Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Wikileaks To Publish Remaining Afghan Documents

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the post-processing dept.

The Media 711

Albanach writes "WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange has been quoted by the Associated Press as stating 'the organization is preparing to release the remaining secret Afghan war documents.' According to Assange, they are halfway through processing the remaining 15,000 files as they 'comb through' the files to ensure lives are not placed at risk."

cancel ×

711 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

save lives by exposing military tactics.... (0, Troll)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231476)

They are already risking the lives of our soldiers by simply posting their tactics and secrets.

"combing through" the documents to 'save lives' is bullshit and they know it. They just want to post the dirtiest, effective secrets that can have maximum damage.... which will in turn hurt our soldiers.

Re: save lives by exposing military tactics.... (-1, Flamebait)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231518)

They are already risking the lives of our soldiers by simply posting their tactics and secrets.

Examples?

Re: save lives by exposing military tactics.... (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231730)

Posting names of informants risks the lives of both the informants and the soldiers who interface with them. It's entirely possible that a squad of US soldiers could show up at their informant's home a month from now to find a nasty little surprise waiting for them. If there is only a single type of information divulged with these leaks that should have been kept secret, the names of people helping the US military has to be it.

Re: save lives by exposing military tactics.... (-1, Flamebait)

marco.antonio.costa (937534) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231820)

Yea... Showing up at a compromised asset's home after its identity has been leaked actually sounds like something 'military intelligence' guys would do...

But you know, these aren't known for being particularly intelligent. ;-)

Re: save lives by exposing military tactics.... (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231920)

The military, especially in times of war, doesn't work that way. There are risks and benefits to every action, getting in touch with an informant who may be compromised could easily provide enough of a benefit to be worth the risk, and that's even assuming the people with feet on the ground are aware that their source is compromised. If nothing else, Wikileaks denied the US military the intelligence that those informants could have provided, a consequence which, in an of itself, puts American soldiers are greater risk.

Re: save lives by exposing military tactics.... (4, Insightful)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 4 years ago | (#33232006)

If you don't think of them as an "asset" and instead think of them as a human, then you'll find that you do indeed show up at their home after they've been outed. This kind of behavior is called "not being a complete fucking douche" and is quite intelligent. And if you just can't find it in you to be respectful and to care about the people who you come in contact with, then perhaps there are other reasons for doing the right thing that you might find compelling. How about this: if you just wash your hands of the travails of the people who help you out, you'll find out that fewer and fewer people are helping you out. So, even if you are a complete fucking douche, it still makes sense to take care of your "assets."

Re: save lives by exposing military tactics.... (2, Insightful)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231886)

By exposing how one has acted and reacted in the past, it makes it easier for one to predict how one will act and react in the future. Also, it may be transparent to one who is not in the middle of the conflict as to how certain information can expose tactics, capabilities, and sensitive information. You ask for a specific example. I'd love to give you a specific example, but I think it's enough to state that the kind of information that wikileaks is getting a hold of is the kind of documentation spys were trying to obtain in the past. It might help, it might not help, but any information is information. Also, who's to say could be leaked further than wikileaks that is sensitive. Julian Assange talks about his "organization," but we don't necessarily know who he is dealing with.

I'm all for the world knowing what's actually happening and I think there should be a witch trial to root out the people who are classifying information based on political leanings and to open up our library of information. That being said, I think the proper precautions need to be taken for the correct people to go about declassifying the documentation. I think the best thing we can hope for from wikileaks is a grassroots movement to speed up the declassification of documents and to loosen the restrictions of information dissemination, but it's going to take a hell of a grassroots movement to get the ball rolling on this one.

This is definitely an interesting situation and brings up a lot of good discussion that we, as a society, need to be having about access to information. Hopefully this leads to open floor debate amongst our leaders. Hopefully this becomes an issue during our next presidential election.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (5, Insightful)

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo (1000167) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231540)

They are already risking the lives of our soldiers by simply posting their tactics and secrets.

By your twisted logic nobody would have a right to know anything about any war until it was over.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (2, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231564)

No, really they don't have a right to know about the operational details of the war until it is over.

That's not a new stance, it's pretty much how operational security in a theatre of war has happened for a couple thousand years.

Julian Assange is acting a spy really, getting stolen documents about operations and publishing them.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33231640)

True.

And the US is acting an aggressor and illegal occupant at various places all over the world.

Expect resistance.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (1, Insightful)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231756)

Where is the US illegally occupying?

