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 Releases Cache of 400,000 Iraq War Documents

timothy posted about 4 years ago | from the freedom-of-the-press dept.

The Media 676

Caelesto writes "Today around 21:00 GMT, WikiLeaks declared an end to their media embargo of over 400,000 Iraq War documents after Al Jazeera released their story 30 minutes ahead of schedule. These documents, which have been kept under wraps by WikiLeaks for months, may reveal tortures and murders ignored by coalition forces during the fighting and occupation in Iraq. The Pentagon maintained that releasing these documents represented a danger to US troops, but already dozens of news outlets are scrambling to report on what could be a devastating blow to the US Armed Forces' already tattered image." Reader Entropy98 points to the BBC's coverage, as well. If you care to download the collection of files, it's available as a torrent.

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

The irony... (5, Insightful)

Loopy (41728) | about 4 years ago | (#33993308)

...of people like this complaining about "collateral damage" is so thick you could drive a truck across it.

I've never given money to a web site before (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993310)

But I just donated 50 EUR to WikiLeaks.

Re:I've never given money to a web site before (5, Informative)

toastar (573882) | about 4 years ago | (#33993446)

But I just donated 50 EUR to WikiLeaks.

Just letting you know you might be on the no fly list now

-Uncle Sam

Re:I've never given money to a web site before (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993496)

Having worked in the U.S. before and having an SSN and all that, I actually got worried about this (I'm not American). Regardless, I went ahead and used Paypal.

I figured that if I actually get in trouble with TSA and all that, then they would be doing me a favor, and I would be better off not entering the U.S.

Re:I've never given money to a web site before (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | about 4 years ago | (#33993572)

What will seeding this for the next month get me? *Carrier lost*

Re:I've never given money to a web site before (0, Troll)

gamecrusader (1684024) | about 4 years ago | (#33993726)

HEY CIA!!!! ANYONE OUT THERE? what about a few death warrants? few words in the right ears shut the thing down already they're a threat to national security for crying out loud they're screwing the U.S. over do somthing about it

Re:I've never given money to a web site before (2, Insightful)

lul_wat (1623489) | about 4 years ago | (#33993920)

There are no cocaine factories or poppy fields at risk in documents, why should they get involved?

Re:I've never given money to a web site before (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993756)

All those people could have been alive today. Of course the dead are just the tip of the iceberg of suffering. This is the direct result of corporations lobbying the government. And there is more to come unless the system is fixed. bit.ly/WdJQP

Wow (0, Flamebait)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 years ago | (#33993318)

It's too bad Wikileaks has such an obvious agenda. I like the idea of them, but that the same time, knowing they have such a clear agenda, makes me wonder what they decide not to release because it doesn't flow with what they want the world to think.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

hsjserver (1826682) | about 4 years ago | (#33993342)

As long as they're releasing factual information I find claims that I should discount that information dubious at best.

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

cappp (1822388) | about 4 years ago | (#33993414)

I understand what you're saying, but factual is as factual does. It's a fact that I spent the morning having one of my best orgasms in a while. It's also a fact that I was jerking off. It's a fact I was looking at naughty pictures. It's also a fact I was speeding the other day. Every one of those is a fact and can be combined and contorted to create specific versions of what is and was real. The problem with facts is that they're easily picked and attached to dubious endevours - Wiki has been unabashed about holding a specific philosophical view - which is admirable really especially given that they're so honest about it - and that viewpoint has an effect on what they chose to present as the truth. There is a concern therefore that they're filtering to support their own conclusions - just the same way flat-eathers filter, or indeed supporters of string theory.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993464)

did you really need to tell us about your masturbatory habits

captcha: extort

Re:Wow (1)

ooshna (1654125) | about 4 years ago | (#33993806)

What he left out was that he did it while choking himself with someone's discarded nylon stockings.

Re:Wow (3, Funny)

cosm (1072588) | about 4 years ago | (#33993558)

cappp (1822388) writes on Friday October 22, @09:38PM: "It's a fact that I spent the morning having one of my best orgasms in a while. It's also a fact that I was jerking off."

