Largest leak in US military history tells the truth on the Afghanistan war

Yes, probably. But I will argue that the vast majority of military documents are classified because of operational, tactical or strategic reasons.
 
mmarsh said:
Not always. Sometimes things are classified because its embarrassing or politically damaging, not because they pose any real security risk. The previous administration was infamous for classifying its dirty secrets.

But in this case, while some of the information was hardly a big secret (like Pakistani ISI actually helping the Taliban...like duh!) other bits like specific US tactics, and the names of informants etc, had no business in the public eye.


The founder of Wikileaks is a radical left-wing crackpot crusader who views his anti-establishment war as a crusade, and he its Messiah. He actually has a good point on many issues including Afghanistan but like all radicals he thinks the ends justify the means and if that means putting people into extreme danger then he thinks its absolutely justified to do so as long as it serves "the cause". Like all megolmanics that have power, He's very cavalier with other people's lives, but very protective of his own. This guy optimizes the word "megalomaniac".

In this guys's head posting the Normandy Invasion plans a few days before D-DAY would be justifiable.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more.
 
mmarsh said:
Originally I was on the fence about the Wikileak situation. I was originally angry at the pentagon for trying to hide or cover up many of the not-so-nice things that goes on in Iraq and Afghanistan concerning US forces and the Wiki leaks was their comeuppance for keeping for its policy of CYA.

I feel I was wrong and I have since changed my mind.

While I still think the DOD still plays the country for a bunch of idiots, the release of names of Afghan informants was a serious breach of military protocol. It puts people trying to help us at very severe risk and makes others who might be willing to help much more reluctant to do so.

And sure enough, today the Taliban threatened to behead anyone they caught on that list. A direct result of the irresponsible behavior of both the leaker and the website operators.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you might wish to change your mind back again?

Wikileaks founder replies to Robert Gates' critisism (Interview)

Wikileaks claims they asked the Whitehouse and US Defense Dept. via the New York Times to vet material before publishing it, but didn't hear anything back. Wikileaks also used the classifications that the US military placed on the material to identify the sensitive material which was restricted from publication.

The London Times reported that a Taliban defector was exposed then killed due to this material, but it seems that this individual was actually killed two years ago. So it appears as if there is some propaganda going on

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/news/2010/07/100730_wikileaks_nh_jg.shtml
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Perhaps you might wish to change your mind back again?
Click to expand...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ted-on-wikileaks/story-e6frg6so-1225897924552

Hundreds of lives....

The whitehouse and DoD were asked to "vet" material by the NYT? lol
He is trying to tapdance to save his own very much less then professional site.
He claims that the US military doesn´t protect it´s own sources.
They did, they classified those documents that HIS organisation published.

If it is classified it has already been deemed inapropriate to publish.
Even LeMask have sort of got it by now..

:bang:

What I do agree with is that the original source should be made an example of, thus making people wanting to follow his example of treason to think a second time.
Short of shooting him, I hope they atleast make him apart of the inside of a cell "untill death do them part"..
 
Last edited:
I hate all those which impose immoral values on society, and undermine democracy. However, I hate most the hypocrites which claim to support morality and democracy whilst ostensibly doing the opposite in their own interests. At least with the Taliban we know them for what they are, religious nutters.

BTW Stll playing loose with the insults again aren't we? is your chum still moderating?
 
Last edited:
Micha said:
Do you really believe that a member of parliament or the government will make decisions favorable to him or the company where he is on the board without someone in the parliamentary system would wonder why he took such a decision?

Yes. Everyone does it, so no one wants to get publicity. In Germany, members of the parliament/government are not obliged to inform the public about other places of employment, and I got a strong feeling that they have an interest in keeping it that way.

In addition to legislating, the members of the Danish parliament have the task of controlling the government. This happens primarily by members of parliament and committees who ask questions to ministers. It is inherently particular the opposition in parliament, who see it as an important task to monitor the government.

Oh I do understand how the whole thing is meant to work out in theory. But that's all it is, IMHO. Theory.