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (5, Funny)

marco.antonio.costa (937534) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231870)

Afghanistan and Iraq.

Look, I don't like watching TV either, but you gotta keep up with the rest of the world here, mate. :-)

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (2, Insightful)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231934)

So the democratically elected government of Afghanistan has told us to get out and we're now there illegally against their wishes? That's news to me.

There's a big difference between "I think this is wrong" and "This is illegal"

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (-1, Flamebait)

casings (257363) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231682)

Who the fuck thought that this statement "That's not a new stance, it's pretty much how operational security in a theatre of war has happened for a couple thousand years." is insightful?

That's fucking moronic.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231728)

He's right. I'm pro-leak, but it's true. Go read some Sun Tzu or something.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (0, Flamebait)

casings (257363) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231794)

So it worked for the dark ages, it should work now?

Get a fucking clue. Times need to change, and wikileaks is a precursor to that change.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231854)

No, times do not change with respect to military strategies. If you know how your enemy thinks and acts, you can predict his enemy and work against him. Don't be so stupid in your thinking.

Also: You must have missed the part where I said I was pro-leak.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (-1, Flamebait)

casings (257363) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231928)

Pro-leak and obviously pro-war.

Re: save lives by exposing military tactics.... (1, Troll)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231686)

No, really they don't have a right to know about the operational details of the war until it is over. That's not a new stance, it's pretty much how operational security in a theatre of war has happened for a couple thousand years.

Does that make it right?

I a state where the people supposedly run the country via elected representatives, there is a whole lot of "need to know" if the system is even going to half-ass work.

Re: save lives by exposing military tactics.... (1)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231734)

The elected representatives are elected to be our representatives so they can know for us.

It's not a direct democracy.

Re: save lives by exposing military tactics.... (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231846)

The elected representatives are elected to be our representatives so they can know for us. It's not a direct democracy.

Yes, but when our elected representatives tell us they are waging a just war on our behalf, waging it well, and not killing very many innocent bystanders, we need some knowledge of how truthful they are being so we'll know when to vote them out.

Re: save lives by exposing military tactics.... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33231872)

But we need to know WHAT they are doing in order to elect intelligently.

Otherwise we are just electing people with good smiles.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (1)

Oidhche (1244906) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231966)

The point is that if Assange managed to get that information, it's likely that real spies got it too, and before him. If you want to base your strategy on certain things being secret, you should do a better job at keeping them secret. If any lives are lost as a result of exposing this, the blame is with those who failed to contain that information, not Assange.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (5, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231982)

A spy? Cut the bullshit.
He's no more a spy than the editors of the guardian or the new york times.

Wikileaks received a large number of documents, what did they do? they released most of them to the public with some redaction.

The guardian received a large number of documents, what did they do? they released most of them to the public with some redaction and wrote a load of stories about it.

If some chinese person emailed you classified chinese tank plans and you published them on your website for the public to see would that make you a spy?
unless you're in china, no, it would not.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33231608)

And since wars are never really over, nobody should have the right to know anything ever.

There are many roads to an Orwellian future, no need to take the highway.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33231812)

many roads through the Orwellian present you mean eh?

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33231732)

Twisted logic => anything about any war == tactics and secrets

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (1)

madhatter256 (443326) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231860)

By wikileaks saying that they are 'combing through' to help save lives is idiotic. Exposing any secrets results in some form of damage - direct or indirect. The fact that they say that is amateur, to make people think it's ok what they are doing and for the greater good. That's what my post is trying to say. Could care less what they post. The end result is not always for the best - that depends on who it affects - either our soldiers on the ground or the commanders. Putting up more documents creates a big risk, that's all.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (2, Interesting)

Oidhche (1244906) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231594)

If journalists got their hands on classified documents, you can safely assume enemy intelligence got them too. Exposing the information gives them nothing new.

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (4, Insightful)

melikamp (631205) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231606)

Assange is only publishing what was already in the wild for several months, released there not by Wikileaks but by an unrelated wistleblower. You have a problem with that? Do you not understand that, for all we know, the Taliban already has the full text?

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (5, Insightful)

toastar (573882) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231804)

They are already risking the lives of our soldiers by simply posting their tactics and secrets.

You know what else risks the lives of our soldiers?
Unnecessary War!

