Wikileaks release classified documents

[ZQrn]

The supreme court is a branch of the government. It has no authority to decide issues of national security and has a self imposed proscription against deciding issues of politics.

Depends on your definition of government, some people only include the executive branch in it, as in 'He was asked by the queen to form a government'.

This isn't as much politics as a constitution which defines what is considered threatening to national security which a supreme court must interpret by letter of law rather than by moral values or strategical ideology. Or at least in theory.

 

[zomgwtf]

Now now, it's a bit of a dual standard. If there are videos which show heroic deeds of soldiers that aspire patriotism in the general population they are often directly given to the news. Even though it could hamper national security potentially, it does broker a favourable outcome in the midterms.

Let's just say that governments more often release such material when it casts them and good light than when it doesn't, which is of course what you expect.

Sure but this has nothing to do with what I originally stated. The military releases information/video files that they can GURANTEE won't negatively effect them by the enemy or by the coalition nations. As well when I watch the news and there are stories on the war in Afghanistan there's not really much portraying the military in good light... a lot of it is actually negative...

War? Declared om whom?

The insurgents in Afghanistan. Hence it's a COIN operation.

What sovereign entity exactly is there war declared on?

...uh there is no war declared on a sovereign entity. It's a war INSIDE Afghanistan. Are you so dense as to think that COIN operations are not considered wars?

Also, name such a thing that's currently at stake for the American population in that 'war'?

Well first of all this really has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I never once said that there's something at stake for the American population in this war.

Second of all it has to do with what negative results could come towards the military from
a)the enemy gaining information they are not supposed to have
and
b)from the public opinion in its own nation since they don't get the full story sitting at home watching the media and reading wikileaks.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Depends on your definition of government, some people only include the executive branch in it, as in 'He was asked by the queen to form a government'.

This isn't as much politics as a constitution which defines what is considered threatening to national security which a supreme court must interpret by letter of law rather than by moral values or strategical ideology. Or at least in theory.

While the judicial may have authority in some areas of what is acceptable by law in the area of protecting national security, that issue falls most squarely on the executive and then congress. The SCOTUS' hands are tied for the most part. Aside from actions taken against American citizens they have no constitutional authority. Only the FOIA gives them any latitude in the area which we are discussing and theoretically the executive and/or congress can easily limit this.

There is nothing in the constitution that would give any such authority except to the executive and congress. The judicial auspice is theoretically open ended but a most 'faithful' interpretation would exclude such a possibility.

While I may agree with you in spirit in reality the judicial only has authority through the FOIA which is limited, at best, as we have seen in the past. The other issue with the SCOTUS is that they have absolutely no power to enforce their decisions; their power rests solely in a sort of platonic 'authority' that anyone could theoretically flaunt if no one sees fit to enforce it. Theoretically the executive and congress may completely ignore any decision of the supreme court, though such would set a disturbing precedent that not many would likely support out of sheer principle. This is what led to the precedent of the SCOTUS not making 'decisions of politics'; the president could, and likely would, have ignored them and they rightly feared such a precedent.

 

[ZQrn]

Sure but this has nothing to do with what I originally stated. The military releases information/video files that they can GURANTEE won't negatively effect them by the enemy or by the coalition nations. As well when I watch the news and there are stories on the war in Afghanistan there's not really much portraying the military in good light... a lot of it is actually negative...

Haven't seen those come by though, at least not officially released by the military, at max things from war journalism.

I have seen several official USGOV releases of video that could hamper the mission but does further the political image of the seating administration.

The insurgents in Afghanistan. Hence it's a COIN operation.

I'm pretty sure they never formally declared war on them, and I'm sure that no international body like the UN would recognize such a 'declaration of war' to begin with.

...uh there is no war declared on a sovereign entity. It's a war INSIDE Afghanistan. Are you so dense as to think that COIN operations are not considered wars?

Yap, the point about war is that martial law is in effect. Different rules count, shooting is no longer murder et cetera.

The most important thing however is that you can say 'We're at war here!' as a justification for various things. The point is that when you attack soldiers, you attack people who are under authority of some sovereign nation and who are ordered to attack you. This is why there are certain rules about taking prisoners of war, these people never chose to attack you from their own ideology. Their own political beliefs are irrelevant as a soldier, they are ordered to attack and have to do so or else face discipline from their own commanders.