The internet never forgets. You are screwed if you ever want to run for office. And you will be doing the screwing *ducks*

Re:Wow (5, Funny)

cappp (1822388) | about 4 years ago | (#33993658)

Three things occur to me:
You should never Slashdot after a few pints
Jerking off probably isnt the best example of a fact
My presidential slogan "Capp, He Jacks Off So You Don't Get Fucked" probably needs some revision

Re:Wow (1, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | about 4 years ago | (#33993754)

You should never Slashdot after a few pints

I think some people on Slashdot really need a pint quite badly.

Jerking off probably isnt the best example of a fact

Jerking off, in the context all of men and women, is probably one of the best examples of a fact. I would say that one could argue it is a law. I am reminded of a study done by Johnson & Johnson that concluded that 99% of all people masturbated. The other 1% lied about it.

Which brings me to another question, what have you got against string theory?

Re:Wow (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993782)

I'm pretty sure that would be Masters and Johnson.

Re:Wow (4, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | about 4 years ago | (#33993912)

I'm pretty sure that would be Masters and Johnson.

You know, you're right about that. Johnson and Johnson is the manufacturer of hand lotion.

No idea how I got those two confused.

Thanks.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

Ubitsa_teh_1337 (1006277) | about 4 years ago | (#33993578)

So... what are the mitigating facts which support torture and murder, again? The US military is welcome to add their own facts to the picture...

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 4 years ago | (#33993718)

The problem with facts is that they're easily picked and attached to dubious endevours - Wiki has been unabashed about holding a specific philosophical view - which is admirable really especially given that they're so honest about it - and that viewpoint has an effect on what they chose to present as the truth.

If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts.
If you have the law on your side, pound the law.
If you have neither on your side, pound the table.

Claiming bias makes it rather transparent that you're pounding the table.

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993900)

Wish I could mod you.

Re:Wow (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993676)

Funny how the very rarely release the information they are given about China, Russia and other such countries. You would think that an unbiased source would not hold such information back, but they do. If you aren't a Western Democracy you are safe from Wikileaks.

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

phyrexianshaw.ca (1265320) | about 4 years ago | (#33993826)

or, providing you don't document all the terrible things you do.. or providing that the people doing the terrible things don't hate what they're doing.

all this shows, is that the USA, like other nations, does terrible things sometimes. the difference: somebody took a stand and disagreed with what they were being told to cover up.

Re:Wow (1)

ooshna (1654125) | about 4 years ago | (#33993832)

Maybe it takes more than lip syncing to Lady Gaga to steal information from those countries.

Re:Wow (3, Insightful)

Felix Da Rat (93827) | about 4 years ago | (#33993846)

If the released reports are biased, the government will give us the whole story, right?

Right?

Wikileaks may have a bias, but they also know their message is destroyed if they are shown to censor data for their effort. The 'Collatoral Murder' fisasco showed that. Even there, they provided the full video but put the focus on where *the issue* was for a short attention span viewing crowd.

Re:Wow (1)

Winckle (870180) | about 4 years ago | (#33993362)

What is their agenda?

Re:Wow (1)

infurnus (1897136) | about 4 years ago | (#33993392)

It may be obvious, but your point will make more sense if you refer to what the obvious is. Just asserting that someone or something has "such an obvious agenda" means nothing when it is not actually obvious to everyone. This might be an "it's right under your nose" situation, so please point out what is in question for those of us who can't seem to see it. Don't let us stay ignorant.

Re:Wow (5, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | about 4 years ago | (#33993470)

It's too bad Wikileaks has such an obvious agenda. I like the idea of them, but that the same time, knowing they have such a clear agenda, makes me wonder what they decide not to release because it doesn't flow with what they want the world to think.

Why is it too bad? What the fuck are you talking about? Would you rather have them have a hidden agenda? Like the government bullshit they expose?

Re:Wow (1, Interesting)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | about 4 years ago | (#33993522)

I like to think of it as the release of secret information has an obvious anti-american bias.

Re:Wow (4, Interesting)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33993884)

We have bias on two sides: Wikileaks, and the US forces who wrote the reports.

The facts in them, though, should be fairly accurate.
If the reports aren't factual, I think it is far more likely that they were falsified by those who wrote them in the first place than by Wikileaks.

