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!

Leaked Doc May Have Forced US To Speed Up Bin Laden Raid

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the friday's-out-how-about-tuesday? dept.

Government 632

cf18 writes "Wikileaks released a set of leaked Guantanamo prisoner files to the public last week. Among them is a document dated from 2008, which mentioned both Osama's trusted courier's name and Abbottabad, the city in which Osama had been hiding. There are speculations that, fearing al-Qaida realized their courier may have been tracked and move Osama, the US administration accelerated their plan and attacked the target site over the weekend. This link highlights the relevant section of the document."

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

niggers man (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017342)

niggers

Re:niggers man (-1, Troll)

zoomshorts (137587) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017644)

precisely

Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017350)

For every improperly classified document they release, they're releasing thousands of things that should be kept secret.

They aren't competent to do what they are doing, and we're not safe as long as they are making these mistakes.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (5, Insightful)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017360)

Indeed, it would be better to live in perpetual ignorance. We can trust the Government and Corporations to rule us fairly.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (4, Insightful)

hinesbrad (1923872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017410)

I sorta feel like The government is stuffing me from behind and corporate America is forcing my throat by grabbing my ears. All I know for sure is I'm getting screwed and the two seem to be tag teaming me!

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (4, Funny)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017820)

At least big media gives you the reach around!

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1)

hinesbrad (1923872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017850)

But then spits on you with commercials.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (-1, Flamebait)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017436)

No, it would be better to live in a representative democracy with checks, balances and a centuries-long tradition of government accountability, the rule of law, freedom of the press, and the accumulated cultural wisdom of all citizens which allows them to know when to publish a leaked document to expose corruption and when to sit on it. Oh wait, that's what we've got.

I understand that from much of Europe and Asia, "democracy" "freedom" and "accountability" are just words, but here in America, we've had it going in more or less working order for several hundred years, and when we grumble about idiots like Assange and Manning making trouble, we generally tend to know what we're talking about.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017564)

Wow. Get the blinders off man. The government in the US is a collossal failure and the US is far, far from its roots as a "free" society. Of all industrialized societies, I'd argue that its the US where words like freedom and liberty have lost all meaning.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (0, Troll)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017626)

Please state your country and city of residence, your age, whether you have lived in the US for an extended period of time if you are not American, and how exactly you arrive your assessment that those words have no meaning here. And please hold all incoherent rants about the TSA, Gitmo, and black helicopters to yourself.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017712)

USA, Seattle, 33, yes.

Yes, if we discount things like ex-judicial detainment in gitmo as an inconvenient counterargument to rule of law and politicians calling for the summary execution of a non-American for treason for publishing as an inconvenient counterargument for freedom of the press, then yes, the USA is a shining example of a democracy.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017760)

Seattle?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017716)

Please state your country and city of residence, your age, whether you have lived in the US for an extended period of time if you are not American, and how exactly you arrive your assessment that those words have no meaning here. And please hold all incoherent rants about the TSA, Gitmo, and black helicopters to yourself.

Kansas City, KS, USA
39 years old
Born in The USA

THE USA is a Corporatism State

And you are a "Rightwing" nutjob

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (2)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017786)

"We have met the enemy, and they is us."
- Pogo
- Walt Kelley

Shut up and vote, or bitch and moan and remove all doubt about how it got this way.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017752)

Representative democracy requires informed voters to be truly functional and not just a facade for a ruling class. The balance of secrecy works the same as all other balances. It doesn't hover in a perfect middle. It pendulums between two sides with an average hopefully near the middle. Without Wikileaks and others like them there would be nothing to balance the over correction into government secrecy after 9/11. The counterweight used to be the traditional press but they got lost chasing profit with water skiing squirrels and drugged up celebrities.

No, wikileaks may not know when to sit on info ... (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017874)

... the accumulated cultural wisdom of all citizens which allows them to know when to publish a leaked document to expose corruption and when to sit on it. Oh wait, that's what we've got.

No. **If** wikileaks actually did release info related to Abbottabad then we *do not* have the component where people have the wisdom to know when to not release the info, the wisdom to sit on it as you say.