In the case of terrorists / insurgents, they aren't ordered at all, they are volunteers, not payed soldiers. They fight you for ideological reasons, and they are free to leave at any time. They also don't answer to one supreme commander in chief, surely there is some form of hierarchy and co-operation, but in the end the buck stops at no point, they are relatively isolated cells.

What you're formally dealing with is criminals here, not soldiers, they choose to attack you, they cannot say once you hold them at gunpoint and they pose no thread 'We were just following orders from our commander, it's not our decision' which soldiers can, and this is why you can't just shoot soldiers that are harmless and prisoners of war are not kept for justice or punishment but for security reasons. They are basically people living in a country which has a government, and they do not abide by the legal codes that government has established and enforces. This is very different from war and martial law. And this is why technically you can't just shoot them without a trial unless they resist arrest.

This distinction is quite important in international law.

Well first of all this really has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I never once said that there's something at stake for the American population in this war.

You said This is a war we are atlking about and a lot is at stake.

For whom is a lot at stake then if not the American population?

You know that internationally if you attack a country preventively without a direct risk for your own nation, this is internationally considered a war crime. This is of course different from pre-emptively.

Second of all it has to do with what negative results could come towards the military from
a)the enemy gaining information they are not supposed to have

For who's stake is the military fighting if not the American people?

b)from the public opinion in its own nation since they don't get the full story sitting at home watching the media and reading wikileaks.

Journalism never tells the whole story, that's why there's counter journalism and pluriformity of newspapers to keep a check.

The right side newspapers will tell the right side, the left side will tell the left side. Wikileaks is obviously biased to the left, as any journalistic entity is to one or the other.

 

[Gokul43201]

By definition, a top secret document risks

Quote by Wikipedia:
"exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available.​

My understanding is that none of the leaked documents were classified "top secret".

 

[mheslep]

I never really got this strange fixation people have with 'treason' really, but I'm not a nationalist or patriot and never got that either, so...

Then why not leave? No tears here.

 

[ZQrn]

Then why not leave? No tears here.

Let's see, do I live in a country because of devoted love for the history of that country, because of unquestionable allegiance to what ever parliament or cabinet is currently elected democratically regardless of me voting against them in the election or not. Because of my love and appreciation for our hereditary head of state, because of our excellent performance at football and ice skating.

Or simply because I've friends, a life, a job here and most importantly because I speak the language fluently?

I don't love any other country blindly too and I don't see myself moving up to space, better stay at a place where I got a life, friends, kids and whose customs and language I happen to know.

 

[mheslep]

I said I found a world leader stupid in a politics board. I am not allowed to criticize a world leader on his by my perceived intellectual shortcomings for the job?

You didn't say 'I found', you stated it as a given.

 

[ZQrn]

You didn't say 'I found', you stated it as a given.

"People sitting in America have no idea what it's like in Afghanistan"

"If it is classified, absolutely yes!"

"Some information is just plain not fit for public consumption"

"the wikileaks on Afghanastan is a big yawn"

Go bug the people for sources who said those things too, we do want all things sourced don't we?

Oh wait, I forgot, you're just trying to find a reason to attack me on because I said something you didn't agree with regardless of context obviously implying it was an opinion, how can some one's intelligence be fact to begin with? Silly me, assuming that when people ask 'citation please?' to an opinion that they actually want one rather than picking hairs over opinions because they don't like your side of the debate.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Sure, but I just think that asking for a citation for that is pretty strange

It's not the first thing on this thread that's caused me to ask for a citation. In fact, a sizable portion of my Politics & World Affairs posts are requests for citations. I come here [edit: that is, to P&WD, not to the Physics Forums in general] to learn, not to explain my beliefs to others.

I'm frequently asked for citations myself -- twice over the last two days, though I don't think either was on this forum. (One was a source on Frobenius pseudoprimes, backing my claim; the other was on the solvability of NP-hard problems, which showed that my claim was wrong (!) but repairable.)

 

[ZQrn]

It's not the first thing on this thread that's caused me to ask for a citation. In fact, a sizable portion of my Politics & World Affairs posts are requests for citations. I come here to learn, not to explain my beliefs to others.

I'm frequently asked for citations myself -- twice over the last two days, though I don't think either was on this forum. (One was a source on Frobenius pseudoprimes, backing my claim; the other was on the solvability of NP-hard problems, which showed that my claim was wrong (!) but repairable.)

