Wikileaks release classified documents

[ibnsos]

Didn't realize the Times of London article wasn't accessible.

The WSJ has some excerpts from it here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395500694117006.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

In his defense, Mr. Assange dismisses concerns about harm to U.S. national security, calling it ridiculous. That may be his right as an Australian national, although Australia deploys some 1,500 troops to Afghanistan and has lost more than two dozen men in combat. But Mr. Assange also says he takes threats to individual safety seriously, and he boasts that he has withheld or edited thousands of documents as a precaution against potential harm.

If so, he hasn't done a very good job of it. Yesterday, the Times of London noted that "in just two hours of searching the WikiLeaks archive, The Times found the names of dozens of Afghans credited with providing detailed intelligence to U.S. forces. Their villages are given for identification and also, in many cases, their fathers' names."

More links:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/afghan-informants-lives-at-risk-from-documents-posted-on-wikileaks/story-e6frg6so-1225897924552

http://blogs.reuters.com/frontrow/2010/07/28/backlash-over-wikileaks-release-of-afghan-war-documents/

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange responded in an interview from London with NBC’s “Today” show. “We are checking to see whether this is in fact credible. It is probably unlikely. We have taken care to in fact hold back 15,000 for review that should it have this type of material in it. If there are those names in there and they are at risk, this would be because of a misclassification by the U.S. military.”

I do like how he blames the US military for any names he released.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Clearly, the fact that there is some risk did register with him (it couldn't possibly escape anyone!), but I submit that he's done such a poor job in addressing that risk that the scope and gravity of the risk escapes him.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

It sounds to me like you've forgotten why this war was started. This isn't Iraq we're talking about, it's Afghanistan.

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.

Ehh, I would say that if the purpose is whistleblowing, then legitimate whistleblowing is commendable - and wikileaks has done some legitimate whistleblowing. But the helicopter incident and this are at best fishing expeditions* and at worst dangerously damaging treason.

I still think people misunderstand the helicopter/reporter shooting incident (partly due to mischaracterization by wikileaks) and may need a rehash in a new thread...

[edit]*This incident was a pure fishing expedition since it was a mass release of documents, not a whistle-blowing on a specific incident. The helicopter/AP reporter incident was an attempt at a traditional whistle-blowing, but was a strikeout. Whatever the reason or motivation, wikileaks completely misrepresented the incident: the soldiers involved acted properly and the blame for the deaths of the AP reporters falls squarely on the shoulders of the AP reporters.

 

[ZQrn]

It sounds to me like you've forgotten why this war was started. This isn't Iraq we're talking about, it's Afghanistan.

Yes, what was the exact reason the Afghanistan Campaign started?

The Taliban actually offered to extradite Osama to a neutral third country for trial.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/bush-rejects-taliban-offer-to-surrender-bin-laden-631436.html

 

[russ_watters]

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

Let's explore the classification issue a little more.

It is interesting that the Pentagon has labeled "secret" as "relatively low" classification when the definition from the wiki is

"This is the second-highest classification. Information is classified secret when its release would cause "serious damage" to national security. Most information that is classified is held at the secret sensitivity."

That sounds pretty serious to me. It is also worth noting that secret documents are generally restricted in their access, meaning having secret clearance (or even Top Secret clearance) doesn't generally get a person access to all Secret documents, just certain ones they need to know about. But the prime suspect in this case was an intelligence analyst who with his job title was given access to a broad range of classified documents. That's a pretty serious breach and the kind of person a foreign spy would swoon over if they could get access to him.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/07/28/afghanistan.wikileaks.suspect/index.html?hpt=C2

 

[russ_watters]

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.

That is all completely wrong. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are certainly fighting an unconventional war in violation of many rules of armed conflict, but that doesn't mean those rules do not apply. They do.

And they apply to us as well: why do you think we took so much flak over Abu Graib, civilian casualties, and Gitmo?

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,

Of course they can surrender! If the Taliban/Al Qaeda put down their weapons and stopped fighting (and were serious about it), the war would end. You're falsely equating 'don't want to surrender' with "can't surrender". The fact that they want to fight doesn't mean they can't surrender if they choose to. Heck, that's how most wars typically end! This thing people got used to with Iraq where as soon as we attacked the Iraqis started surrendering en masse is not how wars typically work.

The Pacific WWII went completely the other direction with Tokyo surrendering and many soldiers still fighting to the death, as you claim would happen here. While that would likely be a problem here as well, that does not absolve the Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership of blame for continuing to actively participate in the fight.

...therefore there is no war going on in the formal international definition.

Please cite the definition you are using. Here's mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War#Etymology_and_scope

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

The "war on terror" is not the war in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan at least started out as a relatively traditional war. The fact that it has gotten messy doesn't change that classification or the responsibilities of the combatants, though.