You can make a different interpretation of them if you think the reports are too biased (by either side).

Re:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993706)

Watch 60 minutes

Re:Wow (4, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 4 years ago | (#33993772)

It's too bad Wikileaks has such an obvious agenda.

Really? You mean to publish leaks? Or do you think it is something else?
Because if you think it's to paint somebody as good and somebody else as bad, I don't see it.
If you think it's to specifically paint the US government as bad, well there is at least one leaked document that does the reverse: [nytimes.com]

One of the most infamous episodes of killings by American soldiers, the shootings of at least 15 Iraqi civilians, including women and children in the western city of Haditha, is misrepresented in the archives. The report stated that the civilians were killed by militants in a bomb attack, the same false version of the episode that was given to the news media.

NYTimes has this leading website (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993322)

Title says it all. They summarize the leaked documents with articles on 1) Iran's involvement, 2) Civilian deaths, 3) detainee abuse.

the US and Israel butchers assassins torturers (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993338)

The US around the world (and its mini me Israel) stand for only injustice, pain, suffering, oppression, torture, murder, evil.

Americans are complicit in all their government does since they do not stop it.

Elections are coming up... if you vote for a Democrat or Republican you are guilty of all the crimes revealed in these documents (and more). Stop voting for the single party rule which just equals more of the same. If you want your vote to count, vote Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, Green, independent, etc.

Re:the US and Israel butchers assassins torturers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993366)

troll

Re:the US and Israel butchers assassins torturers (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993408)

Grow up you fucking hippie. The world isn't the Garden of Eden. Every war in history has horrible tales and stories of beautiful survival. Propaganda reigns in these situations.

I'm not advocating current protocol but there is no room for idealism.

Re:the US and Israel butchers assassins torturers (4, Insightful)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | about 4 years ago | (#33993454)

Americans are complicit in all their government does since they do not stop it.

I do what I can: I vote for candidates who are not from the demonstrably corrupt main parties, or who have a proven track record of doing good (despite their party allegiance). As such, I reject your accusation that I am complicit in my government's actions.

Re:the US and Israel butchers assassins torturers (2, Interesting)

cosm (1072588) | about 4 years ago | (#33993456)

The US around the world (and its mini me Israel) stand for only injustice, pain, suffering, oppression, torture, murder, evil.

Same could be said for a dozen other countries. China. North Korea. Iran. Somalia. Uganda. Etc

Americans are complicit in all their government does since they do not stop it.

That is vague. Americans in general are not for the above statements. It is the global interest and reigning plutocracy that has led us to the state of New Rome. Because of the wealth gap, money buys power, and the wealth distribution controls what really happens in America. I am not talking about middle upper class folks, I am talking about the old money families with hundreds of millions. New money not so much, but old money, they do what ever they can to really maintain the status-quo and expand their empire, and they do it through lobbyist and all the classical 'morally corrupt' things you can think of.

You may argue that my counter is vague as well, in response I provide my citation, read The Trillion-Dollar Conspiracy [amazon.com] . It summarizes our situation (the world as well) and sites hundreds of legitimate references.

Elections are coming up... if you vote for a Democrat or Republican you are guilty of all the crimes revealed in these documents (and more). Stop voting for the single party rule which just equals more of the same. If you want your vote to count, vote Libertarian, Peace and Freedom, Green, independent, etc.

I agree. Now why couldn't you be as civil in your first paragraph? The immediate soapbox flaming is a good way to get modded into oblivion.

Re:the US and Israel butchers assassins torturers (4, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | about 4 years ago | (#33993478)

Actually it's the Iraqis that are the butchers. Clearly you didn't read the article.

Now that opens up the question of what exactly the US Army is supposed to do if the local Army is up to no good. Are we supposed to "reconquer" them again and start over from scratch and prolong the occupation of Iraq even longer than it would be otherwise?

Re:the US and Israel butchers assassins torturers (2, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33993768)

You broke it, you bought it

- Colin Powell

Re:the US and Israel butchers assassins torturers (1, Funny)

0123456 (636235) | about 4 years ago | (#33993896)

You broke it, you bought it

- Colin Powell

Colin 'Saddam Hussein has WMDs, honest' Powell. LOL.