Re:save lives by exposing military tactics.... (1)

FatAlb3rt (533682) | more than 4 years ago | (#33232008)

You sound as if you don't trust the judgment of Julian Assange, whom I'm sure has a solid background of years of military strategy and website administration.

Seriously though, our own congressional leaders admit to not reading the healthcare reform bill, yet we're to trust the folks at WikiLeaks to go through and assess the impact of 15,000 files?

Are these leaked by the CIA as well? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33231478)

Afghanistan produces around 85% of the world's poppies. There was NOT ONE MENTION of poppies, heroin, or opium in the released documents. What are the odds of that?

Anon Y. Mous

Re:Are these leaked by the CIA as well? (1)

longhairedgnome (610579) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231586)

The US is encouraging poppy growth? They have better things to do than fight the war on drugs(terrorism)? Maybe the US is stockpiling heroin to be sold when they legalize personal amounts of drugs fingers crossed

Re: Are these leaked by the CIA as well? (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231752)

There was NOT ONE MENTION of poppies, heroin, or opium in the released documents. What are the odds of that?

I suppose it would depend on the nature of the documents. Not everything pertaining to Afghanistan and the war has been released.

Re:Are these leaked by the CIA as well? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33231852)

What is your point? Heroin isn't all that valuable anymore, it was incredibly over produced and is generally avoided by all but the most desperate. Generally opiate addicts go for black market pharmaceuticals like oxycontin these days. Heroin is too dangerous to traffic for the poor pay out, and cocaine is where the real money is. I've never met a heroin dealer in my entire life, but I know more coke dealers then I have fingers. Amphetamine is even more profitable as nearly every college student I know has a prescription for Adderall.

Sounds like a job for... (3, Funny)

Pengel the squib (300408) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231484)

Illegal detention.

Re:Sounds like a job for... (1)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231684)

Illegal detention.

Why would you want to detain illegals? Its not like Julian snuck across the US border or anything.

Re:Sounds like a job for... (2, Insightful)

ducomputergeek (595742) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231868)

I wonder if he had stuff on the Russians or the Israelis if he would be as willing to release it. The most the US is going to do is make strongly worded speeches and maybe try to get him on some kind of charge and throw him in jail. And even that is doubtful as there are enough countries out there that would "protect" him if he fled there so long as his remarks and leaks are directed at the US. Because the Israelis and Russians in the past have proven that they will go anywhere and do anything to make an example.

If gets bold enough and starts outing everybody's dirty laundry, he'll be dealt with. And that point everyone will just shrug and suggest the other guy did it. Just look at the unsolved murder of Gerald Bull. While most people conclude it was Mossad, nobody is really sure as there was a half a dozen parties that might have been behind the assassination.

TFA has a punch line! (4, Funny)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231512)

"He said he had 'no comment' about his current whereabouts."

Re:TFA has a punch line! (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231818)

If you really want to know, you could always just call the CIA agent working on his car.

Related news: Reporters w/o Borders join criticism (2, Informative)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231514)

Open letter from RWB secretary general to Wikileaks founder [rsf.org]
At least it seems Julian Assange heard previous criticism.

Re:Related news: Reporters w/o Borders join critic (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33231712)

this has been covered elsewhere, and it's basically crap.

a: the information was already out there and b: the gov't was supposed to release it via FOIA but has never done so. We're talking a 3+ year old FOIA request. Oh and c: that particular article has been covered before.

This is just straight up bullshit criticism because guess what? Assange is doing a better job than other news reporters because he's, you know, actually reporting news!

Re:Related news: Reporters w/o Borders join critic (5, Informative)

FriendlyLurker (50431) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231908)

Reporters w/o Borders is a blatant propaganda front for the US Government. Proof & References: "Reporters Without Borders Unmasked" [counterpunch.org]

"Reporters Without Borders seems to have a geopolitical agenda" [onlinejournal.com]

"Source Watch: Reporters Without Borders" [sourcewatch.org]

Reporters w/o Borders are also trying to trap potential leakers and activist bloggers in their thin veil: https://encrypted.google.com/search?num=100&q=Reporters+Without+Borders+shelter [google.com]

Re:Related news: Reporters w/o Borders join critic (1)

Americano (920576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231910)

Let's hope he learned from it.

I have no particular gripe with this information being leaked to the public. I do have a gripe with Wikileaks rushing to publish it and putting people at risk by including names and everything else.