...but in international law it doesn't meet these criteria.

Let's try looking at it from a different angle: Since you're saying that it doesn't qualify as a war, are you saying that the US is not bound by international laws of war in this fight?

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

My mistake - it was a claim made by aquitaine in post #30. You entered into that part of the discussion and I incorrectly attributed the original claim to you. It was this statement: "Governments sometimes classify things simply to avoid embarrassing themselves..."

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.

That would simply not be feasible. There is such a huge quantity of documents that they have to be...well... classified as groups.

Heck, it isn't even possible in theory to have "no political allegiance" unless the people doing the analysis aren't even Americans. People who work for the US government work for the US government. Their political allegience is to the USA and that's a large part of the criticism here: we're taking heat from the rest of the world for not being transparent, not just from Americans.

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.

That's related to the above mis-citation I made.

 

[ZQrn]

That is all completely wrong. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are certainly fighting an unconventional war in violation of many rules of armed conflict, but that doesn't mean those rules do not apply. They do.

What?

There are official delegations? Prisoners of war that enjoy protection from torture, and a possibility of a sovereign surrendering?

Might backing up this claim, like, a citation of an instance when an official delegation said down which enjoyed diplomatic immunity?

And they apply to us as well: why do you think we took so much flak over Abu Graib, civilian casualties, and Gitmo? Of course they can surrender! If the Taliban/Al Qaeda put down their weapons and stopped fighting (and were serious about it), the war would end. You're falsely equating 'don't want to surrender' with "can't surrender". The fact that they want to fight doesn't mean they can't surrender if they choose to. Heck, that's how most wars typically end! This thing people got used to with Iraq where as soon as we attacked the Iraqis started surrendering en masse is not how wars typically work.

No, they can't surrender because there isn't one sovereign entity that controls them all. There is no identifiable leader that has authority / command over them all that can tell them to cease fire and stop. Each of these cells fights a largely individualistic initiative with some small communication and cooperation yes. But you're not fighting one army, you're fighting a thousand small separate armies made of 5-10 men that just work together when they can for mutual benefits.

There is no person that can just say 'Okay, we surrender' after which they all put their guns down.

The Pacific WWII went completely the other direction with Tokyo surrendering and many soldiers still fighting to the death, as you claim would happen here. While that would likely be a problem here as well, that does not absolve the Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership of blame for continuing to actively participate in the fight.

How many soldiers fought to the death?

As far as I know, all planes and carriers and what not just put down their arms and went home.

And who or which people are this 'Taliban and Al-Qaeda leadership' exactly, where is their seat located, how can you reach them? How can they reach you? How can they verify themselves when they reach you? How do you know it's not a random person?

There is no identifiable leader and no sovereign.

Please cite the definition you are using. Here's mine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War#Etymology_and_scope

Quite simply, the period from which war was formally declared to the moment peace was declared.

The "war on terror" is not the war in Afghanistan. The war in Afghanistan at least started out as a relatively traditional war. The fact that it has gotten messy doesn't change that classification, though.

Well, that war was already declared over, just like the war in Iraq, there were in both cases official peacetime declarations. What you have no is basically an anarchist country whose leadership can't control the civilians even though the country is formally at peacetime.

The 'war' in Afghanistan was over from the moment the Taliban was unseated, what now takes place is the 'unruly interim occupation of Afghanistan'.

War was declared on the Taliban, and the Taliban has been unseated of power, the the initial war has been won, what now follows is a postbellum of unruliness, which is not too uncommon.

Lets try looking at it from a different angle: Since you're saying that it doesn't qualify as a war, are you saying that the US is not bound by international laws of war in this fight? My mistake - it was a claim made by aquitaine in post #30. You entered into that part of the discussion and I incorrectly attributed the original claim to you. It was this statement: "Governments sometimes classify things simply to avoid embarrassing themselves..." That would simply not be feasible. There is such a huge quantity of documents that they have to be...well... classified as groups.

No, they are technically not required to treat the men they round up as soldiers.

The point is that the terrorists that are round up didn't fight you because they were ordered to do so, they fought you from a personal choice, not because of a choice of their supreme commander. Which is one of the main reasons you can't just torture or punish POV, they were 'only following orders'.

Of course, there's still human rights that most be observed, you can't just torture criminals in a UN perspective, but they are not soldiers, they are terrorists.

Heck, it isn't even possible in theory to have "no political allegiance" unless the people doing the analysis aren't even Americans. People who work for the US government work for the US government. Their political allegience is to the USA and that's a large part of the criticism here: we're taking heat from the rest of the world for not being transparent, not just from Americans. That's related to the above mis-citation I made.

Well, I said 'of course' every time. I agree that it's hard and in practice not feasible.