Wikileaks may be as unskilled as the government with respect to classifying info. They merely may be erring on the opposite end of the spectrum and letting too much out. Wikileaks is a bit like a vigilante organization and our "accumulated cultural wisdom" say that courts and the rule of law (logic) are better than vigilantes (emotion).

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (2)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017948)

I'm sorry, where have you been the past decades? The US you describe might have existed a while ago, but I'm not old enough to remember it.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017556)

Osama was allowed to keep his life secret. You may believe all secrets are bad, Microlith (if that is your real name) but Wikileaks doesn't fix that - it's too random.

Any problem with trusting the government or other organizations comes from a lack of willingness to engage with them. It's not that we don't know what our government is up to, it's that we'd rather just stand on the sidelines shouting about how evil they are than get our hands dirty, get involved with actual decision making and risk making our own mistakes. It's not a question of trust - if you want to have influence, you have to get involved.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (3, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017764)

You would rather Osama get away to lead more terrorist attacks than that you not know the name of his courier?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (2, Insightful)

gordo3000 (785698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017878)

no, it would be better when national security is at risk that wikileaks grows up and realizes they are endangering lives, and lots of them, by their wanton approach. This isn't a reputable newspaper that tries to make sure they don't cause people to get killed by releasing information, and I'm not talking about the stupid idea of hiding the info because it's unpleasant.

For all we know, we had been using this information to intercept plans and derail them for several years and now with the document out, we had to kill the golden goose of knowing where the enemy leadership was and how they communicated.

and who said this had anything to do with corporations?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017372)

For every improperly classified document they release, they're releasing thousands of things that should be kept secret.

They aren't competent to do what they are doing, and we're not safe as long as they are making these mistakes.

And apparently the US government isn't competent to be having secrets, if they can't be kept secret. We're not safe as long as they are making these mistakes.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017384)

Didn't wikileaks give the government a preview of things they were going to release? The government could have seen it coming and either asked wikileaks not to release that one, or they could have moved up the timetable to before the release.

Correct me if I'm wrong though, it's been a while since I've looked at wikileaks =)

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017810)

The government pretty sternly told Wikileaks not to release any of them, and why.

Wikileaks ignored them.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (5, Insightful)

Beerdood (1451859) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017408)

Perhaps you mean something more on the lines of :

For every 1000 documents of embarrassing diplomatic relations, corporate malevolence, and government secrets, perhaps one or two get out that should have been kept secret. What's that official death count from all those leaked afghan cables? Zero? One?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017516)

What's that official death count from all those leaked afghan cables? Zero? One?

Well, if you do attribute the raid on Osama as a reaction to Wikileaks then the number would be "several", albeit the "bad guys"

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017532)

Actually, Wikileaks appears to have played a large part in stirring the uprising in Tunisia (cables about corruption), and consequently Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen, Syria and Libya...

So back to that death count...

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017828)

If Wikileaks knew the difference between legal secrets and illegal ones, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (4, Insightful)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017864)

Empowering people to start revolt isn't blood on the hands of Wikileaks, but blood on the hands of the corrupt governments oppressing their people. Now, if Wikileaks named an informant who was executed for it, then Wikileaks deserves the blame for that. But starting revolutions that result in dead people in the attempts to overthrow corrupt and oppressive governments? That's not a problem. That's a good thing.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (3, Insightful)

theArtificial (613980) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017956)

You may have a point if the parent is referring to all of the leaked cables. For what it's worth the grand parent was specific:

What's that official death count from all those leaked afghan cables? Zero? One?

Actually, Wikileaks appears to have played a large part in stirring the uprising in Tunisia (cables about corruption), and consequently Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen, Syria and Libya...

So back to that death count...

It appears the Governments there made their own mess. You discount the oppressive people/governments who actually are responsible for their actions thus far. Go back to bed Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen, Syria and Libya.

So about that blaming the victims, not the perpetrators...

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (5, Informative)

Red Jesus (962106) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017420)

The interrogation file was dated "10 September 2008." Is someone seriously claiming that the military was willing to wait more than two years to conduct the attack but then had to rush things by a couple of weeks because of this leak?

WikiLeaks released the report last week, prompting speculation that the US, afraid that its planned raid might be pre-empted, brought forward its attack.

