidential aides, who have access this type of information. To allow these compromises to occur without punishment dissolves the secrecy, loyalty, trust, and responsibilities of these organizations and the individuals who participate within their operations. That type of erosion, to occur over time, would be extremely destructive to not only military or tactical operations, but the overall strategic security of the nation.

I can agree to some of the points you've listed above; although, I consider many to be overblown and extreme. However, what I will not "imagine" is the idea that it's proper for someone to commit the crime that PFC Manning has admitted to. Manning was entrusted with the information he had legitimate access to, and he chose to take on the duty and responsibility of dealing with that information in a proper way. Instead, what Manning did was copy thousands of various classified documents (intelligence reports, operational reports, and memorandums--many of which he claims came from the State Dept.) and released them to his handler, Julian Assange and his organization.

While I may not know every exact detail of Wikileaks and their operation, or the activities of Manning, I assure you I don't have to do any further research on the matter, and my prior writing was by no means devoid of an understanding of the facts. Interestingly, despite all the relevant details you bring up about Manning, you don't mention his conversation with Adrian Lamo. In that conversation, your hero looks like the immature, guilty and worthless soldier and member of the intelligence corps that he was--it's too bad his leadership put him at a workstation to begin with, instead of relegating him to mundane duties that they finally tasked him with when they realized he was a POS. He is clearly seeking attention and notoriety by relaying his story to Lamo. Additionally, while seeking to gain notoriety, he is probably lying to Lamo about his exploits: he claims that some of his access came from JWICS, yet all documents released so far are not classified above Secret. Manning also revels in the fact that he was a "source" and "high profile source" for Assange with "veracity" that affords his information preferential treatment with Assange. Of course, Manning probably thinks he's some kind of cool guy for his choice of words with Lamo, despite the fact he was anything but a high profile source.

Interestingly, in the conversation, when Manning is contemplating what he could be considered, "a type of “hacker”, “cracker”, “hacktivist”, “leaker” or what...," Lamo, in a somewhat jokingly manner--probably to keep leading Manning on--identifies Manning as a spy. In fact, I hope that this will be one of the charges leveled against Manning, as it will put him in jail longer. Since, by his own admission, he was "a source, not quite a volunteer." Maybe they can go from the 59 years he faces to being hanged instead.

Nothing excuses the actions of Manning or any of the other criminals, that includes any excuse of the "facade of elections" as you say. The electorate voted for that facade, and they got it. If they wanted the wars to end, they would end. The way to end the war in Afghanistan is not to compromise national security and commit a string of crimes. Furthermore, I reject your call to action that

we should recognize that THIS is how we should act
. Releasing over 260,000 documents--and compromising possibly the lives of Americans and foreign local nationals, professions, and general national security--numbers that Manning admitted to, is a destructive and cowardly crime. Do you think that Manning looked at all the documents he transferred, if his numbers are actually even honest, to see what exactly he was releasing? Additionally, I think that the admins should look at your post and determine if it should be deleted. As I see it, your post is advocating criminal activity: By "We", I take that as meaning either users of the forum or Objectivists in general; "THIS is how we should act" I take as advocating the illegal release of information by any of the aforementioned people with access to such information.

In response to the comments about the video of the Apache helicopters, one thing by the author sticks out to me: "I know the Army employs their helicopters as separate maneuver units, but in a urban environment, it is frowned upon (for almost too many reasons to count). So simply: If that ground controller told those helos to hold their fire until boots on the ground could get there to verify they were legit targets, no tactical advantage would have been lost and the real bad guys would have exposed themselves and been wasted appropriately." Being frowned upon and being what the reality is are, of course, two different things. However, the idea that it was a rare event not to have a soldier on the ground verify a target is simply not true. It is also not true that waiting for feet on the ground cannot cause a loss in tactical advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can agree to some of the points you've listed above; although, I consider many to be overblown and extreme.

May I ask which ones do you feel are overblown/extreme?

