Afgan War Wikileaks

StillHere

well since he's under arrest..military style....that's the end of that...dontchathink?

Jason P

This is a prime example of the fallout from the wikileaks:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_white_house_wikileaks;_ylt=AsZNXjBkIxyxIMruZb8m_4as0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFlZG0yNGg1BHBvcwM4MgRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3BvbGl0aWNzBHNsawN3aGl0ZWhvdXNlZG8-


Press secretary Robert Gibbs says the leak of some 90,000 secret military documents already has jeopardized the lives of Afghans working with the U.S. and its war allies. Gibbs says the Taliban has declared it will comb the documents for the names of people who have cooperated with international forces in Afghanistan.

gimmesometruth27

Jason P wrote:

This is a prime example of the fallout from the wikileaks:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100730/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_white_house_wikileaks;_ylt=AsZNXjBkIxyxIMruZb8m_4as0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTFlZG0yNGg1BHBvcwM4MgRzZWMDYWNjb3JkaW9uX3BvbGl0aWNzBHNsawN3aGl0ZWhvdXNlZG8-


Press secretary Robert Gibbs says the leak of some 90,000 secret military documents already has jeopardized the lives of Afghans working with the U.S. and its war allies. Gibbs says the Taliban has declared it will comb the documents for the names of people who have cooperated with international forces in Afghanistan.

this coming AFTER the administration made a statement saying that nobody has been jeopardized since it is a collection of reports that have already happened... so which is it gibbs??

OnTheEdge

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

FiveB247x wrote:

Some interesting stuff here... but we could have probably predicted half of these types of consequences and poor actions prior too...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26warlogs.html?no_interstitial

so when is the guy that leaked these going to jail?

to me it is fucked up that we prosecute the whistleblower, yet those that commit the acts roam free....

either way, after reading some of this stuff from other articles, i think it is time we get out of there asap...

I believe me and you have had this conversation before on the ACORN thread. But you were singing a different tune then. I guess it depends on if we're talking about an Obama sponsored organization or a war.

OnTheEdge

The secret documents, released on the Internet by an organization called WikiLeaks, are a daily diary of an American-led force often starved for resources and attention as it struggled against an insurgency that grew larger, better coordinated and more deadly each year.

This is why we must fund the war. If we're not going to bring them home we must at least give them what they need.

silkroad

Jason P wrote:

I know this isn't the popular sentiment on this board, but I believe that whoever is responsible for leaking top-secret and confidential reports should be tried for treason and espionage.

Jason, I agree with you, and just today Newsweek released a report that the Taliban is reading all the info and any Afghani names listed as assisting the NATO forces will be dealt with.

gimmesometruth27

silkroad wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I know this isn't the popular sentiment on this board, but I believe that whoever is responsible for leaking top-secret and confidential reports should be tried for treason and espionage.

Jason, I agree with you, and just today Newsweek released a report that the Taliban is reading all the info and any Afghani names listed as assisting the NATO forces will be dealt with.

the americans should have thought long and hard about that before they detoured into iraq. this shit in afghanistan should have been finished 6 years ago. do you think that if these documents had not beem leaked that the taliban would not have found out who was helping nato? the taliban has opium and money from its traffciking and they can buy information from those who need money...

silkroad

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

silkroad wrote:

Jason P wrote:

I know this isn't the popular sentiment on this board, but I believe that whoever is responsible for leaking top-secret and confidential reports should be tried for treason and espionage.

Jason, I agree with you, and just today Newsweek released a report that the Taliban is reading all the info and any Afghani names listed as assisting the NATO forces will be dealt with.

the americans should have thought long and hard about that before they detoured into iraq. this shit in afghanistan should have been finished 6 years ago. do you think that if these documents had not beem leaked that the taliban would not have found out who was helping nato? the taliban has opium and money from its traffciking and they can buy information from those who need money...

I course they would, but someone didn't have to help them.

Cosmo

silkroad wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

...
Do you think that if these documents had not beem leaked that the taliban would not have found out who was helping nato?

I course they would, but someone didn't have to help them.

...
Do you also thing it is possible that there are factions... individual soldiers with alligence to the Taliban who have infiltrated the Afghan Security Forces? Our troops have to train these forces and are going out on patrols with them. Remember, the Taliban was originally set up by Pakistan's version of our CIA (the ISI) that set up the Taliban in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal in the late 1980s. And we went to bed with Opium Warlords who are now Afghani politicians and military leaders over there.
Files that a soldier released grunt work reports from the field are basically reports that the Pentagon and Washington do not want to make public... the same way Pentagon censors edited and classified reports during the Viet Nam War... to report to the American public that all was well over there and we should continue our support for the war, is stuff the Taliban probably already knows about.
When people say 'The blood in on this one soldier's hands' should really take a second look at the Politicians who started the war and Military leaders who want to make it seem like there is not a problem over there.

silkroad

Cosmo wrote:

silkroad wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

...
Do you think that if these documents had not beem leaked that the taliban would not have found out who was helping nato?