Apparently so. We have an article using the passive voice to indicate that someone somewhere is speculating that the military did in fact cut a two-and-a-half year delay down to just 2.5 years minus a week or two because they were worried about the consequences of this leak.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017544)

Thats right! Becuase Abbottbad is a town with only two compunds and they had to work out which one he was in....
Or they could have nuked the whole area, that would have shortened the preparation time.
Or they could have simultaneously raided every house in the town!

Confirmation, that takes time, who needs confirmation.

If my sarcasm wasn't dripping enough, they know what town he was in, not what compound he was in, nor did they have confirmation back in 2008. This is all just speculation mind you....

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (2, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017886)

The article is balls.

But the concept is valid.

If Osama knew that the name of this courier was known to al Quaeda's enemies, Osama could have stopped using him and prevented us from following him back. Or simply had him killed to prevent any chance of a linkage. Or determined how he was revealed and killed someone else for it.

Keeping secrets about the enemy keeps your people safe and keeps the enemy's status stable so you can find him and destroy him.

But if Julian Assange feels it's right to reveal these secrets in order that we find out what Hillary Clinton said about Nasser's nose-picking, well, then, let Osama go.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (5, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#36018004)

It's a guys name, you seriously think based on a single couriers name they can determine exactly where Osama is?

Or are you thinking they'll magically know in 2008 where Osama is because five years earlier some other guy moved to Abbottabad for a year? Clearly Osama must be in that town in a building that didn't even exist when the detainee in question lived there.

The name is what is important. They were clearly tracking the courier mention (given he was there when they raided), if Osama find out that you know about the guy he has moving in and out of his hiding place he's going assume you are at least close to working it out and so move ASAP and get another courier. He survived for almost 10 years with the world's largest military after him and a $25 million bounty on his head - he had to be paranoid...

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017448)

I call this bullshit, unless the US Government is lieing to us about only receiving credible information in August 2010.

And that is where the value of Wikileaks is best: the leaked documents enable us to see what the Government is doing/knowing and to question it when it makes statements such as not having any information on his whereabouts until August 2010. Now if it really is the case that the CIA didn't have any clues about his whereabouts until last year, then WHAT THE FUCK were they doing between 2008 and 2010? Just ignoring all of the information from Guantanamo? Or did it take them 2 years to dig through the information gleaned from Guantanamo to find that little bit and turn it into the raid on Sunday?

Wikileaks is providing is with a much better insight into how the US Government works (or fails to work) than we could ever have hoped for.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (5, Insightful)

mpoulton (689851) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017458)

For every improperly classified document they release, they're releasing thousands of things that should be kept secret.

They aren't competent to do what they are doing, and we're not safe as long as they are making these mistakes.

We're not safe as long as the government is improperly hiding vast amounts of information, either. The most practical solution would be for the government to adopt a trustworthy approach to secrecy and build the public's confidence in their honesty. If the people could reasonably trust that classified information legitimately needed to be kept secret and was not just hiding misdeeds, there would be no need for Wikileaks and no demand for the revelation of any classified documents. Until then, Wikileaks serves a need.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017958)

>If the people could reasonably trust that classified information legitimately needed to be kept secret and was not just hiding misdeeds

The people do reasonably trust that. And there's a process for declassifying improperly classified material. The same Executive Order that gives people the authority to classify things spells out that process and that it must be applied to improperly classified material. Manning was certainly trained to know that; it's part of the briefing given to everyone who receives a clearance. But, being a dunce and a twit, he probably forgot. Wikileaks either didn't know or didn't care.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017462)

Sounds to me like Wikileaks kept us from sitting on our ass and doing nothing despite our intelligence, like what happened in Tora Bora.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017954)

Sounds to me like Wikileaks kept us from sitting on our ass and doing nothing despite our intelligence, like what happened in Tora Bora.