My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks... (3, Interesting)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231522)

My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks is how it divides us. We now have the privilege of mostly being sorted into two rather neat piles:

A) This stuff should never have been secret, and anyone who would hide it is un-American

or

B) These secrets are property of the government, and anyone who would divulge them is un-American

The framing is succinct, and I doubt there will be another issue of this type within my lifetime. No matter which camp you're in, from a certain point of view, you're right. Personally, I hold that nothing need remain secret for very long, and that our government should be in the business of printing this material itself. Others are calling for Pvt Manning's execution.

Amazing times to live in...

Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (5, Funny)

kevinNCSU (1531307) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231582)

Since when did being wrong make anyone LESS American? ;)

Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (2, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231604)

more than just 2 camps, though.

how's this for a take: yes, afgans will (perhaps) be at risk. they will learn not to trust us (ever again).

this could be a good thing! it means we have ZERO chance of 'fixing that country'.

yay! we can go home. there's zero point in spending time, money, lives over there if its impossible to 'win' the war.

now, I think its impossible. 100.0% impossible. they won't trust us ever again.

time to go home. seriously.

Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231930)

Why do I get the idea that you don't think they are trying to win the war and fix the country? Is it those little 's you put around those words?

If thats the case, why would this be reason to go home? If the objectives they've stated are false, than defying those objectives does nothing to their true scheme.

Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (1)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231620)

My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks is how it divides us. We now have the privilege of mostly being sorted into two rather neat piles

There is always a tension between the need for secrecy on various matters of governance, law enforcement, and military capabilities/plans/activities. The problem is that the people who make the decision on what is kept under wraps aren't neutral parties, so it easily becomes a method of hiding incompetence and corruption.

I don't know a solution. Maybe our system should include an elected review board with the authority to release whatever they think was improperly hidden. But how long until that became as corrupt as the rest of our political system?

Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231726)

I still contend that operating with the knowledge that nothing is secret for very long is workable.

Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231642)

Well, count me as a rare option C: Some of this information (names and locations of informants, details of military strategies, etc) should be kept secret while other parts (involvement of the Pakistani military, civilian deaths, etc) never should have been secret.

Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33231708)

I would say no matter the position you're in, most could agree that Wikileaks should provide the government with the redacted docs prior to release and give them an adequate deadline to point out other items that should be redacted and why, or at least a timeline of when it should be "safe" to release the info. Wikileaks can still choose not to redact the items, but it's better than just putting it out there and then saying "oops" and never being able to take it back.

Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231792)

Any truth to the claim that Wikileaks asked the Whitehouse was asked for this very thing?

Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231778)

C) He did a piss poor job of redacting it, and it is very likely people are going to die because of it.

Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231822)

That's still B, I'm afraid.

Wrong division (0, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231802)

What about the people who think these documents should have been released, but only after real professionals redacted names?

One Afghanistan leader is already dead over this. Wikileaks killed him, end of story. If I were that guys family I would come after Wikileaks and anyone associated with them.

There is another option (0, Troll)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231856)

c) There are considerations to made in every war and putting peoples lives at risk for self glorification is never justification.

Re:There is another option (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33232022)

What does that have to do with anything?

You're clearly a 'camp B resident', but the way you're blurring things here is uncannily bizarre.

There are considerations to made in every war

When does hiding the truth from the people paying the bills enter into this equation?

putting peoples lives at risk

Could it not be argued that perpetuating the secret, and thereby the false pretenses about the war, puts even MORE lives at risk?

for self glorification

Are you a spook? This is simply intended to smear Assange, as if that matters in the slightest. When Wikileaks published all that Scientology 'tech' was that ALSO just to promote the growth of a certain ego? I don't recall seeing that claim then.

You're seeking to shoot the messenger, and that's not only irrelevant but also sad.

Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (1, Flamebait)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231858)

I'd say variation of one of three camps.

a.) "I vote according to party lines and Assange's head should be a pike."
b.) "I vote for the speaker who appeals to my needs without stepping on too many heads, I probably question some of Assange's ethics, though I can see the overall necessity. I probably think he is also a bit of a dick."
c.) "I'm completely disillusioned by the idea of government. Let 'em burn, let 'em all burn and we can re-built something more just out of the ashes."

Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (3, Insightful)

kurokame (1764228) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231932)

I'm going to go with Spock on this one:

Military secrets are the most fleeting of all. (Spock, The Enterprise Incident)

Here's the thing - nothing really can remain secret for long. At least, not from the guys you're actively engaged in fighting against. Beyond immediate operations, the only people you can hope to hoodwink for long are your own citizens by way of information control and propaganda.