I course they would, but someone didn't have to help them.

...
Do you also thing it is possible that there are factions... individual soldiers with alligence to the Taliban who have infiltrated the Afghan Security Forces? Our troops have to train these forces and are going out on patrols with them. Remember, the Taliban was originally set up by Pakistan's version of our CIA (the ISI) that set up the Taliban in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal in the late 1980s. And we went to bed with Opium Warlords who are now Afghani politicians and military leaders over there.
Files that a soldier released grunt work reports from the field are basically reports that the Pentagon and Washington do not want to make public... the same way Pentagon censors edited and classified reports during the Viet Nam War... to report to the American public that all was well over there and we should continue our support for the war, is stuff the Taliban probably already knows about.
When people say 'The blood in on this one soldier's hands' should really take a second look at the Politicians who started the war and Military leaders who want to make it seem like there is not a problem over there.

Of course. We had who we thougt was a "trusted agent from Jordan" and when he entered the post in Afghanistan, he blew himself up.

Cosmo

silkroad wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
Do you also thing it is possible that there are factions... individual soldiers with alligence to the Taliban who have infiltrated the Afghan Security Forces? Our troops have to train these forces and are going out on patrols with them. Remember, the Taliban was originally set up by Pakistan's version of our CIA (the ISI) that set up the Taliban in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal in the late 1980s. And we went to bed with Opium Warlords who are now Afghani politicians and military leaders over there.
Files that a soldier released grunt work reports from the field are basically reports that the Pentagon and Washington do not want to make public... the same way Pentagon censors edited and classified reports during the Viet Nam War... to report to the American public that all was well over there and we should continue our support for the war, is stuff the Taliban probably already knows about.
When people say 'The blood in on this one soldier's hands' should really take a second look at the Politicians who started the war and Military leaders who want to make it seem like there is not a problem over there.

Of course. We had who we thougt was a "trusted agent from Jordan" and when he entered the post in Afghanistan, he blew himself up.

...
So... after the attack... a soldier places the events in his report and files it.
Does the report of the already past event help the enemy?
If so... how?
...
Also... is there a reason why the American people should not hear about 'trusted agents' turning suicide bomber inside the wire?
If so... WHY NOT?

Jason P

Cosmo wrote:

...
So... after the attack... a soldier places the events in his report and files it.
Does the report of the already past event help the enemy?
If so... how?
...
Also... is there a reason why the American people should not hear about 'trusted agents' turning suicide bomber inside the wire?
If so... WHY NOT?

1) Yes. Two of the most important aspects of a successful military operation involve strategy and tactics. In order to develop successful strategy and tactics, you most have intel on your enemy. In the case of a suicide attack, If it is a good report, it will present facts (time of day, # of guards, security level, checkpoints, etc), root cause (old security tech, failure to follow protocol), security breach (food service, double agent, assault, etc), and just about every other detail that is pertinent. Imagine having access to thousands of reports, the majority of which are probably failed attacks. Now you have enough information to decipher what is and isn't working. You can start to pinpoint targets with security that matches the profile of successful past attacks. You become more effective.

2) Yes and no. If there is not any media coverage and the operation is classified, then the American public should not be aware of it, nor should the rest of the world. Highly successful attacks will be copied. But if there is free press that covers an attack, then freedom of press dictates they can report on it. I think key details should be glossed over for security purposes, but this is not as cut and dry as espionage.

Cosmo

Jason P wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
So... after the attack... a soldier places the events in his report and files it.
Does the report of the already past event help the enemy?
If so... how?
...
Also... is there a reason why the American people should not hear about 'trusted agents' turning suicide bomber inside the wire?
If so... WHY NOT?

1) Yes. Two of the most important aspects of a successful military operation involve strategy and tactics. In order to develop successful strategy and tactics, you most have intel on your enemy. In the case of a suicide attack, If it is a good report, it will present facts (time of day, # of guards, security level, checkpoints, etc), root cause (old security tech, failure to follow protocol), security breach (food service, double agent, assault, etc), and just about every other detail that is pertinent. Imagine having access to thousands of reports, the majority of which are probably failed attacks. Now you have enough information to decipher what is and isn't working. You can start to pinpoint targets with security that matches the profile of successful past attacks. You become more effective.

2) Yes and no. If there is not any media coverage and the operation is classified, then the American public should not be aware of it, nor should the rest of the world. Highly successful attacks will be copied. But if there is free press that covers an attack, then freedom of press dictates they can report on it. I think key details should be glossed over for security purposes, but this is not as cut and dry as espionage.