No. What happened at Tora Bora is that we trusted our allies.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1, Insightful)

vijayiyer (728590) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017500)

Exactly.
We will never know how many people were figured out and executed or worse. Worse yet is the impact to our ability to gather human intelligence.
People on Slashdot live in basements. The real world isn't all about free information. Secrets won World War II for the Allies.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (3, Insightful)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017586)

What do you mean we will never know? Why would the military hide information that would turn public opinion against wikileaks? You don't seem to understand the politics of the situation very well if you think the military -- enemy of wikileaks -- would protect wikileaks by hiding information about deaths caused by wikileaks.

Gee, Robert Gates doesn't agree with you [cnn.com] . ([more analysis [salon.com] ]).

You've also failed to point out the fact that the main *innocent* people who die are not our Afghani sympathizers, but american soldiers and Afghan civilians. Want to save american lives? Get the fuck out of afghanistan. It's over.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1)

Fallen Kell (165468) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017618)

Well, that and the lack there of for the Axis powers (with both the German and Japanese encryption code ciphers being broken by US/UK mathematicians).

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017670)

The implication is that Obama knew where Osama was in 2008 or slightly later, but did nothing until his Campaign 2012 poster child was about to escape.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017798)

The USA has apparently known for 3 years where he is without acting. That's not a mistake. That's gross negligence. Forcing the US's hand in acting on this old information was a good thing, not a bad thing.

As long as governments are lying and hiding things from their people, we need someone watching the watchers. Or are you asserting that our safety is more important than our liberty? If so, then I'd need to quote an oft quoted quote that is rarely heeded.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1)

neo8750 (566137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017916)

The argument here is had they not released said wire would we have gotten Bin Laden?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017926)

We live in a world where you can neither trust the government to protect your interests, nor can you trust the economy to treat you fairly. Personally, I consider speeding up a military operation a very minimal price to pay to at least retain SOME freedom.

To be blunt, whether they kill Bin Laden or not doesn't change jack. There's already a new top terrorist taking over. Probably he's been the operative head for a long time now anyway. Even if the leak would have foiled that attack, it would not have changed a single thing.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing? (1)

mywhitewolf (1923488) | more than 3 years ago | (#36018016)

I don't see how you think that an Someone who isn't American has some sort of patriotic duty to keep American secrets safe? Your beef is with manning, not Assange, Assange is just a journalist doing what journalists do. or do you think Assange should have kept the secrets safe and sold them off to the highest bidder? Just be thankful that you got to see the content as well, not just china's intelligence agency.

So that's why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017362)

So that's why a soldier who leaks classified information is jailed as a traitor.

Re:So that's why... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017432)

A traitor to Al Qaeda for provoking the US government into killing UBL quickly, you mean? I'm confused. How does this betray US interests?

Re:So that's why... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017542)

It means that the president couldn't hold off on the raid until it was most politically expedient for him to execute it (most likely shortly before elections). That betrays America's interests.

Re:So that's why... (1)

Brucelet (1857158) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017668)

Are you saying you don't see how it betrays US interests to release information that could have tipped bin Laden off about the attack? The fact that the operation was successful doesn't automatically mean forcing the president's hand was a good thing.

Of course, for all we know they might have been planning the attack for this weekend anyway. Either way, it's insane to say that provoking the military to attack before they're ready doesn't betray US interests.

Re:So that's why... (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017794)

I have zero respect for "forcing the gov's hand".

I posted a submission that hasn't been approved yet that Pakistan (and others?) were doing a masterful job of hiding him while sorta pretending to be our friends. This says that if *everybody* involved really wanted him dead, he would have been in short order. Instead, we got our ten year spree of 1984 using this as bait to "stay the course".

"Hai. $100 Million to anyone who hands Osama personally into US forces."

Re:So that's why... (1)

hinesbrad (1923872) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017434)

Or the savior of American democracy. I suppose one mans defector is another mans freedom fighter.

Re:So that's why... (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017792)

If you're referring to Manning, they didn't charge him as a traitor. It's a harder case to make, and it carries a much higher penalty than what he was charged with.

Re:So that's why... (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017952)

And why the soldier who keeps his mouth shut at all times is a True Patriot(TM).

sorry ... what?! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017370)

So what's the argument here? That wikileaks got the government to actually get around to going after the most wanted man in the world? HBGary? Is that you?