I'm just pointing out that the USGOV is (of course) willing to release information that could hamper national security when they can influence a midterm with it.

 

[Cyrus]

Russ, I'm not sure what you are giving ZQrn a hard time about, but you need to reread what he's saying more carefully - he's not wrong here. You are missing something very basic here he's pointing out to you.

Then entire notion of the Bush Administration was that capture combatants are not part of a standing army and are therefore not participant to the Geneva Convention, for the exact reasons ZQrn specified.

 

[ZQrn]

Then entire notion of the Bush Administration was that capture combatants are not part of a standing army and are therefore not participant to the Geneva Convention, for the exact reasons ZQrn specified.

And as self-serving that argument as and from the same man who felt that the 'equal protection' clause was an argument to not re-count votes. It is ultimately a correct argument this time.

The reason of the Geneva Convention is that soldiers fight because they are ordered to fight, take your problem up to their boss. They don't choose to fight you themselves, their own opinion as soldiers is irrelevant, they must do as they are told. In the case of terrorists, they fight you from their own political beliefs.

That said: I still want an answer to various questions you've blatantly ignored and not quoted, specifically:

A: What exactly is at stake.
B: For whom is it at stake?
C: If it is not at stake for the American people, then why is it not a preventive war?

 

[Cyrus]

That said: I still want an answer to various questions you've blatantly ignored and not quoted, specifically:

A: What exactly is at stake.
B: For whom is it at stake?
C: If it is not at stake for the American people, then why is it not a preventive war?

I believe you are addressing Russ here.

 

[Gokul43201]

But the helicopter incident and this are at best fishing expeditions* and at worst dangerously damaging treason.

I see these two cases as being quite different. In the helicopter incident, my recollection is that wikileaks produced a video that included some editorial content in addition to the raw footage. It is the editorializing that I object to. My understanding of the present situation is that this is purely a dissemination of raw data.

 

[mheslep]

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

So, no, I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan

 

[apeiron]

Even if Afghanistan/Iraq were just about 9/11 rather than oil and power, the way the US has done things must simply increase the likelihood of further terrorism. So the actions are either incompetent or duplicitous. Either way, I wouldn't be rushing to support them (unless I believed the actual agenda is the occupation of countries of strategic interest).

The US would have done better sub-contracting the job to Mossad.

 

[rootX]

It sounds to me like you've forgotten why this war was started. This isn't Iraq we're talking about, it's Afghanistan.

But the helicopter incidenct was in Iraq and your post mainly focused on that incident.

 

[ZQrn]

Even if Afghanistan/Iraq were just about 9/11 rather than oil and power, the way the US has done things must simply increase the likelihood of further terrorism. So the actions are either incompetent or duplicitous. Either way, I wouldn't be rushing to support them (unless I believed the actual agenda is the occupation of countries of strategic interest).

The US would have done better sub-contracting the job to Mossad.

Interestingly, the Dutch cabinet recently fell because one party in it refused to participate in the Afghanistan missions any longer. The Taliban got note of this and now they love this party apparently, they were quite impressed by the things the party had to say in 'leave these people be, they aren't interested in democracy, democracy is a thing we like, not a thing they like, they are indeed 'enduring freedom'.'

My guess is that if the Netherlands pull back, they have little to fear from a terror attack in a long while.

 

[apeiron]

My guess is that if the Netherlands pull back, they have little to fear from a terror attack in a long while.

Now they just have to fear the US political response to this treasonous action .

Of course the Dutch won't do anything really silly like force the US to pull out of their base in Curaçao. Principles are a fine thing to have, when you can afford them.

 

[ZQrn]

Now they just have to fear the US political response to this treasonous action .

Of course the Dutch won't do anything really silly like force the US to pull out of their base in Curaçao. Principles are a fine thing to have, when you can afford them.

Well, they control the US pot supply, there is nothing the US can do basically. They're eating out of their hands.

 

[Evo]

Well, they control the US pot supply, there is nothing the US can do basically. They're eating out of their hands.

The Dutch?

Also, the thread had gone way off topic, it will be closed in about 30 minutes.

 

[ZQrn]

The Dutch?

Absolutely, though their current interim prime minister might not completely agree.

The beer can is hilarious.

Also, the thread had gone way off topic, it will be closed in about 30 minutes.

Meanie. =(

 

[lisab]

Robert Gates has asked the FBI to look into the leaks.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...igate-Leaked-Military-Documents-99588324.html

They already have the guy who was the leaker, right? So why does Gates want the FBI's help, are they planning to go after Assange now? Interesting.

Ah, late development - Assange says he's been warned he could be arrested.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...leaks-founder-fears-he-could-be-arrested.html

Yep, looks like he may be a target.