Re:the US and Israel butchers assassins torturers (1)

Omnifarious (11933) | about 4 years ago | (#33993778)

If you read TFA with fewer mental filters you'll see that the US Army is guilty in a direct fashion as well.

Re:the US and Israel butchers assassins torturers (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993786)

This is the American war in Iraq. It only exists because the Americans started it.

Clearly you drank the cool-aide

Re:the US and Israel butchers assassins torturers (5, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33993800)

Actually it's the Iraqis that are the butchers. Clearly you didn't read the article.

"Actually" apparently means different things to different people.

I've grepped the documents themselves, and they tell a different picture. The colour designations indicate that there are far more "blue white" than "green white" incidents, which is scary considering that there are far more green than blue people.
(And there more "blue blue" and "blue green" casualties than "red blue" (a.k.a. "friendly fire") incidents, which is even more frightening. Most of which are marked secret with the justification of potentially inciting public/media unrest, which is downright chilling)

For those who don't know the colour designations:
Blue = US and allied forces
Green = Native "friendly" forces: military, police and mercenary
Red = Enemies
White = Civilians

"blue white" or "blue on white" means an incident where US and/or allied forces engaged a civilian target. One is one too many.

Do two wrongs make a right? (4, Interesting)

acehole (174372) | about 4 years ago | (#33993364)

Posting these may be wrong but it does bring to like some abuses by all the groups involved which have either never been discussed or their existence never known before. Personally bringing abuses to light which were previously hidden makes this partially right.

Re:Do two wrongs make a right? (1)

infurnus (1897136) | about 4 years ago | (#33993436)

WikiLeaks got the information from anonymous sources, they didn't obtain the confidential documents themselves, but I understand what you mean.

Re:Do two wrongs make a right? (1)

Barny (103770) | about 4 years ago | (#33993486)

Telling the truth (in this context) can not be considered to be wrong. Only if that truth will only cause harm can it be considered bad, for instance not redacting names of victims in those documents.

Good Direct Link (1, Funny)

cosm (1072588) | about 4 years ago | (#33993370)

Iraq War Logs [slashdot.org]
It is getting WorldDotted at the moment though.

Good Direct Link (2, Interesting)

cosm (1072588) | about 4 years ago | (#33993388)

Whoops...updated Link. Here is the most direct link I can find. Iraq War Logs [wikileaks.org]
It is still getting WorldDotted at the moment though.

The beauty of not reading the actual article (4, Insightful)

devleopard (317515) | about 4 years ago | (#33993398)

Is that you can just categorize based on Slashdot's summary, and just vaguely use it to go on a soapbox about what you want to make a bunch of noise about.

Even the summary uses phrase "Iraq war documents". Good reason - the Wikileaks release dealt with documents that often referred to what the Iraqi police/forces were doing, and what the US forces knew about. Not that the US forces were doing those actions themselves (though you could argue that allowing such actions were as bad as doing the actions themselves...) Nevertheless, we can't on one hand say we should withdraw and then say that we should keep the Iraqis from doing things we think are bad - good or bad, Iraqis hurting Iraqis is a possible outcome of self-government.

Re:The beauty of not reading the actual article (1)

mr_mischief (456295) | about 4 years ago | (#33993494)

Iraqis hurting Iraqis is not only a possible outcome of self-government. To some extent it is a necessary outcome of self-government. A US pullout will not put a complete stop to crime. Even if the crimes are not politically motivated or (para)military in nature, some level of crime and of law enforcement response will continue in any country. Nowhere on Earth is Eden.

its called war (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993404)

this and worse happens in every war, its called war, its par for the course

revealing this information doesn't endanger troops, because its not a secret, its war, its what always happens, only the dishonest pretend it doesn't

Re:its called war (5, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | about 4 years ago | (#33993528)

Thank you. It is simple as that. So many people after 9/11 beat the war drum, and now almost a decade later are horrified that bad things happen in war. I am not condoning or supporting the way the war has gone, but it is truly frustrating the way some folks just imagine bubble and sunshine and invasion before really considering the repercussions of their voting decisions (plebeians and bureaucrats alike).