Re:sorry ... what?! (2)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017528)

So what's the argument here? That wikileaks got the government to actually get around to going after the most wanted man in the world? HBGary? Is that you?

To play devils advocate here, there may have been indications that Bin Laden *may* be hiding there. But the US Govt might have wanted to have firmer intel on that before sending DEVGRU a 100 miles into Pakistan, wikileaks may have forced them to act on not solid intel. If Bin Laden hadn't been there, wikileaks would have caused a nice win for OBL.

Re:sorry ... what?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017706)

... If Bin Laden hadn't been there, wikileaks would have caused a nice win for OBL.

The move was a no brainer. If OBL was there (as he was) then, "We got our man". If not then "we had to move now, even if we weren't sure, because wikileaks told everyone what we knew".

Re:sorry ... what?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017986)

To play devil's advocate here: they may have had very solid intel but been waiting to execute the mission for greatest political gain. Wikileaks may have forced them to act at a time less beneficial to them but they're seizing the opportunity to bash Wikileaks some more, knowing that some people will be swayed.

Speculation is fun, isn't it?

Re:sorry ... what?! (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36018008)

But that's a difficult story to swallow. What was our government doing in the 3-6 years that it had this information? Why did Bush end the hunt for bin Laden 3 years ago?

Re:sorry ... what?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017704)

Uhh, I think the argument is that Wikileaks, while useful for helping keep some government functions in check, did not do a very good job of scrubbing their releases of identifying information. This raid could have easily gone a different direction, with OBL having moved locations because of the Wikileaks information and DEVGRU finding nothing except a large ticking bomb.

Where do you draw the line between responsible release of information and reckless disclosure of information?

If Wikileaks released your personal information with address and CC info, would you still support them? What if they merely released data that (unjustly) implicated you in assisting Terrorists? And what if you then lost your job? Could you sue Wikileaks? If not, then what will keep WIkileaks in check?

Re:sorry ... what?! (1)

Spazmania (174582) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017710)

The argument is that if Bin Laden's folks had been more on the ball, Assange's indiscriminate leak would have cost us the opportunity to end Bin Laden.

Re:sorry ... what?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017782)

Speaking of being on the ball, uhhhh... 2008? Time to execute mission: 3 years.

Re:sorry ... what?! (1)

osu-neko (2604) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017920)

So what's the argument here?

There isn't one, save whatever argument you yourself would like to make, based on the facts as reported. Facts do not, in and of themselves, form an argument, although you can tell a person's biases by their tendency to see certain facts as making an argument when they're just facts. The more biased they are, the more likely they are to perceive bias and an implied argument in an unbiased presentation of facts. This reached its most amusing heights on /. recently when people objected strenuously whenever the media did something as simple as make an unquestionably factual statement of objectively measurable facts about current radiation levels around a certain nuclear plant.

So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him"? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017412)

If we are so far reaching to say that "Obama got him", can't we just go one more step and say "Wikileaks got him"? Therefore Bradley Manning is a hero!

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017446)

Last I checked, Obama is CiC so he is the one who gave the word. Manning on the other hand is a traitor and should be hung.

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017632)

it's hanged, retard

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017814)

*sigh*

define: hung [lmgtfy.com]

STFU

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017652)

Can you back that up with anything more than "He showed that the government is doing illegal things and did the right things and reported it to anyone that would inform the taxpayers what their money is used for."?

The government works for the people, those who tries to hide information from the people are the only ones that can be called traitors.

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017638)

Actually it was Bush that deserves the credit for waterboarding the guy who gave up the information in the first place.

I wonder how barbaric Barry thinks waterboarding is now since it may just save his rather unstable presidency and is a proven tool in breaking terrorism.

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him (4, Interesting)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017774)

Except that waterboarding gave us nothing, and it was the tried and true non-coercive interrogation methods that provided us with that information, contrary to what Fox News would have you believe.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/the-republican-spin.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+andrewsullivan/rApM+(The+Daily+Dish) [thedailybeast.com]

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him (1)

Lysander7 (2085382) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017642)

Don't be an idiot.

