Massive leak of millitary documents on War in Afganistan

From the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/world/asia/27wikileaks.html?hp

White House officials e-mailed select transcripts of an interview Mr. Assange conducted with Der Spiegel, underlining the quote the White House apparently found most offensive. Among them was Mr. Assange’s assertion, “I enjoy crushing bastards.”

I think that is part of the reason why people hate Wiki Leaks so much (myself included, I'm not the site's biggest fan, though conceptually I do not disapprove of it). Assange has a plan and he has an agenda he is pushing. Wiki Leaks does not release information without bias, they doctor and slant is leaked to them then release it. The most glaring example that we all know of us the gun-cam video from the Apache in Iraq, or as Wiki Leaks termed it "Collateral Murder", hardly an unbiased title for starters. Still talking about the gun-cam footage, the video itself is modified to point things out, tell the viewer what it really was, instead of letting them see it exactly as the pilots did (though under significantly less stress) and make their own decisions. I don't mean to stir up an argument about that footage, I hope I dont, but it's necessary to point out in making the case that Wiki Leaks encourages resentment because it presents its information in a heavily biased fashion.

So not only is Assange openly hostile to the country and government, the overwhelming bias makes me particularly annoyed with the site.

Unfortunately, there's not much way to have a leak repository that wouldn't be biased in some way.

@pvtnum: Leaking information to start with is treason, obviously, but is redistributed leaked information actually illegal? I'm pretty sure that it's legal.

^ I disagree that you cant present information without bias, it's a question of neutral language.

Example: Collateral Murder, doesnt need to be named that or have the video edited for clarity in the slightest, leave it entirely as is on receipt, change the name to "Apache gun-cam footage, Iraq (city, wherever, date)"

Explanation - Leaked footage from an American Apache helicopter in Iraq, (city, date), released to this site. Two of those killed in this video were later determined to be a Reuters reporter and his driver."

Explaining why they were fired on and what was going on will introduce bias, yes, and therefore I intentionally don't try to explain why the shooting started, or the general situation this was occurring in, the viewer can learn that for themselves. The only piece of information that might be worth including in an explanation is "American troops were under fire X distance from where this footage was shot, the Apache pilots were responding to support them."

Anyway, neither here nor there, I just dont like Wiki Leaks' very blatant agenda.

Not so much that you can't present information without bias, as that nobody would have the motivation to do so. Wikileaks takes a lot of organization, effort, and cost to run, and probably nobody would take that on unless they had an agenda to find leaks, e.g. be anti-organizational in some sense. That's why there are leaks of internal Church of JC of LDS things as well, for example.

I'd rather call a spade a spade than make it "neutral" at the probable expense of information.

I'm of the mind that War is Peace. I don't care if we shoot "innocent" women and children. They were marked for doom the moment they allowed their men to put the Taliban in power. They are all complicit to the crime of terrorism.

We could win this war in half a year's time if they'd just let our soldiers take off the pillow-gloves and put on the gauntlets. Corral the population of Afghanistan in concentration camps, occasionally shoot a prisoner of war or two on national television, poison their wells and torch their goats, you get the general idea. War is not nice, and it is hypocritical to think and act otherwise.

The source of the leak should be prosecuted under treason laws and shot (assuming they find out who did it), as divulging such information in a time of war strikes me a treasonous. I'm not sure what to do about Wikileaks, though.

How cute, the social right-wing's come out to play...

edited 26th Jul '10 2:58:20 PM by Starscream

^ Detail and clarification can be obtained later, as happened in the case with Collateral Murder, while first impressions such as those set the tone and provide the starting guide for the debate over the issue. Neutral first presentation is, in my mind, vitally important to actual education through news dissemination/reporting.

Nevertheless, Tze Tze you have a very good point, and I agree with you. I'll still close my eyes, cross my fingers and wish really really hard that this site could exist with a neutral position in all things though, but I guess that's silly.

edited 26th Jul '10 3:04:51 PM by Jorit

^^It's okay to not take him seriously.

^Heheh

edited 26th Jul '10 3:02:08 PM by Tzetze

@Uchuujinsan: If there is one thing I've learned in recent years, it's that the citizenry of the US doesn't give a shit about maintaining a free society.

If there is one thing I've learned in recent years, it's that the Congress of the US doesn't give a shit about maintaining a free society.

Fixed for accuracy. The US Congress since 2006 has been amongst the worst constitutionally ever. Half the health care bill is unconstitutional and is under court challenge. Since 2006 the leaders of Congress have sided with laws like those that were struck down in Heller vs District of Columbia and that recent one a month ago. Then they offer the token "We support your right to..." gesture after getting their asses handed to them.

As bad as the Patriot Act was in constitutional terms, it ain't got nothing on the kind of agenda the Congress has been trying to pull recently.

I saw footage from a helmet cam on the ground of the incident with the apache and the reporter, it was actually pretty damn close, and looked to me like a really legitimate accident.

Remember that whenever a call for fire is made on a set of coordinates, aircraft respond with fire to those provided coordinates. If blue on blue results from a CAS strike on a location, it's almost always because the guy on the ground called it wrong, or didn't have a good enough view.