War is nasty. Lets think this shit through next time. If diplomacy is not an option, and all other options have failed, and there will be an provable danger to us or our allies by not acting, then bomb the motherfuckers. Otherwise can we please just stay out of the rest of the world's business? Do it quickly, cleanly, with a solid plan, with an exit strategy, accomplish the goal, and move on. War cost money, and between the MID profiteering it, the globalist loving it, the extremist encouraging it, the only people that lose are the taxpayers and the unnecessary casualties.

Why is that so hard?

If our civilization overcomes the thread of annihilating itself, I hope dearly that it becomes peaceful and moves away from dogmatic BS and more towards science and reason. I don't care if it is after I am dead. I just would sleep better knowing that the human race will make it over the next 1000 years. It really doesn't look so good. I don't think the idiots can handle the fruits of the scientist labor in a responsible manner.

How to reduce unwanted wars (4, Interesting)

TheLink (130905) | about 4 years ago | (#33993904)

In the old days kings used to lead their soldiers into battle. In modern times this is impractical and counterproductive.

But you can still have leaders lead the frontline in spirit.

Basically, if leaders are going to send troops on an _offensive_ war/battle (not defensive war) there must be a referendum on the war.

If there are not enough votes for the war, those leaders get put on death-row.

At a convenient time later, a referendum is held to redeem each leader. Leaders that do not get enough votes get executed. For example if too many people stay at home and don't bother voting - the leaders get executed.

If it turns out later that the war was justified, a fancy ceremony is held, and the executed leaders are awarded a purple heart or equivalent, and you have people say nice things about them, cry and that sort of thing.

If it turns out later that the leaders tricked the voters, a referendum can be held (need to get enough signatures to start such a referendum, just to prevent nutters from wasting everyone elses time).

This proposal has many advantages:
1) Even leaders who don't really care about those "young soldiers on the battlefield" will not consider starting a war lightly.
2) The soldiers will know that the leaders want a war enough to risk their own lives for it.
3) The soldiers will know that X% of the population want the war.
4) Those being attacked will know that X% of the attackers believe in the war - so they want a war, they get a war - for sufficiently high X, collateral damage becomes insignificant. They might even be justified in using WMD and other otherwise dubious tactics. If > 90% of the country attacking you want to kill you and your families, what is so wrong about you using WMD as long as it does not affect neighbouring countries?

Tattered Image (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993412)

"scrambling to report on what could be a devastating blow to the US Armed Forces' already tattered image."

Am I the only who didn't think the first release left the US Armed Forces with a tattered image? These are huge volumes of reports from the US Armed forces about the actions of the US Armed Forces (good, bad, etc) the fact that all actions of the armed forces are so carefully logged leads me to believe that despite issues and anecdotes the US Armed Forces are actually pretty damn professional... Top level officials not wanting these documents publicly released is unfortunate but the fact that these documents even exist is a testament to professionalism on the part of the Armed Forces.

Re:Tattered Image (5, Insightful)

BLKMGK (34057) | about 4 years ago | (#33993450)

After seeing the gunship video they presented... and then later the way it was torn apart by others examining the film I no longer get too worked up over anything Wikileaks has to say. It's sad really but they will do just about anything they can to skew what they present :-(

Just us, or ... (2, Interesting)

Yehooti (816574) | about 4 years ago | (#33993422)

I'm curious why we've not seen any releases of Russian actions in Chechnya, by these folks.

Re:Just us, or ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993520)

Maybe no one leaked it. It's not like htey have access to all hte scret documents in the world.

Re:Just us, or ... (0, Troll)

cosm (1072588) | about 4 years ago | (#33993530)

In Soviet Chechnya, documents leak you!

Re:Just us, or ... (1)

angus77 (1520151) | about 4 years ago | (#33993540)

They can only release what they have. Do you have reason to believe they have such documents in the first place?

Re:Just us, or ... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993660)

Do you have reason to believe they have such documents in the first place?

Unlikely. It's a rhetorical question as the obvious answers are... obvious.

