[MrDoom]

So, on July 25 whistleblower website WikiLeaks released several thousand individual confidential military reports chronicling the Afghan War from 2004 to the present.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Thoughts?

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by The Guardian
	These war logs – written in the heat of engagement – show a conflict that is brutally messy, confused and immediate.

No shit?

[rahdam]

Those guys can go fuck themselves, that's what I think.
I hope they find the individual(s) responsible for this leak.

[Athene]

I'd never heard of wikileaks before, but after reading some of what they've done (including exposing toxic dumping), I'm a fan.

We can handle the truth.

The latest word is that this latest information is not going to convince the public we need to pull out of Afghanistan. I'm really hoping that's wrong. In my opinion, we have no business over there.

[stasis]

	Originally Posted by rahdam To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I hope they find the individual(s) responsible for this leak.

Yeah. But there's also something to be said for fucking internet info censorship in the orbital whenever and however possible.

Wikileaks refers to to this release as "the most significant archive about the reality of war to have ever been released during the course of a war. The deaths of tens of thousands is normally only a statistic but the archive reveals the locations and the key events behind each most of these deaths." There's an interesting potential for a rich and pervasive cultural realism to develop regarding traditionally vague and emotionally pantomimed subjects, such as war, if only governing-body control of information released into the internet can be overcome in the long term. Wikileaks is the sort of boundary-pushing initiative the defense of free information needs in this day and age.

That said, I'm not convinced that such realism would tend to take the form of the idealistic protest-fodder about 'changing the course' of the war in Afghanistan, as Wikileaks goes on to hope. Their writers wear hemp sandals.

[lurk]

The introduction states:

	The material shows that cover-ups start on the ground. When reporting their own activities US Units are inclined to classify civilian kills as insurgent kills, downplay the number of people killed or otherwise make excuses for themselves.

From the little scanning I did, it didn't appear that the information content is sufficient to draw any such inference. Who the fuck is this guy to sit in his office and pass such pronouncements?

[adastra]

	Originally Posted by lurk To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The introduction states: From the little scanning I did, it didn't appear that the information content is sufficient to draw any such inference. Who the fuck is this guy to sit in his office and pass such pronouncements?

Perhaps he's someone who has done more than "a little scanning" of all the material. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt, at least until you've had a chance to absorb everything and form your own conclusions? I don't get the impression that any of these pronouncements were made lightly.

Personally, I agree with Athene. We have no business over there. I'm glad there are still people out there brave enough to act as whistleblowers.

[Mind Marauder]

	Originally Posted by rahdam To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Those guys can go fuck themselves, that's what I think. I hope they find the individual(s) responsible for this leak.

Uh, okay. Do you care to explain as to why they can seek to reproduce on their own? Or would you rather throw around more vulgar terminology that lacks any real thought.

I think wikiLeaks provides a nice new counterbalance to all the mass-produced news that we have thrown in our faces.

[Visum]

From what I heard, much of the info was "screened" to protect individuals. I would not doubt that the US Gov. new he had the info and forced Assange to behave. He knows he is on thin ice.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[rahdam]

	Originally Posted by Mind Marauder To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Uh, okay. Do you care to explain as to why they can seek to reproduce on their own? Or would you rather throw around more vulgar terminology that lacks any real thought. I think wikiLeaks provides a nice new counterbalance to all the mass-produced news that we have thrown in our faces.

Your vapid cliches are not entertaining.

There are alternatives to mass-produced news that do not involve the dispersion of classified material.

[adastra]

	Originally Posted by rahdam To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There are alternatives to mass-produced news that do not involve the dispersion of classified material.

Is that what bothers you about it? The security level of the information? (I'm not being sarcastic).

[rahdam]

	Originally Posted by adastra To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Is that what bothers you about it? The security level of the information? (I'm not being sarcastic).

I'll do you one better: Why do you suppose this information is classified?

[adastra]

	Originally Posted by rahdam To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'll do you one better: Why do you suppose this information is classified?

I would suppose it's classified because it makes them look bad. The military classifies plenty of things that do not affect OPSEC. It's a method of exerting their control, nothing more.

[PRBori]

That's what I consider internal threat issues.... hopefully the internal threat is identified and prosecuted accordingly. Putting the troops in danger is no laughing matter... ii is very serious... people's lifes are at stake...

[khadi]

	Originally Posted by PRBori To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's what I consider internal threat issues.... hopefully the internal threat is identified and prosecuted accordingly. Putting the troops in danger is no laughing matter... ii is very serious... people's lifes are at stake...

Are American lives more valuable than Afghan lives?

[Quisitor]

Greetings,

I was watching for this thread 24 hours ago, but it hadn't been OP'd yet (the WikiLeaks story).

My job in the U.S. Army is the same as that of the "whistleblower": enlisted military intelligence (in his case 35F10 ). In my case, 25 months total deployment time in the combat zone. It is a job attractive to the NT. As we know, NT's tend libertarian and authority-questioning.

Consider what he did and his hometown as reported in the press (Potomac, Maryland). Just outside the DC Beltway. He would have grown up with ideas of impacting national political culture (holding these ideas before achieving enlistment age). It is my belief that he enlisted as an activist first and never a soldier, with the intention of doing something along these lines. It is not likely that he started with a neutral perspective and then encountered classified information that disturbed him and provoked him into blowing the whistle.