Are there ethical (and practical) issues involved in releasing this info? Are there similar issues involved in not releasing this info? Certainly. But in all likelihood, the harm involved in releasing it will be very limited. Anyone who could make use of it in a military sense probably already knows most of this stuff. Not all...but probably most. So what remains? It seems like it would be reasonable to conclude that the main effect is to inform the American public and international community - people the American government very much wants to keep in the dark, but people who they have no right to keep in the dark.

Anyway, the cat's out of the bag now. Everything you're seeing is spin control - it's not like making a big fuss over this is going to make it be un-leaked. On the other hand, if the government puts a big enough spin on it, the odds are that they can strongly diminish any informing effect it would have for the public. They can't go back and hide it from the people they're fighting, but they have a pretty good shot of hiding it from their taxpaying voters and from the international community. Does it make any sense to hand them a win on that front? Any damage the info could do in a military sensehas already been done.

Re:My favorite feature of this round of Wikileaks. (4, Insightful)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231996)

Others are calling for Pvt Manning's execution.

I wouldn't call for execution, but he's certainly due some discipline for disobeying orders. However, Julian Assange has done nothing wrong and the US shouldn't be hounding him. Instead, they should be investigating the abuses Manning and Assange have brought to light.

Don't you love it when... (1, Insightful)

Elros (735454) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231530)

people announce their intention to do something incredibly stupid.

Re:Don't you love it when... (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231974)

I love it when I announce that I love it when I anounce that I love it when people announce their intention to do something incredibly stupid. Luckily, I haven't done that yet.

Good. (3, Insightful)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231532)

I wonder how many relatives/friends of MIA soliders will comb through these archives looking for clues as to their fate.
(Just to clarify that I'm not being macabre for the sake of trolling - I support both wars and occupations, even though they ignored sane advice as to the troop strength required to hold and secure the regions.)

Re:Good. (1)

lostros (260405) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231602)

I hope they find some.

Re:Good. (1)

BobMcD (601576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231644)

...they ignored sane advice as to the troop strength required to hold and secure the regions.

If anything, I think the Wikileaks stuff teaches us that no amount of troop strength would have mattered. The Afghan region is a gigantic mess, and unless we're ready to resolve the conflicts between India and Pakistan AND Radical Islam vs the rest of the world, we had no business losing even a single life over there.

I'm with you, mostly. I support wars and occupations, but only when leveraged against enemy governments. Our military machine is a government tool, and is largely inappropriate for civil uses.

Re:Good. (1)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231828)

I'm not sure if I can synthesize your perspective (I'm not american, I'm swedish), but UN peacekeeping troops have had great successes in securing "unstable" regions in the past. Even if the UN is a splintered mess as it is (oppressive dictatorships have say in what constitutes "human rights" for example), the instrument itself seems to have worked. And as for only using it against governments, what about warlords and armed militias raising hell? There's nothing that can stand against that except for a military organization.

Re: Good. (5, Insightful)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231790)

I wonder how many relatives/friends of MIA soliders will comb through these archives looking for clues as to their fate.

Or find out that their loved one was actually killed by friendly fire, as opposed to what they were told.

Re: Good. (4, Insightful)

Securityemo (1407943) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231950)

I think the whole problem with that kind of stuff is that the U.S. seems to have a highly emotionally charged "hero cult" around their soliders. On that background, who would want to tell a grieving mother that her son was hit in the back by a machinegun in a stupid accident and bled out before he got to intensive care, instead of dying valiantly in a final stand while severely outnumbered by enemy forces?

Re:Good. (3, Informative)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231914)

I support ONE war and no occupation. Our sole mission in Afghanistan should have been to remove the Taliban, period. We should have gone in, kicked ass, and left it in shambles. BTW, we still haven't found Bin Laden. Getting him should have been job #1.

We had no business whatever invading Iraq. The first gulf war, yes, but not the second.

Can't touch, can't do anything (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33231538)

Even if the drones were sending hell-fires to Assange's residence, there's a deadman switch threatening to auto-release these documents, probably unredacted.

Let it play out, then charge him with high-treason.

Re:Can't touch, can't do anything (5, Insightful)

Nadaka (224565) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231664)

He isn't a US citizen and therefore can not commit treason against us.

Re:Can't touch, can't do anything (3, Insightful)

Steauengeglase (512315) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231936)

This has become my litmus test for whether or not someone is both an idiot and an American.