A. It is intended to make you think that maybe WikiLeaks has something against the Western world.. or at least against the U.S.
B. It is intended to make you remember that other countries do atrocious things, too.. thus on some level, to some people, mitigating the fact that `we're` doing so now.
C. It is intended as a troll to invite such east vs west, Russia vs U.S., U.S. vs the world, etc. debates that serve only to muddy the waters.
D. any combination of the above.

Move along, nothing to see here but flamebait.

Re:Just us, or ... (5, Insightful)

sammyF70 (1154563) | about 4 years ago | (#33993552)

Just a thought, but could it be that Wikileaks never received any classified informations about it? I'm sure they would be happy to release them if you have anything that can be verified to an extent. Those "why don't they have something about ..." commententors seem to be oblivious of the fact that leaks don't appear out of thin air.

Re:Just us, or ... (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33993580)

I'm curious why we've not seen any releases of Russian actions in Chechnya, by these folks.

Three reasons, I believe:

  1. Less record keeping in the first place.
  2. The Russians didn't have Mickey Mouse designing the security for their secret documents, with any single persons having unsupervised access.
  3. It's less interesting; the Russians probably don't have more than 2/3 of all fatalities being civilians and more people killed by friendly fire than by enemies. And they haven't made any claims to being a beacon of freedom and justice.

Re:Just us, or ... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993790)

You forgot a reason:

The Russian people know exactly what would happen to anyone foolish enough to leak a massive quantity of secret documents.

Re:Just us, or ... (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33993810)

Its almost impossible to steal a comparable quantity of non-electronic information. You would be at the photocopier for days. Somebody would notice. If films existed you would not have enough access to make usable copies.

Re:Just us, or ... (4, Insightful)

alvinrod (889928) | about 4 years ago | (#33993582)

Probably because they don't have any documents pertaining to Russian actions in Chechnya. This is a group that leaked a list of their own contributors [wired.com] so it's not as though they're opposed to releasing the information for some reason. I imagine if they had something that they felt was reliable they'd release it.

Re:Just us, or ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993620)

Very salient point...makes things seem a bit skewed

Re:Just us, or ... (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 4 years ago | (#33993732)

Guess they "Russians" didnt have a trader like us in the USA to give him any information.

Re:Just us, or ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993838)

What did the "trader" receive for this information? A lengthy prison sentence in the near future? Sounds like he was a bad "trader." You are a terrible troll. You should know most likely Russians do not keep records of how many civilians they killed, cause guess what? They don't give a fuck! Fact there was no major leak says a lot more about Russia than you realize.

Re:Just us, or ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993736)

For one thing, that kind of behavior is expected from the Russians, so it wouldn't be news. The US was supposed to be the last refuge from this sort of thing.

Some are guilty, but all are responsible. (4, Insightful)

tumbaumba (547886) | about 4 years ago | (#33993428)

As some one said "all are guilty, but all are responsible". I am ashamed and feel complicit in that which enables our fellow human beens do great evil to each other and yet find some solace that they are those who are willing to risk their lives to expose lies fed to us all by the US government. Kudos to WikiLeaks for doing what they do.

The Pentagon would say mass (4, Informative)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | about 4 years ago | (#33993458)

> The Pentagon maintained that releasing these documents represented a danger to US troops

Yeh, but the last time they said that, they lied:

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/10/17/170227 [slashdot.org]

Re:The Pentagon would say mass (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993598)

Lie or found new information that contradicted their earlier thoughts?

When you state something that is breaking news and then find information that doesn't back up your original statement, do you then change your original statement or continue with that line of thought. It would have been worst if the DoD found this new information and continued stating that the original leak led to deaths.

Re:The Pentagon would say mass (4, Insightful)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33993644)

And this time, all names (except for well-known and obviously non-secret names like names of commanders) have been removed.

It's still going to be a game of blaming the messenger, and very little focus on the atrocities that the mercenaries have wrought.

Re:The Pentagon would say mass (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993850)

The Pentagon sent our soldiers to serve as show-and-tell props for the biggest terrorist recruiting center and training camp the world has ever seen. But Wikileaks is endangering them?

nothing's going to happen (5, Insightful)

heptapod (243146) | about 4 years ago | (#33993498)

Wikileaks released 400,000 more dox that will shake the very foundations upon which the Middle East War rests upon and the news organizations will just sit around masturbating over "Was this ethical? Are people really endangered? What does this mean in regards to bloggers vs. journalists" but never looking at a single document or citing it for the sake of delivering news instead of the storyline which has been perpetuated for the last ten years.