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017682)

If you want to go that far, then you can say "enhanced interrogation" of al-Libi and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that got him, since that is where the info in the Wikileaks documents came from. Here is the link to ABC News [go.com]

The raid was postponed, not accelerated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017470)

The said document was planted and leaked to Wikileaks by the US government so it could use the said document against Julian Assange and Wikileaks and claim that the Wikileaks disclosure of the said document jeopardized the raid plan. The truth is the raid plan had been made 4 weeks before the said document was leaked to Wikileaks and the raid had to be postponed by one day, they planned to raid Osama's hideout on April 31 because that's also the day when Hitler committed suicide 66 years ago.

"There are speculations..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017480)

All the folks afraid of wikileaks are right - if something something then maybe something something and then maybe Bin Laden would still be alive. Scary.

Sept 2008 document (3, Informative)

Beerdood (1451859) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017540)

So uh, why did it take so long to plan an attack if they had a lead for more than 2 years? That's only the age of the document as well, the guy in question here (Libi) was captured way back in 2005.

Re:Sept 2008 document (1)

BlindingSpeed (722136) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017604)

Right. I also wonder when it became known that the courier moved his family to Abbottabad in 2003.

Re:Sept 2008 document (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017690)

You know its not a game, right? They just don't find a document from one guy and then go kill people.

Re:Sept 2008 document (2)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017808)

It is on Slashdot. After all they believe in Kill them all and let God sort them all then blame it on Bush! As I have gotten older I have discovered that you can never go wrong second guessing. That way you can never be proven wrong.

Re:Sept 2008 document (5, Insightful)

Brucelet (1857158) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017728)

"A courier moved to Abbottabad" is a far cry from "Osama is at 101 Terrorist Way, Abbottabad, and we're confident enough that he'll be there and that we can take him down that we're willing to risk going through with the operation even though he might escape and Pakistan might get annoyed that we violated their sovereignty". Getting from point A to point B takes a little while.

2003 huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017570)

So the government knew from 2003 the approximate whereabouts of Osama and did nothing till 2011. What a charade.

Imageine that (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017584)

Forced military action in response to actionable intelligence being outed to the media? Info leak prompts active policy change? Say it ain't so!

Would the US have sat on it had Wikileaks NOT put it into the publics eye? It wouldn't be the first time they've sat on actionable intel... (referring to 'Bin Laden' at tora-bora and how spec-ops had his location in eye-sight, yet no one up the chain oh' command would make the call... )

Thanks WikiLeaks! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017596)

If WikiLeaks hadn't forced the US government to accelerate their plans, they may have stalled long enough for Osama to move to a new location. Why, if it weren't for WikiLeaks, the completely successful raid which was executed with zero US casualties might not have happened at all! We should all take a moment to thank Julian Assange and the rest of the people responsible for WikiLeaks for their part in helping take down bin Laden.

Isn't WL supposed to redact.... (1)

Radical Moderate (563286) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017610)

sensitive--as opposed to embarrassing-- information? How could they not figure out the name of OBL's courier and his location shouldn't be public knowledge?

Re:Isn't WL supposed to redact.... (1)

MahJongKong (883108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017776)

Well that's a common criticism. However there will always be free speech zealots (and I'm not saying censorship is a good thing)

Re:Isn't WL supposed to redact.... (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017846)

Because they're not intelligence analysts - or at least, they're not interested in really clearing these things up. It's remarkable how much information can be gleaned from ostensibly innocuous sources - one example would be discerning the movement of troop trains in WW2 by alterations to the civilian schedules (although I really can't remember whether I saw that in truth or fiction).

Nope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017630)

SEALS were practising before that, and it was suspected/known in March where he was. This is complete speculation on the Brit press. Wikileaks does not have that kind of power, ever.

Bin Laden (1)

metalmaster (1005171) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017640)

Im curious to know whether he is/was still relevant. In the NBC broadcast the anchor said something like many al-queda soldiers dont even know who Bin Laden is. I understand that they fight for a cause, rather than fighting for a commander. So.....was the raid on Bin Laden really that important? Revenge and icing on the cake for Obama?

Im all for being Patriotic, but if he's not calling any shots how is he a threat? Even if he was still relevant, shouldnt we be looking for his replacement now?