I also don't understand what Manning's personal character has to do with any of this. Last I checked the people control the government, not the other way around, and keeping secret what are obvious war crimes (which are often times not being reprimanded as they should be), among other things, that in no way effect their operation over there, while fighting illegitimate wars against innocent parties, while necessarily increasing the use of illegitimate force here at home and the restriction of our liberties, is not the American way. If it was sensitive material that put our troops in danger I would of course be against it, but as far as I have seen none of this information is of that nature and the wikileaks founder made that clear as well as the fact that he refused to disclose that kind of material, some of which he received.

However, the idea that it was a rare event not to have a soldier on the ground verify a target is simply not true.

Is there some way you can prove the validity of this statement? I am honestly curious, because I have had a large number of my family tree/relatives in the military, many of whom have fought in Iraq/Afghanistan and have been in situations exactly like that, and their comments fall in line with that poster, at least as far as I had questioned them on it.

It is also not true that waiting for feet on the ground cannot cause a loss in tactical advantage.

I agree that suggesting such as a generalized statement is wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that was not the case in that particular scenario.

I understand what you are saying, I really do Russk, and I understand your position. The problem however is the government and the military have both been far too secretive about these conflicts and have blatantly lied to us countless times. I am all for punishing those who cause harm to our troops, but I am also all for transparency where it is needed. These groups are not willing to give us the information we deserve, and this is what happens as a result. The people of America are paying the price for all of these things, both in tax dollars of which we are forced to give or otherwise face jail time, as well as in our reduction of liberties. They have the right to know information that is not time-sensitive or would have an objectively negative effect on our troops on the ground. That is all that is being asked for, and when it is not given, as it should be, then it is obtained through illegitimate means, which means that there is a higher chance of sensitive and objectively negative intelligence getting out along with it when the government and military choose not to cooperate with the people that gave them their power.

Edited by CapitalistSwine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Wikileaks has finally hit the Mainstream Media, one phrase that you'll hear repeatedly is the "compromise" of classified military intelligence. "Classified" being another word for secret, of course, for the sake of the military having less friction while operating in war. In order to maintain superiority, a military must maintain such a high level of security, for if even a single sinew in the complex matrix, that is military intelligence, fails, then the whole system will fail. This is a given.

It is not a given. I have been in the military and can tell you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

So far the only damage this leak has done is to embarrass people who are supposed to control classified material. Nothing at all scandalous has been revealed, and very little even rises to the level of interesting.

Bernie might know what he was talking about if he actually studied the incident in more detail. There was an ambush being set up against a patrol that both the pilots and the irregulars knew about, so waiting until contact was made would mean letting the ambush happen, which would be stupid. The freelance photographers who embedded themselves with the bad guys for sake of getting good action photos of Americans getting shot up made a bad decision, tough shit for them. The SUV that drove up so soon after the shooting stopped was taken to be part of the support for the attack, a getaway vehicle. It too was justifiably attacked.

You got nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a given. I have been in the military and can tell you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

So far the only damage this leak has done is to embarrass people who are supposed to control classified material. Nothing at all scandalous has been revealed, and very little even rises to the level of interesting.

Bernie might know what he was talking about if he actually studied the incident in more detail. There was an ambush being set up against a patrol that both the pilots and the irregulars knew about, so waiting until contact was made would mean letting the ambush happen, which would be stupid. The freelance photographers who embedded themselves with the bad guys for sake of getting good action photos of Americans getting shot up made a bad decision, tough shit for them. The SUV that drove up so soon after the shooting stopped was taken to be part of the support for the attack, a getaway vehicle. It too was justifiably attacked.

You got nothing.

"It is not a given. I have been in the military and can tell you have no idea what the hell you are talking about."

You misunderstand this comment. I meant that it was a given that there would be such a response as:

"In order to maintain superiority, a military must maintain such a high level of security, for if even a single sinew in the complex matrix, that is military intelligence, fails, then the whole system will fail."

Meaning, what I meant is it is a given that it would be a comment that woul dbe thrown around regularly in defense of keeping this information secret and lambasting wikileaks. I have reread this portion of my post and see how this could have been misinterpreted, I worded it poorly, my apologies.

This poor wording as well as my original intention are validated by the rest of my post. You said:

So far the only damage this leak has done is to embarrass people who are supposed to control classified material. Nothing at all scandalous has been revealed, and very little even rises to the level of interesting.