...
So... in a nutshell... you believe the government should be the one who gets to decide what we should and shouldn't know, right?
Thanx... that was basically what I was looking for.

Jason P

Cosmo wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

...
So... after the attack... a soldier places the events in his report and files it.
Does the report of the already past event help the enemy?
If so... how?
...
Also... is there a reason why the American people should not hear about 'trusted agents' turning suicide bomber inside the wire?
If so... WHY NOT?

1) Yes. Two of the most important aspects of a successful military operation involve strategy and tactics. In order to develop successful strategy and tactics, you most have intel on your enemy. In the case of a suicide attack, If it is a good report, it will present facts (time of day, # of guards, security level, checkpoints, etc), root cause (old security tech, failure to follow protocol), security breach (food service, double agent, assault, etc), and just about every other detail that is pertinent. Imagine having access to thousands of reports, the majority of which are probably failed attacks. Now you have enough information to decipher what is and isn't working. You can start to pinpoint targets with security that matches the profile of successful past attacks. You become more effective.

2) Yes and no. If there is not any media coverage and the operation is classified, then the American public should not be aware of it, nor should the rest of the world. Highly successful attacks will be copied. But if there is free press that covers an attack, then freedom of press dictates they can report on it. I think key details should be glossed over for security purposes, but this is not as cut and dry as espionage.

...
So... in a nutshell... you believe the government should be the one who gets to decide what we should and shouldn't know, right?
Thanx... that was basically what I was looking for.

That's not the response I expected from you, Cosmo. I'm not looking at nutshells here. I'm looking at this specific issue (leaking of classified U.S. Military documents) from strategic point of view. Do my points have any merit at all in your mind?

Cosmo

Jason P wrote:

That's not the response I expected from you, Cosmo. I'm not looking at nutshells here. I'm looking at this specific issue (leaking of classified U.S. Military documents) from strategic point of view. Do my points have any merit at all in your mind?

...
Yes. Solid points.
Validation from someone, such as yourself, that there are things the government is the best authority to dechipher importance... and is quite capable of handling.

gimmesometruth27

give me a fucking break.....

GOP Rep. wants treason charge for document leaker

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... ent-leaker

Carrie Dann writes: A host of military and civilian officials have lamented the leaking of more than 75,000 classified documents about the Afghan war to Web site WikiLeaks, saying that the disclosure of the secret information could endanger U.S. troops. But a Republican congressman today went a step further, calling for treason charges – accompanied by the death penalty – against the 22-year old analyst charged with leaking the information.

Asked during an interview with Michigan radio station WHMI if he supported capital charges against Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst charged with illegally downloading and leaking the classified information, Rep. Mike Rogers said "I would support it 100 percent."

"We know for a fact that people will likely be killed because of this information being disclosed," said Rogers, a Michigan Republican and a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

"[Manning] put soldiers at risk who are out there fighting for their country," he added. "And he put people who are cooperating with the United States government clearly at risk."

Manning will face a military hearing similar to a grand jury proceeding later this month, NBC reported Monday. He is currently being held at a Marine Corps facility in Quantico, Va.

Treason charges in the modern era have been rare. In 2006, American Adam Gadahn was charged with treason after appearing as a spokesman in Al Qaeda propaganda videos. He was the first American charged with treason since 1952.




again, how can we prosecute the whistleblower and allow those that started these wars to roam free with no hope of being held to account for all of the blood both coalition and enemy that is on THEIR hands????

Cosmo

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

give me a fucking break.....

GOP Rep. wants treason charge for document leaker

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/20 ... ent-leaker

Carrie Dann writes: A host of military and civilian officials have lamented the leaking of more than 75,000 classified documents about the Afghan war to Web site WikiLeaks, saying that the disclosure of the secret information could endanger U.S. troops. But a Republican congressman today went a step further, calling for treason charges – accompanied by the death penalty – against the 22-year old analyst charged with leaking the information.

Asked during an interview with Michigan radio station WHMI if he supported capital charges against Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst charged with illegally downloading and leaking the classified information, Rep. Mike Rogers said "I would support it 100 percent."

"We know for a fact that people will likely be killed because of this information being disclosed," said Rogers, a Michigan Republican and a member of the House Intelligence Committee.

"[Manning] put soldiers at risk who are out there fighting for their country," he added. "And he put people who are cooperating with the United States government clearly at risk."

Manning will face a military hearing similar to a grand jury proceeding later this month, NBC reported Monday. He is currently being held at a Marine Corps facility in Quantico, Va.