In Denmark, citizens have the opportunity to complain to the Parliamentary Ombudsman if they consider that an authority has violated the law or made other mistakes in the handling of a case. The Ombudsman is elected by parliament, but is not subject to the parliament, and has the task of controlling state, municipal and other public authorities. The Ombudsman can also initiate a case on its own initiative and make a study of an authority's decisions.

You also have the free press as public watchdogs that are not accustomed to failing to pursue a case if they believe that there is something that stinks.

This whole affair went through the media a couple of times...everyone acts like they're shocked, but in the end there's nothing you can do. They are allowed to keep jobs while being part of the parliament, there's nothing illegal to it. And you'll never find any proof why someone made his/her decision in favor of whatsoever.

I suspect that there is also a parliamentary monitoring of the Bundestag.

I don't really get the meaning of 'parliamentary monitoring' in this context. Are you referring to the Ombudsman? (My English isn't what it used to be when I left school, sorry)

I'm not naive; I know corruption is taking place. But it divides on whether there is one rotten egg in the basket or whole chicken farm is contaminated. Fact is that corruption at the level LeMask claim does not take place in our part of the world.

Not fact. Assumption is more like it, and what I'm writing is nothing else b/c I don't have anything to prove it except some seemingly odd decisions by certain people.

I don’t agree with you there's little that can be done about it

Well, we can agree to disagree.

More openness, transparency procedures, monitoring mechanisms, evaluation and revision of our politicians are the key words behind the fight against corruption. And it works in most countries in Europe.


But I am no oracle. I have studied politics in college so that is why I believe that this is so.

//Micha
Click to expand...
------------
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
I hate all those which impose immoral values on society, and undermine democracy. However, I hate most the hypocrites which claim to support morality and democracy whilst ostensibly doing the opposite in their own interests. At least with the Taliban we know them for what they are, religious nutters.

BTW Stll playing loose with the insults again aren't we? is your chum still moderating?
Click to expand...

Have I insulted you with facts?

In that case I am so sorry.
I hope you can get over it and that I can become a more moral and democratic member of society..
As I understand it I shouldn´t speak the truth as I see it because you might get offended, correct?
That is your understanding of the democracy you want to be recognized as a champion for.
To each his own.
I recognize a democracy where everyone is allowed to speak their piece.
I don´t agree with your points, nor do I agree with LeMasks points but I DO agree with your right to spout them.
Untill you condone something illegal, that´s where my support for you stop.
Manning atleast had the guts to DO something fu*king stupid and will die/do his time for it.

KJ.
 
Last edited:
I am a retired Army Intel Analysis with several years spent in Sp Ops (PSYOPs). Of course propaganda is invloved! We are exposed to propaganda constantly thru advertising, politics and religion.
I don’t care about Wikileaks or the a’hole who heads it, I care about the soldier who leaked the documents, I hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent.
 
KJ said:
Have I insulted you with facts?

In that case I am so sorry.
I hope you can get over it and that I can become a more moral and democratic member of society..
As I understand it I shouldn´t speak the truth as I see it because you might get offended, correct?
That is your understanding of the democracy you want to be recognized as a champion for.
To each his own.
I recognize a democracy where everyone is allowed to speak their piece.
I don´t agree with your points, nor do I agree with LeMasks points but I DO agree with your right to spout them.
Untill you condone something illegal, that´s where my support for you stop.
Manning atleast had the guts to DO something fu*king stupid and will die/do his time for it.

KJ.
Click to expand...

It was more directed at the previous poster who seems to vindicate US imperialism around the world generally and their tactics.

Neither am I sure why you are ranting, since I have only referred to Wikileaks statements not that I necessarily agree with them. Is it you who don't wish the truth to emerge?

However, if you have such a strong opinion, it would be useful to provide some evidence to support them. For example, in what sense is Wikileaks Illegal? Have the Whitehouse and Intelligent services claimed they were not contacted by the NYT prior to publication? (rather than wikileaks directly). If they haven't, I think we can be sure they have!

What I do agree with is that the original source should be made an example of, thus making people wanting to follow his example of treason to think a second time.
Short of shooting him, I hope they atleast make him apart of the inside of a cell "untill death do them part"..
Click to expand...