Yes, but those are citations on facts, not on opinions.

It's like asking 'citation?' if you say 'The mona lisa is truly the most beautiful painting ever!'

It's an opinion, it's not a fact.

 

[Hurkyl]

My understanding is that none of the leaked documents were classified "top secret".

It was just an example, and the other classification markings were in the list I linked.

 

[Gokul43201]

Citation, please.

Make of these what you will.

Opinions from people that engaged personally with Bush:

1. Richard Perle (Bush's foreign policy adviser): "The first time I met Bush 43 … two things became clear. One, he didn't know very much. The other was that he had the confidence to ask questions that revealed he didn't know very much."

http://www.ciponline.org/nationalsecurity/news/articles/mullins112406.htm

(fwiw, I consider the second attribute a positive trait)2. Bob Woodward (Bush biographer, Washington Post correspondent): “He’s not an intellectual. He is not what I guess would be called a deep thinker.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/15/60minutes/main612067.shtml3. David Frum (Bush's speechwriter): "As Andy Hiller ascertained, Bush had a poor memory for facts and figures. … Fire a question at him about the specifics of his administration's policies, and he often appeared uncertain. Nobody would ever enroll him in a quiz show."

Source: The Right Man: An Inside Account of the Bush White House, by David Frum (pg 77?) 4. Paul O'Neill (Bush's ousted Treasury Sec): "This meeting was like many other meetings I would go to over the course of two years. The only way I can describe it is that, well, the President is like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people. There is no discernible connection."

Source: The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House, and the Education of Paul O'Neill, by Ron Suskind (pg 149?)5. Laura Bush (Bush's wife): "George is not an overly introspective person. He has good instincts, and he goes with them. He doesn't need to evaluate and reevaluate a decision. He doesn't try to overthink. He likes action."

http://www.allgreatquotes.com/laura_bush_quotes.shtml6. George W. Bush (Bush's self): I'm not a textbook player. I'm a gut player. I play by instincts. I don't play by the book.”

From Woodward's book, Bush at WarSee also:

Peter Galbraith (hearsay, but not disputed by the White House): http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_0804.html No doubt you've also read/heard many of the so-called Bushisms which are another source of insight into Bush's thought process.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Gokul, thank you very much for those! #3 seems most to the point in this context, but they're all interesting.

I don't consider the 'Bushisms' to be of much value in determining intellect -- we all say stupid things at times, and someone as public as the US President has all of it captured on tape. (Also, plausible accusations of media bias make this even more difficult to determine.) You're right that they can be indicative of the thought process, though.

 

[CRGreathouse]

This is also in response to CR's request. The discussion of that video is closed now, this is just posted as an explanation of what wikileaks did.

http://blog.ajmartinez.com/2010/04/05/wikileaks-collateral-murder/

Evo, thank you! Somehow I missed that you posted this earlier. I will review this carefully.

 

[DnD Addict]

http://www1.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm

If Bush could score in the top 16 percent of college applicants on the SAT, he would almost certainly rank higher on tests of general intelligence, which are normed with reference to the general population. But even if his rank remained constant at the 84th-percentile level of his SAT score, it would translate to an IQ score of 115.

As a final clue to Bush's cognitive capacity, consider data from Joseph Matarazzo's leading text on intelligence and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: The average IQ is about 105 for high school graduates, 115 for college graduates and 125 for people with advanced professional degrees. With his MBA from Harvard Business School, it's not unreasonable to assume that Bush's IQ surpasses the 115 of the average bachelor's-degree-only college graduate.

A little slanted, as it ignores Bush's extreme advantages growing up, bot otherwise okay. Also; eloquence != intelligence

 

[CRGreathouse]

DnD Addict, I agree: the original claim was too strong. But I won't look relevant citation gift-horses in the mouth, either!

Evo, thank you! Somehow I missed that you posted this earlier. I will review this carefully.

The link matches my understanding of the situation. I guess I just don't see what you [Evo] mean by doctoring in this context.

 

[Mgt3]

Pentagon Papers redux.

 

[ZQrn]

Gokul, thank you very much for those! #3 seems most to the point in this context, but they're all interesting.

Why? I'm not sure what this says?