Re:Bin Laden (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017854)

Many al Qaeda soldiers have no idea who bin Laden is? If you believe then perhaps you'd be interested in this bridge I have for sale.

I've no idea whether bin Laden was relevant any more, no one really knows that, but that anchor who said these al Qaeda recruits have never heard of him has to be an idiot.

Keep your enemy closer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017646)

There is much more you can learn about the terror network by watching and intercepting the information as it flows to/from its leadership than you can by simply killing the leader.

What if they had the house bugged? Or the carrier was passing information to US intelligence?

Having knowledge that wikileaks is going to release that you know where the leader is serves no purpose other than to 'force the hand' and put US military and civilian intelligence men/women in danger.

Sure they have disk drives, but that takes further deciphering and could take months/years to figure out.

I hope... (2)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017680)

I hope it isn't true, but I really hope that our elected government weren't waiting to do this at a more convenient time... like election time.

If that's the case, I really am glad that WikiLeaks may have fast-tracked this operation.

Re:I hope... (1)

guspasho (941623) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017870)

> I hope it isn't true, but I really hope that our elected government weren't waiting to do this at a more convenient time... like election time.

Or for some reason wasn't interested in doing it all, which is kind of what it sounded like the first time I heard about it.

The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017714)

So if the first kill from Wikileaks is OBL, shouldn't we be giving them a medal, rather than complaining about them?

Apparently, the US knew where he was for the past 3 years and did nothing until Wikileaks pointed out we knew something about someone who may know something. Where's the line between cautious and negligent? Or have we been tracking him accurately for that long without his knowledge and using that knowledge to dismantle the organization? Though if we were doing that with any efficiency, we should have had much better results than we have had so far.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017824)

The people who originally had the document and the people who made the kill are both the US Military, right? Wikileaks didn't help at all, then.

If I'm wrong and a leak from Wikileaks actually led to finding bin Laden, I'm willing to change my position and say they should be hailed.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017980)

The people who originally had the document and the people who made the kill are both the US Military, right? Wikileaks didn't help at all, then.

The news report was that the military knew where he was and, for whatever reason, hadn't acted yet. But, after notification that their link that lead to his location was compromised, the time table was moved up. Without knowing when it was moved from and what would have happened, it's possible that Osama would have moved before the attack (as has happened before when we had confirmed knowledge of his location and acted too late). I can't help but wonder why we knew where he was and didn't act until a 3rd party indirectly pressed the issue.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36017834)

Perhaps you should actually read more on the topic before you speak. Just knowing about this one courier and where they moved to isn't solid enough information to send in the SEALs on a mission into a sovereign country that we aren't at war with. They had to be sure, verify what they knew from any other sources. According to the media they didn't get close until August of last year and then in the time since there were verifying what they knew and collected more intel.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama? (2)

MahJongKong (883108) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017840)

It doesn't work like that.

So if the first kill from Wikileaks is OBL, shouldn't we be giving them a medal, rather than complaining about them? Apparently, the US knew where he was for the past 3 years and did nothing until Wikileaks pointed out

How could you know what was exactly going on these last three years?

Where's the line between cautious and negligent? Or have we been tracking him accurately for that long without his knowledge and using that knowledge to dismantle the organization? Though if we were doing that with any efficiency, we should have had much better results than we have had so far.

You sound like an expert at worldwide military and intelligence operations.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017930)

You sound like an expert at worldwide military and intelligence operations.

No, but I play one on TV. I notice you didn't actually say anything, other than toss insults. I guess that means that you are an intelligence expert who could prove me wrong, but if you did, you'd have to kill me and everyone that read your post.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama? (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017884)

we should have had much better results than we have had so far.

I'd say the results so far have been pretty good. The worst acts of terrorism in the US in the past nine and half years have been occasional mass shootings.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama? (1)

webbiedave (1631473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36018034)

"Apparently, the US knew where he was for the past 3 years and did nothing"

That is not what the document shows. It states the name of a courier and that a detainee -- who was being groomed to also become a courier -- moved to Abbottabad.

Compromised mission or not (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | more than 3 years ago | (#36017992)

Our government lost the benefit of the doubt by lying us into Iraq.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?