The Dead Want Justice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993508)

The Pentagon says releasing the documents will endanger US forces, I believe that it will because those families/clans that had some of their members killed for no reason will want retribution and I can clearly unmderstand them wanting the US military to pay (in lives) for killing their loved ones!

Facebook Censoring Torrent Link (3, Interesting)

skinlayers (621258) | about 4 years ago | (#33993626)

I just tried to post the link to the torrent on my facebook, and got this:

This message contains blocked content that has previously been flagged as abusive or spammy. Let us know if you think this is an error.

Hmmmm... the link hasn't even been up that long, has it? Me thinks Zuckerberg and company are staying on Uncle Sam's friendly side...

Re:Facebook Censoring Torrent Link (4, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 4 years ago | (#33993670)

Me thinks Zuckerberg and company are staying on Uncle Sam's friendly side...

Or maybe it's a general block on that kind of file type?

Re:Facebook Censoring Torrent Link (4, Informative)

skinlayers (621258) | about 4 years ago | (#33993696)

Ahhh! Good point. I just tested it with another random link from TPB and got the same thing. Its still censorship, just of a more generalize kind. ;)

Re:Facebook Censoring Torrent Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993710)

just use bit.ly man

Re:Facebook Censoring Torrent Link (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 4 years ago | (#33993822)

Yeah at least the Libyans are trustworthy.

Re:Facebook Censoring Torrent Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993682)

Are they blocking links from TPB in general?

Re:Facebook Censoring Torrent Link (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993702)

Have you tried posting it as a bit.ly or tinyurl link? That might be enough to get around the filter, though I suppose it could get you banned if Facebook is indeed hiding it out of "national security" concerns.

Re:Facebook Censoring Torrent Link (2, Interesting)

Animaether (411575) | about 4 years ago | (#33993746)

Are you sure it's Facebook-the-company doing this, and not Facebook-the-social-community-site with plenty of people who disagree with WikiLeaks' publishing of these documents who can hit a "flag this message as ..." button?

Re:Facebook Censoring Torrent Link (1)

Criminally Insane Ro (982870) | about 4 years ago | (#33993784)

they probably just censor all pirate bay torrent links

Re:Facebook Censoring Torrent Link (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | about 4 years ago | (#33993834)

I just tried the same not very long ago, facebook blocked the link but didn't black the link to slashdot w/ the article and the link.

Re:Facebook Censoring Torrent Link (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about 4 years ago | (#33993856)

Or they have an automated system that blocks links that enough people have previously flagged as abusive or spam. Maybe you should let them know, as you seem to think it's in error.

If Obama wasn't such a coward... (-1, Flamebait)

scottbomb (1290580) | about 4 years ago | (#33993638)

...the scumbag behind wikileaks would be behind bars. Before you say he's immune because he's hiding in Sweden, read this: http://opiniojuris.org/2010/08/21/can-the-us-prosecute-wikileaks-founder-sure-if-they-can-catch-him/ [opiniojuris.org]

Re:If Obama wasn't such a coward... (3, Insightful)

skinlayers (621258) | about 4 years ago | (#33993680)

If Obama wasn't such a coward, the last president would be behind bars (along with most of his cronies), we'd have single-payer-for-all health care, and Wall Street would actually be held responsible for treating the economy the way Michael Vic treats dogs....
FTFY

Re:If Obama wasn't such a coward... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993744)

Holy shit, just kill yourself.

Re:If Obama wasn't such a coward... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993740)

Fuck you. You are a piece of brain washed shit. People like you with their moral superiority think you can justify savage acts of brutality in the name of security without even realizing that you're the bad guys. I know you don't get it, but this guy is a hero who has publically exposed the criminal acts we all knew existed, but ignored because of the entitled smugness that has infected our society. I find it sick that you're outraged someone released documents detailing war crimes that led to HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of deaths and yet somehow ignore the mass scale murders committed to liberate the Iraqi people from a dictator WE put in power. Eat shit maggot, it's easier than opening your eyes and realizing you're a fucked up twisted evil worshiping sheep.