You could find people that say all things you want about Bush, from being smart, to being a poet, to being not that smart, to being a transsexual robot from outer space. (Yeah I heard this)

I don't consider the 'Bushisms' to be of much value in determining intellect -- we all say stupid things at times, and someone as public as the US President has all of it captured on tape. (Also, plausible accusations of media bias make this even more difficult to determine.) You're right that they can be indicative of the thought process, though.

But you do trust the quotes of random people?

The Bushisms aren't a good indicator no, but some times he does reveal a certain ignorance about subjects he ought to know about as a president.

What's more important is that his solutions to problems are indeed not that reasoned-through, they are just gut feelings he has and it's hard for him to back of off them when evidence points to the contrary.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Why? I'm not sure what this says?

I thanked Gokul for providing several quotes on the topic of GWB's intelligence.

But you do trust the quotes of random people?

These quotes were sourced, so I can place desired weight on each. The particular people chosen seemed quite nonrandom to me. Also, importantly, most of the quotes were from people who had little in the way of political differences with him, so the 'trash your opponents' effect was minimal. Woodward is probably the only non-Republican on the list, though Frum's fallout with GWB is reasonably well-known.

 

[ZQrn]

I thanked Gokul for providing several quotes on the topic of GWB's intelligence.

Yeah, but having these, what does it say? Where does it help, why did you ask for them?

These quotes were sourced, so I can place desired weight on each. The particular people chosen seemed quite nonrandom to me. Also, importantly, most of the quotes were from people who had little in the way of political differences with him, so the 'trash your opponents' effect was minimal. Woodward is probably the only non-Republican on the list, though Frum's fallout with GWB is reasonably well-known.

I would place a weight of 0.0 on each and every one of them inherent to that they are simple quotes about a subjective matter.

Intelligence is not fact, it is opinion.

 

[rootX]

Sure, that was shown in another thread. I'll have to look for it.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2658357

 

[russ_watters]

Make of these what you will.

Opinions from people that engaged personally with Bush:

Gokul, you missed the point of the call-out. The statement that Bush is of "sub-mediocre" (well below average) intelligence was a throw-away (knowingly irrelevant) flippant remark, possibly intended as opinion but worded in such a way as to be a demonstrably false statement of fact - a problem that showed-up in a great deal of what that user has posted in this thread (mostly already dealt with). People called-out this new user on that because s/he needs to learn that we demand high quality of posting here - something very unusual for a politics forum. On other forums, flippant falshoods and making crap up as one goes along may be par for the course, but it isn't acceptable here.

Now can we move on? As obviously none of this Bush talk has any relevance whatsoever to the issue of the thread.

 

[rootX]

If it is classified, absolutely yes!

It's my understanding that these documents are after action reports by soldiers. The wikileaks editor says they have a policy for minimizing harm, but they don't eliminate it: the release of after action reports can be very damaging to the war effort. Based on the mischaracterizations of the helicopter shooting tape they made and the anti-war/anti-government stance of the editor, I honestly don't think this guy can see beyond the propaganda value to the real military value of such information. He loves this stuff because of the propaganda, but he doesn't even see he's giving the enemy detailed information about our tactics.

Some information is just plain not fit for public consumption because the general public simply doesn't have the frame of reference needed to propertly process the information. It's a case where if misinterpreted, more facts can actually result in less understanding. His focusing on the laughing of the soldiers in the chopper video is a clear indication that he is simply unable to process what he's seeing.

By the same token, if people saw what happened after being put under anesthetic in an oral surgeon's office, there'd be even more fear of dentists than there already is.

People should be aware of the consequences of going to useless war. It is the least desirable thing you would want to do when there are other options available. I was not impressed by either https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2658690&postcount=6"or this incident. While methods used by wikileaks are poor and questionable but its purpose of bringing transparency is good.

There is a need for more openness, for governments and companies and individuals to be held to account, but this ill-conceived project is not the way to do it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6443437.stm

It needs some big improvements.

 

[russ_watters]

War? Declared om whom?

What sovereign entity exactly is there war declared on?

Also, name such a thing that's currently at stake for the American population in that 'war'?

You seem to be under the false impression that the label "war" requires a declaration of war in Congress. It certainly does not: "war" is a broad-based word that means to imply the international laws of war apply to the situation in Afghanistan and is a description of the fact that the military is invoked in a large operation. Whether people want to call it a "war" or "police action" really has very little legal impact. We don't need to get into a debate about the War Powers Act here, but it's passage showed Congress realized the Constitution's flaw regarding war powers and Presidents and Congress have since realized the War Powers Act is either unenforceable or UnConstitutional. Regardless, none of that political-administrative gamesmanship changes what is actually going on on the ground.