Now this would be illegal, and the sort of behaviour which should land people in the International Criminal Courts (of which US soldiers are exempt). Should the Editors of the three newspapers who worked in conjunction with Wikileaks, be also subjected to this treatment?
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Now this would be illegal, and the sort of behaviour which should land people in the International Criminal Courts (of which US soldiers are exempt). Should the Editors of the three newspapers who worked in conjunction with Wikileaks, be also subjected to this treatment?
Click to expand...

Actually no, UCMJ is quite harsh on traitors.
I don´t think the editors should get tried.
I however think they should be held personally accountable for every life lost due to this information.
And I mean by ordinary people, I think Pentagon should tell the people everytime a person dies because of this information.
And tell people it´s on these papers.
That´d light up the papers quite rapidly since all they care about is units sold.
You say papers safeguard democracy, I say papers care about selling papers.

However no leak nothing to print..This is a clear cut example of that you have to really **** up the sources.
Do that and I think these leaks would end in a hurry.

//KJ.
 
There is always a lot to be gleaned from papers such as these, and person that hands them over to the press or any one else should be held accountable
 
To Micha, Let me give you an answer... First, sorry for being late. As I'm in vacation and that I had to spend the week end in another city.

Well, to answer your question, after reading such an article, I would think that the military arent giving the soldiers enough equipment. And that the war cost a lot of money and that the soldiers have to be equiped with modern electronic gear in today's battlefield...

This kind of conclusions I guess... I dont see your point exactly...

But let's say that these kind of articles have an influence on the public support of the war effort. If the politics are really doing big mistakes, like I dont know, sending troups without proper armor... Soldiers get killed, and you know how a public outrage can cost them (the politics).

In countries like Japan, people resign when they fail... In some other countries, people stay in power even if everybody knows that they failed miserably...

And I dont want to get in an argument about who was there first, the egg or the chicken, but advanced countries have good journalists, a caring public and of course a government who cares about the public opinion.
 
You are all still missing the point, the problem is not Wikileaks or Journalists or whoever, it is the person who stole the information and those who allowed such lax security that it could be done.

Once the info is out of a controlled environment it is no longer secret and would have been distributed to the public by one means or another, whether sold or given directly to agencies such as Al Quaeda, The Taliban, FSB, Chinese Intelligence agency, or the news papers. There is no way that it was not going to become common knowledge,... after all, that was the exact reason for which it was originally stolen. If Wikileaks hadn't taken it, a newspaper or security agency somewhere in the world would have, so forget the distributors, and focus on the cause. The damage that has been caused is immaterial, as it cannot be undone, only prevented from happening again.

Your reasoning here is like blaming gravity because a brick that you threw in the air, landed on your head.
 
senojekips said:
You are all still missing the point, the problem is not Wikileaks or Journalists or whoever, it is the person who stole the information and those who allowed such lax security that it could be done.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100%.
Absolutely spot on.
Though I have to admit I am pissed off at Wikileaks, I expect no better from them anyway.
Like I said before, it was a failure of leadership. Maybe even organizational culture.
 
I hate to play "what if"... But the hell with that.

What if you were working at the same position. And that you saw some cover-ups done by the military, some irregular activities to hide the truth on the field etc...

Would you keep reporting them to your superiors knowing that nothing will happen, and that they are maybe part of those who are endangering the nation/army/personnel engaged in combat?

Or would you leak the data to a journalist hoping he would make enough noise?

If he leaked the information by mistake they should discipline him and think their protocols again.
If he did it to make a quick buck... Then they should jail him as a traitor...
etc...

But my question is what if he did this following a sense of duty?

And do you see the difference between illegal and unfair? Some actions are illegal but perfectly fair and good.
 
He did not do this out of any sense of duty. The information he leaked had very little to do with any sort of wrongdoing at all. He just got what he could and leaked it because he was angry at the Army and unhappy with his life.
 
Let the judges take care of that...

But play the "what if" game with me. If a soldier leaked data to inform the public about some wrong doings... Would you call him a hero or a traitor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top