Note that the rest of that post as well as my subsequent posts all agree with this statement of yours.

"There was an ambush being set up against a patrol that both the pilots and the irregulars knew about, so waiting until contact was made would mean letting the ambush happen, which would be stupid."

Understood, however I did quite a bit of digging into this particular event when it was released on the internet. I have not once heard of this ambush, could you please provide me a link as I am very interested in this, because I was not aware of this before. It would be much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Understood, however I did quite a bit of digging into this particular event when it was released on the internet. I have not once heard of this ambush, could you please provide me a link as I am very interested in this, because I was not aware of this before. It would be much appreciated.

Yeah I can do that, hold on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I can do that, hold on.

CENTCOM released a full report on the incident including images recovered from the cameras of the dead photographers showing line-of-sight to the ambush targets (page 41), recovered RPGs and testimony from particpants. It is a 43 page 6 MB .pdf file.

Google centcom "Report of Investigation UP AR 15-6" returns as the top two hits wired.com and cnn.com as hosts for the file.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2010/04/6-2nd-brigade-combat-team-15-6-investigation.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far the only damage this leak has done is to embarrass people who are supposed to control classified material. Nothing at all scandalous has been revealed, and very little even rises to the level of interesting.

That's my line of thought, at this moment anyway. My biggest problem is with the principle of the leaks in general, the continual leaks by officials to the media, and the idea, as raised in this thread, that the behavior of these malcontents should be held up as a courageous example to follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's my line of thought, at this moment anyway. My biggest problem is with the principle of the leaks in general, the continual leaks by officials to the media, and the idea, as raised in this thread, that the behavior of these malcontents should be held up as a courageous example to follow.

Leaked War Files Expose Identities of Afghan Informants

Umm.... yea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was worried about that, the security of foreign local nationals, as I wrote above. I had hoped that most of the documents had the names, locations, and direct comments of sources already removed, as is normal for release into a general document, like an INTSUM. That hope was based on the 10 (of the thousands) or so documents I read from the website. Unfortunately though, many people have access (illegitimate access) to sensitive information that is not intended for general, yet classified, tactical use. I think the worst possible fear that I thought of was the potential release of recruitment documents with both source and handler named within those documents, with other identifying information.

If that Fox News story is confirmed, which I'm sure there's nothing wrong with the report, untold damage on the ground will occur. Any intelligent Afghani (or important Iraqi for that matter) is going to hesitate before giving anyone information, let alone on a regular basis. That prevents the collection of intelligence from not only more pertinent sources on the ground (villagers, etc...), which give the location of IEDs or caches, for example, but trickles up to the highest levels of the government. Besides the general integrity and trust of the intelligence community being eroded and called into question, the actions of a few immature cowards can have serious, immediate consequences for the soldiers and on the ground and how the government can conduct operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Relevant: Wikileaks only released a fraction of the information and attempted to withhold information which could be used to identify informants.

How absurd is it that the suspect was reported for leaking censive information during his training, much like the Ft Hood shooter who detailed his intentions during his training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Wikileaks is mostly doing what it's supposed to do in this case. I have more of a problem with the soldier, and the idea that what he did was totally alright.

I don't think the fact that the military is inept mitigates his blame in this case.

EDIT: I definitely agree though, it's absurd that the military didn't stop this guy, and the Ft. Hood guy.

Edited by Jackethan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the issue of this thread is the WIKILEAKS release and not the morality of the soldier releasing data, I think its a little irrational to get into an emotional frenzy about the soldier. As for the morality of the wikileaks operators, it may be stated that they attempted to contact the department of state and ask which documents should be censored or omitted from the release for legitimate reasons (i.e. to protect life/liberty). I think the behavior of WikiLeaks is appropriate and will have a positive influence on the world.

Democracy isn't about voluntarily electing dictators, its about choosing representatives of the people. Requiring State employees to keep all government operations secret, and then never releasing that information essentially uses force to keep the American people ignorant indefinitely. If you can keep the past 30 years a secret, its very easy to lie about what constitutes a proper use of force.

Edited by Q.E.D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...