Treason charges in the modern era have been rare. In 2006, American Adam Gadahn was charged with treason after appearing as a spokesman in Al Qaeda propaganda videos. He was the first American charged with treason since 1952.




again, how can we prosecute the whistleblower and allow those that started these wars to roam free with no hope of being held to account for all of the blood both coalition and enemy that is on THEIR hands????

...
Question: If these reports place people's lives at risk and pose a threat to National Security...
Why does the Obama Administration say, "There weren't any revelations in the material..." and Senator McCain refer to them as 'old news'?
...
Also... if the Walker RED family wasn't charged with treason... why should this guy?

gimmesometruth27

this guy is going to be prosecuted because it is an open and shut case.

selective prosecution is a load of garbage. either prosecute everyone who has leaked something or prosecute those responsible for the actions that are "classified". to me it is funny how this gop representative is calling for prosecution for a person who leaked "old news" and historical reports of actual happeneings in the past tense. not current or future plans, mission orders, or future strategy, when it was the gop majority and leadership that got us into this fiasco in late 2001 and 2003 to begin with....

Cosmo

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

this guy is going to be prosecuted because it is an open and shut case.

selective prosecution is a load of garbage. either prosecute everyone who has leaked something or prosecute those responsible for the actions that are "classified". to me it is funny how this gop representative is calling for prosecution for a person who leaked "old news" and historical reports of actual happeneings in the past tense. not current or future plans, mission orders, or future strategy, when it was the gop majority and leadership that got us into this fiasco in late 2001 and 2003 to begin with....

...
Another question that comes to my mind... WHY were these commonly known, 'old news' stories from 6 or 7 years ago kept classified? Who gets to make that decision... on what is classified and what is not?
...
The Walker spies, on the other hand, sold decrypting devices and valid Naval codes to the Soviet Union during the Viet Nam conflict. I can understand that being criminal because those codes may have alerted North Viet Namese anti-aircraft batteries to the direction carrier based Naval and Marine aviators were coming from. Clearly, a risk to life and limb.

Sludge Factory

This article has so many good points...this is the kind of journalism that should be prevalent in our mainstream editorial sections.

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=1050

Just a few points that from the article that jumped out at me:

That was one of hundreds, or thousands, of similar events in both wars that Americans have known little or nothing about. Now, Bradley Manning, a 22-year-old intelligence analyst deployed to eastern Baghdad, who reportedly leaked the video of the event to Wikileaks and may have been involved in leaking those 92,000 documents as well, is preparing to face a court-martial and on a suicide watch, branded a "traitor" by a U.S. senator, his future execution endorsed by the ranking minority member of the House of Representatives' subcommittee on terrorism, and almost certain to find himself behind bars for years or decades to come.

As for the men who oversaw the endless wars that produced that video (and, without doubt, many similar ones similarly cloaked in the secrecy of "national security"), their fates are no less sure. When Admiral Mullen relinquishes his post and retires, he will undoubtedly have the choice of lucrative corporate boards to sit on, and, if he cares to, lucrative consulting to do for the Pentagon or eager defense contractors, as well as an impressive pension to take home with him. Secretary of Defense Gates will undoubtedly leave his post with a wide range of job offers to consider, and if he wishes, he will probably get a million-dollar contract to write his memoirs. Both will be praised, no matter what happens in or to their wars. Neither will be considered in any way responsible for those tens of thousands of dead civilians in distant lands."Moral culpability? It doesn't apply. Not to Americans -- not unless they leak military secrets. None of the men responsible will ever look at their hands and experience an "out, damned spot!" moment. That's a guarantee. However, a young man who, it seems, saw the blood and didn't want it on his hands, who found himself "actively involved in something that I was completely against," who had an urge to try to end two terrible wars, hoping his act would cause "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms," will pay the price for them. He will be another body not to count in the collateral damage their wars have caused. He will also be collateral damage to the Afghan antiwar movement that wasn't.

"

This statement points out the hypocrisy many Americans have when it comes to civilian deaths (i.e. collateral damage)

His i]Saddam[/iwas a brutal regime; his killing fields were a moral nightmare; and in the period leading up to the war (and after), they were also a central fact of American life. On the other hand, however many Iraqis died in those killing fields, more would undoubtedly die in the years that followed, thanks to the events loosed by the Bush administration's invasion. That dying has yet to end, and seems once again to be on the rise. Yet those deaths have never been a central fact of American life, nor an acceptable argument for getting out of Iraq, nor an acknowledged responsibility of Washington, nor of Admiral Mullen, Secretary of Defense Gates, or any of their predecessors. They were just collateral damage. Some of their survivors got, at best, tiny "solatia" payments from the U.S. military, and often enough the dead were buried in unmarked graves or no graves at all.

This one does too:

...but one thing is certain, we will not consider any damage done to our society "collateral" damage.