So Yeah, don't blame the Air Force if a bomb falls on a hospital, it's pretty rare that they ever miss, the guy responsible is probably the dude with the binos who was either calling coordinates too close or didn't realize what he was targeting, which is also easy to do. Performing a long range call for fire is a pretty challenging task.

Bodies with guns running around all look the same from most of those heights, that's why air support has to rely on eyes on target from the ground, it's too easy to accidentally hit the wrong crowd of running people if you make your own judgement call. Besides, reporters are at their own risk if they are running around away from US troops, especially if they decide to hire their own bodyguards. That's asking for trouble.

Edit: But just to stay on topic, let's not derail this into a discussion about Free Society or even the war itself. This topic is about the leak in particular, which is a massive breach of integrity that cannot be forgiven.

edited 26th Jul '10 3:14:27 PM by Barkey

Major Tom, are you at all capable of staying on topic and not copypasting from whatever far-right email you've gotten that day?

^ Yes, and I don't receive right wing generated e-mails. I don't particularly care for the insinuation that I am incapable of learning and forming my own opinions thank you very much.

Back on topic then.

Ivy, your post was off-topic too.

I think we're all trying to run off the rails a bit, so here's an on-topic question.

If these documents do indeed paint a reasonably complete picture of the situation between the US, Afghanistan and Pakistan/The ISI, how does it affect relations between the three now that it is being discussed in public, not between immediately involved parties in face-to-face discussions?

My take: Kharzi has already weighed in with a resounding "Meh" and that's about all we'll get there, and Pakistan is denying it pretty aggressively to nobody's great surprise (in spite of what may or may not be the truth), and America at large will forget about it after the government goes on an aggressive "sweep this under the rug while the next American Idol distracts people with shiny things and they aren't looking" campaign.

Please, it won't take that long to lose interest. Hell, I'd be mildly surprised to see this on the news tonight.

I think that it's possible that the high-ups in Pakistan might actually not realize what the ISI is doing, or at least know it but be unable to stop it. Intelligence agencies do that sometimes, especially in countries not known for their stability.

Wow, I was ninja'd a whole lot. Jorit, you nailed it, though.

I've found that I've grown more libertarian, as I get older. Anywqay, I fail to see how political views relate to how one handles sensitive information, that if leaked or divulged, can cause damage to national security. How does one's political orientation on the Nolan Chart really affect that fact of life, that if the wrong people learns what you know, that Bad Things can result?

I'm not expecting you to divulge your social security number, driver's license number, mother's maiden name, your birthdate and all your passwords, am I? If you found out that someone had posted that stuff up, you would be understandably upset, yes?

edited 26th Jul '10 3:27:38 PM by pvtnum11

Please, it won't take that long to lose interest. Hell, I'd be mildly surprised to see this on the news tonight.

I was trying to give the country the benefit of the doubt, but you just had to come along and burst my bubble.

Edit! - Also, yes, there is a significant difference between the civilian leadership in Pakistan and the military leadership. Right hand is not talking to the left hand, infact they might be trying to punch eachother too.

Also from the NY Times - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26isi.html?hp

American officials have described Pakistan’s spy service as a rigidly hierarchical organization that has little tolerance for “rogue” activity. But Pakistani military officials give the spy service’s “S Wing” — which runs external operations against the Afghan government and India — broad autonomy, a buffer that allows top military officials deniability.

So once again I agree with you, Tzetze.

edited 26th Jul '10 3:32:25 PM by Jorit

Anywqay, I fail to see how political views relate to how one handles sensitive information, that if leaked or divulged, can cause damage to national security.

...you don't? If you're opposed to the current government, you're more disposed to take actions that are to the detriment of that government.

In any case, Bon's post re: troops on the ground makes sense.

@Jorit: There's a reason I'm trying to act more apolitical lately.

Tzetze: I suppose one could delve into Watergate antics and such... But concerns about national security trump (or should dang it!) political affiliation. I couldn't have cared less for Clinton when he was my Commander In Chief, but I wasn't about to blab info to some website just to stick it to the Democrats. Perhaps I am naive, I won't rule out that possibility.

...of course, the internet wasn't quite so popular back then, either, with AOL 4.0 and all that crap. (Man, and I remember 3.0, too.)

edited 26th Jul '10 3:48:17 PM by pvtnum11

@Ivy: When you say "free society", I start thinking of "Politics and the English Language".

"The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another."

or should dang it!

I know, right.

I couldn't have cared less for Clinton when he was my Commander In Chief, but I wasn't about to blab info to some website just to stick it to the Democrats.

I would guess that the leaker's motivations run much deeper than Democrat vs. Republican.

Ha, good point. The world shouldn't be in such as state where we can even debate such matters, but sadly, it's messed up, and I get to engage in some lively debate with you all.

Well, if/when we find them, we can only assume their motive. Maybe they meant it for good? Perhaps under Ideology in the MICE espionoge motive thing - Money, Ideology, Compromise or Ego. Whole lotta reasons why people do what they do.

edited 26th Jul '10 4:23:30 PM by pvtnum11

I don't think that it's likely that somebody who went through the time, effort, etc. to get into the necessary position to leak these documents was just paid off. However, I'm not sure what "compromise" and "ego" are supposed to represent in that acronym.

I believe Compromise in this context means "blackmail" and Ego means "for the fun of it".

Ah, thanks.

Well, I suppose anything's possible.