It's a good thing (2, Insightful)

lostros (260405) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231562)

Frankly, if nothing else it will help America have some idea as to what is happening, and that there is a war going on.

Re:It's a good thing (1)

Midnight's Shadow (1517137) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231616)

Frankly, if nothing else it will help America have some idea as to what is happening, and that there is a war going on.

You would hope but how many Americans actually know about Wikileaks?

Re:It's a good thing (1)

Meshach (578918) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231716)

Frankly, if nothing else it will help America have some idea as to what is happening, and that there is a war going on.

You would hope but how many Americans actually know about Wikileaks?

The fact that it has been in all major new agencies for the past few weeks leads me to suspect that most know about wikileaks. Understanding it is another matter...

Re:It's a good thing (2, Interesting)

BStroms (1875462) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231964)

Of course most Americans simply follow one or two news sources. Those news sources being the ones that most accurately reflect their own opinions because they're more comfortable when they don't have said opinions challenged. So for the most part, those who feel the war is wrong and being run in a horrible manner will receive cherry picked sections confirming that belief. And those who feel that the war is justified, and even releasing this information is only putting American soldiers in danger will find equally cherry picked sections that confirm those beliefs. In the end relatively few people will be exposed to anything thought provoking to them.

Who has died from the release of the documents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33231588)

The whole idea that wikileaks has endangered lives due to releasing these documents is completely speculation. There have been no reports or any evidence even stating that peoples lives have been put at risk. Now I know I'm going to get a lot of negative responses for saying this but you can't deny facts. The facts are wikileaks released confidential documents that were only confidential because the US government knew these documents would hurt their mindless war effort.

Re:Who has died from the release of the documents? (0)

Americano (920576) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231880)

Fact: There are names of informants in these documents. Nobody, not even wikileaks, has disputed this.
Fact: The Taliban has stated to the media that they are "reviewing" these documents, and intend to "punish" people found to be cooperating with the NATO militaries in Afghanistan. Nobody has disputed this, either.

Do the math. 2.5 weeks ago, the documents were released. There are 70k+ documents to go through. How long until the Taliban begins punishing people? Well, I guess that depends on how many people they've got reading these reports, and whether they're going to go for an "all at once" reprisal, or just randomly start whacking people as the names are discovered.

What do YOU think the method of "punishing" informants will be, from an organization where, to quote the Taliban entry on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] :

Punishment was severe. Theft was punished by the amputation of a hand, rape and murder by public execution, and married adulterers were stoned to death. In Kabul, punishments including executions were carried out in front of crowds in the city's former soccer stadium. Rules were issued by the Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Suppression of Vice (PVSV) and enforced by its "religious police", importing that Wahhabi concept.

Now it's "Julian Assange, Intelligence Analyst" (-1, Flamebait)

RobotRunAmok (595286) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231600)

This chucklehead is going to determine which data among the 15,000 files is dangerous to our armed forces, and which isn't? Hopefully his military intelligence analytical skills are better than his hair-stylist selection skills.

Re:Now it's "Julian Assange, Intelligence Analyst" (5, Interesting)

IICV (652597) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231758)

Yeah, I really wish he'd asked the White House or Pentagon for help in redacting these documents.

After all, they're the ones who are best placed to check that sort of thing, right?

Surely they would have wanted to minimize damage to the troops, right?

Surely they wouldn't want to just cover their asses, right?

Oh wait he did and they said no.

Hmm.

Re:Now it's "Julian Assange, Intelligence Analyst" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33231766)

better than the chuckleheads at the pentagon or white house who have zero interest in releasing ANY data.

Re:Now it's "Julian Assange, Intelligence Analyst" (1)

bhartman34 (886109) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231838)

+1 Amen. The idea that WikiLeaks would be capable of determining what would endanger the armed forces, and what wouldn't, is absurd. You should also keep in mind that this miscreant wants to be paid $700,000 [zdnet.com] for this "harm minimization review". I say, each of the affected nations should take turns hanging his ass, and the last country in line gets to finish the job.

Re:Now it's "Julian Assange, Intelligence Analyst" (1)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231892)

Well he's willing to accept help, with the last lot he was willing to let the pentagon help with redaction (of course you can assume with the implication that if they played silly buggers and returned 90K black sheets of paper or redacted things which were merely embarrassing it would be ignored) rather than counting their blessings at getting a second chance to remove sensitive info from a leak after it has happened(how often do you think organisations get a chance at that) they sat back, firmly lodging their thumbs in their rectums and ignored the chance.