As an INTJ, I believe in withholding from areas in which I am not an expert (or in which I have at least studied the issue for years or months and considered the possible validity of the opposing viewpoints), and concentrating on those in which I am. It is for this reason that I seldom post on the political forums. I doubt I will contribute much further to this thread, but we will see.

[rahdam]

	Originally Posted by khadi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are American lives more valuable than Afghan lives?

Afghan lives ARE at stake.

---------- Post added 07-27-2010 at 07:24 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by adastra To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would suppose it's classified because it makes them look bad. The military classifies plenty of things that do not affect OPSEC. It's a method of exerting their control, nothing more.

How do you determine what does and does not affect present and future OPSEC?

[Athene]

	Originally Posted by adastra To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would suppose it's classified because it makes them look bad. The military classifies plenty of things that do not affect OPSEC. It's a method of exerting their control, nothing more.

I agree. (Let's look at other classified information like waterboarding.)

Wikileaks states that they still have thousands of documents they have not (yet) released.

They claim to be still holding these files until they can verify that operations and troops will not be compromised. I believe them.

[lurk]

Originally Posted by adastra To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Perhaps he's someone who has done more than "a little scanning" of all the material. Why not give him the benefit of the doubt, at least until you've had a chance to absorb everything and form your own conclusions? I don't get the impression that any of these pronouncements were made lightly. Personally, I agree with Athene. We have no business over there. I'm glad there are still people out there brave enough to act as whistleblowers.

I think we have every reason to destroy the government that provided aid and assistance to men who flew planeloads full of innocent people into buildings filled with still more innocent people.

I have no doubt that he has spent more time with material than I have, but unless there's a bunch of it unposted I have a hard time believing that he's in a position to assess the validity of claims classifying civilians vs insurgents. I looked at a number of the 500 odd pages of enemy action reports, and none contained enough information to deduce anything about the quality of the information. He makes a failrly damning allegation for which I haven't seen any support.

[Athene]

	Originally Posted by PRBori To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That's what I consider internal threat issues.... hopefully the internal threat is identified and prosecuted accordingly. Putting the troops in danger is no laughing matter... ii is very serious... people's lifes are at stake...

There is no proof that anyone has been put in danger due to the released documents.

Propaganda is a powerful tool.

[adastra]

	Originally Posted by rahdam To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How do you determine what does and does not affect present and future OPSEC?

It's really not for me to say in this particular case, only to speculate. But I do have an active security clearance so I'm not completely talking out of my ass here. I've handled plenty of information that I can say, without a doubt, would not affect OPSEC. That doesn't mean I go shouting it from the rooftops. It does mean that I question why anyone bothered to classify it in the first place.

[Mind Marauder]

	Originally Posted by rahdam To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your vapid cliches are not entertaining. There are alternatives to mass-produced news that do not involve the dispersion of classified material.

It's not really a cliche at all. The truth is that an extremely limited amount of corporations own and finance what most Americans believe to be authentic news.

Well, if it's truly classified than you can guarantee the U.S. government will step in and do something. I seriously doubt this information could be used to seriously harm U.S. operations in Afghanistan. It's already an incredibly complicated conflict.

If anything comes out of this, hopefully, it will be the ongoing attempt at getting Americans to realize war is hell, and should only be actively engaged in when absolutely necessary.

[PRBori]

	Originally Posted by khadi To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Are American lives more valuable than Afghan lives?

I don't think my comment denoted whether or not americans lives where more valuable than Afghans. I don't think inocent people should be kill, period. The discussion is about sensitive information being distributed to the world and personally I don't think such was correct.

Whether the lives in question are americans or non-americans, certain things should not be out in the public.

---------- Post added 07-27-2010 at 10:36 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Athene To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	There is no proof that anyone has been put in danger due to the released documents. Propaganda is a powerful tool.

There is no proof otherwise. Bottom line information is classified for a reason, and although I cannot go into details, if military personnel indicates it can have consequences, then it probably does.

Bottom line, it was wrong to post sensitive information that may put lives at stake. The insider threat must be identified for it and punished. That's all I have to say.

[Mogura]

I think all taxpayers have a right to know how their tax money is being used. Since US citizens are basically financing the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, they have a right to know whether the taxes used to finance military operations are being used effectively, ethically, and legally...

[rahdam]

	Originally Posted by adastra To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would suppose it's classified because it makes them look bad. The military classifies plenty of things that do not affect OPSEC. It's a method of exerting their control, nothing more.

	Originally Posted by adastra To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's really not for me to say in this particular case, only to speculate. But I do have an active security clearance so I'm not completely talking out of my ass here. I've handled plenty of information that I can say, without a doubt, would not affect OPSEC. That doesn't mean I go shouting it from the rooftops. It does mean that I question why anyone bothered to classify it in the first place.

This is your opinion, weighted against the individual who decided to classify the material.
Where military operations are concerned, the greater potential for loss of life favors the more conservative assessment of what is and is not relevant to OPSEC, ie what is and is not classified.

---------- Post added 07-27-2010 at 07:50 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by Mogura To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I think all taxpayers have a right to know how their tax money is being used. Since US citizens are basically financing the US-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, they have a right to know whether the taxes used to finance military operations are being used effectively, ethically, and legally...

To Mogura:
Accountability is necessary.
Accountability also occurs in black and white and shades of gray.
To what extent does the taxpayers' "right to know" extend in any given military operation?