And the entity is two groups: the Taliban and Al Qadea.

Now now, it's a bit of a dual standard.

Dual standard or not, your previous claim was clearly a misrepresentation of the reality.

This isn't as much politics as a constitution which defines what is considered threatening to national security which a supreme court must interpret by letter of law rather than by moral values or strategical ideology. Or at least in theory.

The Constitution is a framework for a system of government, it most certainly does not define what constitutes a threat to national security and the claim that it is up to the USSC to interpret on an individual basis what is and isn't a national security risk is just plain silly. Youl couldn't possibly be under the impression that the USSC reviews all Pentagon documentation to determine what classification is appropriate. Such a thing wouldn't work in practice.

Obviously, classifications are assigned to entire classes of documents based on type and potential sensitivity and then later on an individual or group basis they may be declassified by the DoD or under a FIA request (which may involve court documents). But not declassifying documents that are classified as a matter of procedure along with tens of thousands of other documents most certainly does not constitute a cover-up.

This whole line of argument you're on against the concept/method of classification of documents is just plain illogical and silly.

 

[ibnsos]

Looks like the Times of London didn't take too long to discover why releasing classified material is wrong. I wonder if the repercussions of this even registers to the leaker or wikileaks.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

 

[ZQrn]

You seem to be under the false impression that the label "war" requires a declaration of war in Congress. It certainly does not: "war" is a broad-based word that means to imply the international laws of war apply to the situation in Afghanistan and is a description of the fact that the military is invoked in a large operation. Whether people want to call it a "war" or "police action" really has very little legal impact. We don't need to get into a debate about the War Powers Act here, but it's passage showed Congress realized the Constitution's flaw regarding war powers and Presidents and Congress have since realized the War Powers Act is either unenforceable or UnConstitutional. Regardless, none of that political-administrative gamesmanship changes what is actually going on on the ground.

But the international laws of war do not apply. That's the point, there are no 'prisoners of war' that enjoy certain protected rights, there are no official delegations, no diplomatic immunity, and 'surrender' is impossible. (look down), that's why you can't use 'we are at war!' to justify certain things.

And the entity is two groups: the Taliban and Al Qadea.

No, these are not sovereign. Because they can't surrender. If the Taliban says 'Okay, you won', the people under their (lose) command will just keep fighting because they're not in it because they were ordered to fight or payed to fight, they are in it because they want to fight for ideological reasons.

The crucial difference of this is that there is no possibility of surrender, you have to take them out until the very last man. And they multiply like cockroaches. There is no clear point at which you can declare peace, therefore there is no war going on in the formal international definition.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002023596_russanal02.html

It may be called a 'war' in the colloquial view, but in international law it doesn't meet these criteria.

Dual standard or not, your previous claim was clearly a misrepresentation of the reality.

A: Which claim?
B: What does this have to do with any possible dual standards the US government has?

The Constitution is a framework for a system of government, it most certainly does not define what constitutes a threat to national security and the claim that it is up to the USSC to interpret on an individual basis what is and isn't a national security risk is just plain silly. Youl couldn't possibly be under the impression that the USSC reviews all Pentagon documentation to determine what classification is appropriate. Such a thing wouldn't work in practice.

I never said that it was up to them, I said it would be a healthier separation of powers if it were up to them.

And yeah, that's exactly what I'm suggesting, not per se the supreme court, but some court of impartial justices with no political allegiance.

Obviously, classifications are assigned to entire classes of documents based on type and potential sensitivity and then later on an individual or group basis they may be declassified by the DoD or under a FIA request (which may involve court documents). But not declassifying documents that are classified as a matter of procedure along with tens of thousands of other documents most certainly does not constitute a cover-up.

I never said it was a cover up. I'm saying that the USGOV is (of course) more likely to release documents that help their midterm election results, irrespective of the thread to national security.

This could be avoided by taking that out of their control and to an independent, like a court.

This whole line of argument you're on against the concept/method of classification of documents is just plain illogical and silly.

I suppose it would be too easy to ask for a citation here.