Re:Now it's "Julian Assange, Intelligence Analyst" (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231960)

He asked the US military to help him figure out what was dangerous to the US armed forces, and they refused and started trying to hunt him down and discredit him. He knows he's not an expert, but he's trying to at least make the best attempt he's capable of as a layman. Would you rather he didn't even try?

Now, if your position actually is that only the military has any right to determine what's classified and what's not, I think you're missing the point: The military can and does use classification as a way of hiding things that are embarrassing rather than actually dangerous.

Re:Now it's "Julian Assange, Intelligence Analyst" (5, Insightful)

copponex (13876) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231986)

Intelligence analyst? In the US military?

Let met tell you something: if there were any intelligence analysts who had any pull in DC, we certainly wouldn't have given the region to Iran on a silver platter by taking out Saddam Hussein, or held Afghanistan responsible for a Saudi Arabian terror group's actions.

The pieces of shit [thinkprogress.org] who architected the war thought

1) We'd be greeted as liberators.
2) Troops levels of several hundred thousand were "way off the mark"
3) The war cost would be less than 100 billion dollars and paid for by Iraqi oil revenues.

My favorite is Rumsfeld's quote: "The Gulf War in the 1990s lasted five days on the ground. I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.”

Scapegoating Assange is the equivalent of yelling at the vet doing the necropsy on the horse.

Wikileaks isn't balanced in it's coverage (1, Interesting)

Wyatt Earp (1029) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231692)

They are focusing on the US and the Global War on Terror, there are no thousand page releases from the Sudan, Congo, Burma, Russia, Iran, North Korea, the Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Turkey or even Israel.

It's mostly focused on the US and to a lesser extent on some corporations.

I'd love to see what happened if they leaked 15,000 documents on Israeli operations in the West Bank or posted data on Israeli positions in the Golan.

Re:Wikileaks isn't balanced in it's coverage (2, Informative)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231898)

While I do agree with what you are saying Wikileaks doesn't do anything, they just sit around waiting for the phone to ring. So they can't leak what they aren't told.

>I'd love to see what happened if they leaked 15,000 documents on Israeli operations in the West Bank or posted data on Israeli positions in the Golan.
He would be dead.

Re:Wikileaks isn't balanced in it's coverage (4, Insightful)

jcdick1 (254644) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231940)

Convince someone on the inside to leak 15,000 verifiable documents on any of those situations, and I bet WikiLeaks would jump on it. They aren't necessarily "focused" on the US, as much as that is what's mostly been made available to them. If the Taliban had a structure that required and kept comparable records, WikiLeaks would probably publish those, as well.

Re:Wikileaks isn't balanced in it's coverage (1)

Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231946)

If they actually had 15,000 documents on Israeli operations in the West Bank, then Wikileaks would release it. It's hard to be balanced if you don't have anyone on the inside feeding you the classified documents. It's not as if Julian Assange puts on a ski mask and sneaks through the ventilation systems of Langley or the Pentagon and swipes documents while nobody is looking.

If someone from Mossad or Shin-Bet has the access to such documents and forwards them to Wikileaks, then expect it to be posted once verified.

Good for Them (2, Insightful)

im just cannonfodder (1089055) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231700)

i hear plenty of talk about how evil wikileaks are, for releasing the info, but not much talk in the corporate media or from our governments about the war crimes committed & subsequently covered up by the USA & UK.

so them inflated numbers of insurgents include how many woman, children and innocent men murdered exactly?

Re:Good for Them (4, Interesting)

Un pobre guey (593801) | more than 4 years ago | (#33232020)

but not much talk in the corporate media or from our governments about the war crimes committed & subsequently covered up by the USA & UK

Actually, you hear plenty about it. It is spun into stories like "bringing democracy to Afghanistan," "fighting the terrorists who wish to hurt us" (and its utterly moronic sibling "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here"), "defending America," "helping Afghans resist the Taliban," and the rest of the claptrap promoted in the commercial media.

We had no reason to go into Iraq, now we're apparently saddled with decades of military occupation. We went into Afghanistan, ended Taliban rule, but allowed Al Qaeda top brass to escape into Pakistan. We are still fighting the Taliban, who represent no threat to us. If they once again become a threat, we remove them again. Why, however, did we not approach Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates about official and unofficial support of the Taliban and a variety of other extremists? What about Pakistan, funded officially and by means of private donations by SA and the Emirates to support the Taliban and other extremists? How do they end up being our allies in all this? Al Qaeda is still operational in Pakistan, apparently.