Re:If Obama wasn't such a coward... (1)

scottbomb (1290580) | about 4 years ago | (#33993890)

A typical Obamaphile liberal argument. Nevermind substance, nevermind facts, just call names and throw poo. How old are you, six?

Re:If Obama wasn't such a coward... (4, Insightful)

Omnifarious (11933) | about 4 years ago | (#33993816)

If Obama wasn't such a coward, Guantanamo Bay would be closed, habeas corpus would be restored, our former president his vice president, and a few other select members of his cabinet would be behind bars, and the people responsible for the economic meltdown would either be up on fraud charges, no longer running their companies, or the heads of bankrupt companies.

Re:If Obama wasn't such a coward... (1)

arth1 (260657) | about 4 years ago | (#33993848)

Why is he a scumbag?
The FUD story about the earlier disclosure causing grief for named people turned out to be false.

So what's left?
He's a scumbag for making the US government lose face?
He's a scumbag for exposing that the US government leaks secret documents and clearly can't be trusted by our allies?
He's a scumbag for being the messenger of bad news?

sick of american dissolution,rise of selfishness (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993722)

People who are all for releasing these documents only have the foresight until their next bm. If you think putting hundreds, thousands of peoples lives at stake because of your own skewed sense if curiosity and lack of geo political understanding will be the eventual fall of a once great nation. No matter what I say, you will continue to believe ' change is what we need' will be blindsided by what's about to land in your front door.

what goes around, comes around (5, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 4 years ago | (#33993770)

many of us think this is a key point in history where freedom is clashing with government invasion of privacy. we see escalating levels of snooping on the part of 'the officials' and the people are forced to endure this treatment under the guise of 'making us safer'. we know its not for that purpose but we are told we have to give up our privacy to the government.

well, wikileaks is giving them a taste of their own medicine. not for that reason primarily, I don't think, but its in there to some extent.

its a statement of: if you are going to dish it out, you BETTER be ready to take it.

the governments (all over the world) are trying to limit free speech (the internet) and seem to have fallen in love with keeping detailed data on all its citizens. they want a one-sided arrangement.

its not fair but there was nothing the little guy can do, no matter which country you are in. (name one that is really 'free' these days. please.)

wiki is sort of a dose of 'fuck you right back'. again, even if not fully intended, it kind of comes off that way.

sort of like a big bully getting a dose of medicine.

Re:what goes around, comes around (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 4 years ago | (#33993804)

sorry, short post-script to add. the US is claiming that by releasing this info, its 'putting lives at risk'. that's a value judgement; it certainly is. and yet, how is invading the privacy of your citizens any less of a crime? perhaps due to widespread abuse in government wiretapping, it has already costed lives, directly or indirectly. civilian lives! US civilian lives!

who's to say which 'evil' is worse: the US 'starting this whole thing' with the escalation on the war on privacy or wiki who is playing tit for tat? who is ruining more lives? who is more reckless? who is out for the stronger power-grab?

I'll go one better. I'll use a line that the US loves to use: if the US military has nothing to hide, they should have nothing to worry about if we 'look around' a bit to check for ourselves. don't want us looking? why? did you do something wrong or something you are ashamed of?

works both ways.

restated: karma's a bitch.

Pandora's Box (1)

guyminuslife (1349809) | about 4 years ago | (#33993836)

I don't really think that the US military will be able to stop leaks, Wikileaks itself could go under but the underlying mechanisms might simply grow more sophisticated. The people who leak this information are not enemies or "unpatriotic"---if they were, the more effective way to use sensitive information would be to surreptitiously hand it over to Iran/"insurgents"/whoever, like an old-school spy might. Publicizing classified information is more or less a call for transparency. Maybe the military needs to recognize that it needs to have a greater degree of transparency, or transparency will be imposed on it.

Wikileaks should win the Nobel Peace Prize (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#33993914)

At least the money would be very welcomed, since it seems no corporation wants fund such organization.

And, of course, it would be fun to see they winning the same prize Obama won a few years ago.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?