 

[Borg]

Looks like the Times of London didn't take too long to discover why releasing classified material is wrong. I wonder if the repercussions of this even registers to the leaker or wikileaks.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

Thanks for the link ibnsos. I'm sure that their excuse would be that these people wouldn't die if we weren't there in the first place.

 

[russ_watters]

Looks like the Times of London didn't take too long to discover why releasing classified material is wrong. I wonder if the repercussions of this even registers to the leaker or wikileaks.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

Do you have a link to a specific story? That just looks like the homepage...or maybe that's a subscription issue. Could you quote a few relevant parts of the article?

 

[Borg]

Do you have a link to a specific story? That just looks like the homepage...or maybe that's a subscription issue. Could you quote a few relevant parts of the article?

Russ, from what I saw of the article this morning, it was a story about the documents exposing the identities of Afghans that were working with the Americans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38441360/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/"

 

[Gokul43201]

Looks like the Times of London didn't take too long to discover why releasing classified material is wrong. I wonder if the repercussions of this even registers to the leaker or wikileaks.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

(bolding mine)

From the MSNBC article cited above:

The leaking of 90,000 U.S. intelligence documents has put hundreds of Afghan lives at risk because the files identify informants working with NATO forces, The Times of London reported on Wednesday.

In just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, reporters found the names, villages, and fathers' names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing intelligence to U.S. forces, the paper said.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has said that all the released reports were checked for named informants and that 15,000 such documents had been held back to protect people.

Despite his claim, The Times of London gave examples of informants named in the released documents.

Either Assange is lying or his people failed to do a thorough job of checking the documents. Either way, it's clear that the repercussions had registered with wikileaks.

 

[madness]

I haven't seen any discussion of some of the important revelations of the documents here:

1) That the US government have had a lot of intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts despite claiming they didn't.

2) That the number of Afghani civilian casualties has been suppressed in the western media.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/27/afghanistan-war-logs-tensions-strained
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/26/afghanistan-war-logs-us-marines
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/26/afghanistan-war-logs-helmand-bombing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-civilian-deaths-rules-engagement

 

[zomgwtf]

I haven't seen any discussion of some of the important revelations of the documents here:

1) That the US government have had a lot of intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts despite claiming they didn't.

2) That the number of Afghani civilian casualties has been suppressed in the western media.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/27/afghanistan-war-logs-tensions-strained
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/26/afghanistan-war-logs-us-marines
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/26/afghanistan-war-logs-helmand-bombing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-civilian-deaths-rules-engagement

Really? Here in Canada they always talk about intelligence reports on bin Ladens possible whereabouts. How factual this is I obviously couldn't tell you... but you can hardly act like knowing where bin Laden may be located and saying on the public media we have no idea might be a good tactic.

 

[madness]

Really? Here in Canada they always talk about intelligence reports on bin Ladens possible whereabouts. How factual this is I obviously couldn't tell you... but you can hardly act like knowing where bin Laden may be located and saying on the public media we have no idea might be a good tactic.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/26/afghanistan-war-logs-osama-bin-laden

Speaking last month, Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, said the last time US officials were in possession of precise information about Bin Laden's location was in the "early 2000s". Since then, there had been no firm leads. "He is, as is obvious, in very deep hiding," Panetta said. "He's in an area of the tribal areas of Pakistan that is very difficult … All I can tell you is it's in the tribal areas. We know that he's located in that vicinity."

Yet despite the CIA's self-confessed cluelessness, raw intelligence reports contained in the leaked war logs show that, every now and then, US forces believe they can see the mist surrounding Bin Laden briefly lift. One such moment came in August 2006, when a "threat report" generated by International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) regional command (north) zeroed in on suicide bombers recruited by al-Qaida.

"Reportedly a high-level meeting was held in Quetta, Pakistan, where six suicide bombers were given orders for an operation in northern Afghanistan. Two persons have been given targets in Kunduz, two in Mazar-e-Sharif and the last two are said to come to Faryab," the report claimed.

It went on: "These meetings take place once every month, and there are usually about 20 people present. The place for the meeting alternates between Quetta and villages (NFDG) [no further details given] on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

"The top four people in these meetings are Mullah Omar [the Taliban leader], Osama bin Laden, Mullah Dadullah and Mullah [Baradar]. "The six foreigners who have been given the assignment have each been given $50,000 [£32,000] to conduct the attacks, and they have been promised that their families will be taken care of."

 

[CRGreathouse]

That reported meeting seems other-than-credible.