The War on Terror is a scam, backwards and forwards. It cannot withstand even cursory quetioning of its purposes or the means used to achieve them.

Mr Assange: Remove the grid-squares!!! (3, Insightful)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231710)

The existing WikiLeaks documents contain 10-digit grid-squares, allowing people to know the location of various military resources down to the square meter. This is absolutely not required for any sort of public purpose -- the public would be just as informed if you would omit the grid-squares and replace them with a vague location/district.

This can be done without wasting any manpower, something like this regex pattern will redact all collections of more than 5 numerical digits:

sed -r s/'[0-9]{5,}'/'REDACTED'/g

If the grid-squares are broken into chunks with a delimiter, say '-', you can try:

sed -r s/'[0-9\\-]{5,}'/'REDACTED'/g

As usual with regex, grep out the first 1000 or so matches for casual perusal before you let them loose.

There is really no excuse, including lack of manpower, for removing these sorts of details that add nothing to public's knowledge but reveal very useful operational details.

Re:Mr Assange: Remove the grid-squares!!! (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231962)

How does that even work? I would assume most military assets are larger than a square meter and are likely designed to be mobile. Have I been misinformed?

I'm Confused... (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231774)

Is Julian Assange also the lead singer for Gorillaz?

The Taliban will find any excuse to kill anyway (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231844)

It doesn't really matter - the Taliban will find all sorts of excuses to kill:
e.g. Dancing girls and musicians
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/4217690/Taliban-underlines-its-growing-power-with-killing-of-dancing-girl-in-Pakistan.html [telegraph.co.uk]
http://www.rferl.org/content/British_Ethnomusicologist_Discusses_Talibans_Campaign_Against_Musicians/1753865.html [rferl.org]

Medics who the Taliban in one breath claim are missionaries and in another US spies:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10900338 [bbc.co.uk]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10903737 [bbc.co.uk]

So if you're in the war-torn zones in Afghanistan, your odds of being killed are higher anyway - doesn't matter whether you're civilian or soldier, local or foreigner. I doubt Wikileaks is going to increase your risk that much.

Fact is if you are a US citizen living in the USA you have more to fear from your government than the Taliban. Heck, if you are living in some other country (other than Afghanistan) the US Gov is more likely to negatively impact your life than the Taliban.

So even if the Taliban claims that Wikileaks helped them kill more people in Afghanistan, I don't see it as a big deal. They can claim all they like.

If Wikileaks helps reduce the excesses of the most powerful Government in the world, it's doing good overall even if that Assange guy is just on an ego-trip.

p.s. Maybe the US Gov should start swapping in names of Taliban "middle managers" in their documents, leak them and let the Taliban go kill those :).

Maybe not afterall... (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#33231848)

The fact that this guy is still alive kind of blows a hole in all those Jason Borne-esque conspiracy theories. I think that if the US really did have secret assassins and super-spies all over the world, that they could activate at any time for any reason, people like Julian Assange would be all kinds of dead.

It changes nothing (1)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 4 years ago | (#33232010)

There is nothing--nothing--that Assange can do that will take the blood off his and his organization's hands for the way they handled the first round of documents. This is war, and as an anti-war activist, Assange knows damn well that the price of a mistake or negligence in war is someone getting hurt. This isn't nerds versus jocks in high school, this is an armed conflict in one of the most violent places on Earth and he put the spotlight on a number of civilians in a way that makes them targets of opportunity in a war zone.

The moral of the story (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#33232016)

I think the real moral here is "Don't be a bunch of secretive assholes that allow bad guys to do whatever the fuck they want, and people will not constantly try to expose your secrets."

Could this Wikileaks War, the Net Neutrality War, the beyond-ridiculous Intellectual Property War, and so many other bastardizations of basic human rights and nature, including but certainly not limited to our political system, really all boil down to the same thing? Ha. Yeah right. Next you're going to tell me some sort of magical open source distributed social networking tool with "apps" for open ID, open education, open industry, open government, could be the answer... NO! That would be uh, Dirty Socialism!

Pardon my childishness but I am still a child, hoping to grow up in a world not riddled with retards and bullies. Maybe I'll learn more about how adults should act when I'm in college.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>