 

[Evo]

Robert Gates has asked the FBI to look into the leaks.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...igate-Leaked-Military-Documents-99588324.html

They already have the guy who was the leaker, right? So why does Gates want the FBI's help, are they planning to go after Assange now? Interesting.

Ah, late development - Assange says he's been warned he could be arrested.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...leaks-founder-fears-he-could-be-arrested.html

Yep, looks like he may be a target.

I would think that a person that encourages and accepts leaked files and posts them and endagers people lives should be prosecuted. They're as guilty as the person they've encouraged to commit the act, IMO.

 

[lisab]

I would think that a person that encourages and accepts leaked files and posts them and endagers people lives should be prosecuted. They're as guilty as the person they've encouraged to commit the act, IMO.

I agree. The fact that he has said that wikileaks reviews material before it's released (ostensibly to avoid releasing information they deem too sensitive) makes him especially culpable.

 

[edward]

Robert Gates has asked the FBI to look into the leaks.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/new...igate-Leaked-Military-Documents-99588324.html

They already have the guy who was the leaker, right? So why does Gates want the FBI's help, are they planning to go after Assange now? Interesting.

Ah, late development - Assange says he's been warned he could be arrested.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...leaks-founder-fears-he-could-be-arrested.html

Yep, looks like he may be a target.

Unlike prior to 911 when we had agencies that did not share classified information, we now have too many agencies sharing too much classified information.

There was a good article on this in my morning paper but I can't find a link. I did find the one below that is similar.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010...ay-be-opportunity-for-intelligence-community/

I don't know what Assange is thinking. He can not publicize classified information from another country and not expect repercussions.

 

[Evo]

I agree. The fact that he has said that wikileaks reviews material before it's released (ostensibly to avoid releasing information they deem too sensitive) makes him especially culpable.

His statement that it was the US's fault that wikileaks named all of those Afghanis that worked with the US was surreal. What moron would think it was ok to name these people?

 

[ZQrn]

I would think that a person that encourages and accepts leaked files and posts them and endagers people lives should be prosecuted. They're as guilty as the person they've encouraged to commit the act, IMO.

Except that Assange is not a citizen of the United States and never took an oath of loyalty to them?

I mean, the same argument applies to the other site as well, should some one who provides inside info from the Taliban be prosecuted? their sense of prosecution is a bit less... forgiving I'd reckon.

Edit, the bottom line is, if I receive what ever information from some one which another country or another what-ever entity has classified but I never took an oath to uphold that classification, that information is mine to do with as I please. I mean, what if I classify some info like my birthday pics and you find it, can I then prosecute you for showing it to some other people?

 

[Proton Soup]

I would think that a person that encourages and accepts leaked files and posts them and endagers people lives should be prosecuted. They're as guilty as the person they've encouraged to commit the act, IMO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

 

[Evo]

Except that Assange is not a citizen of the United States and never took an oath of loyalty to them?

I mean, the same argument applies to the other site as well, should some one who provides inside info from the Taliban be prosecuted? their sense of prosecution is a bit less... forgiving I'd reckon.

Edit, the bottom line is, if I receive what ever information from some one which another country or another what-ever entity has classified but I never took an oath to uphold that classification, that information is mine to do with as I please. I mean, what if I classify some info like my birthday pics and you find it, can I then prosecute you for showing it to some other people?

Let's not get silly. This can be considered International espionage. Do you know that the wikileaks site is blocked by the Australian government?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers

Not the same at all. The publication of the names and addresses of innocent people that can result in their death and the death of their families is what is being discussed and is unconscionable. Not to mention the setback to legitimate operations.

 

[ZQrn]

Let's not get silly.

What am I to make from this?

Not the same at all. The publication of the names and addresses of innocent people that can result in their death and the death of their families is what is being discussed and is unconscionable. Not to mention the setback to legitimate operations.

'Innocent' is in the eye of the beholder. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems obvious that you have a 'side' in this conflict of US / Coalition of the Willing vs. Islamic radicalists. I do not have a side in this conflict, to me it's arbitrary.

The leaking of this information furthered the goal of the Taliban yes, to you that's 'bad', to me, this is 'whatever', the leaking of this information also provided more information accessible to me. Which is the only side I have in this situation.

Some one who rattles top secret plans to the Taliban is a traitor to the US, some one who provides inside information to the US is a traitor to the Taliban, it's all the same really. Of course, the Taliban is not a democracy, nor a sovereignty at this point and therefore has a some-what different system of 'classified information'.

 

[Evo]

What am I to make from this?

Read my finished post.

And yes, I do have a side. I don't wish to wind up in a world run by religious fanatics. Nothing is perfect, but I prefer to side with the non-fanatics.

 

[Proton Soup]

Not the same at all. The publication of the names and addresses of innocent people that can result in their death and the death of their families is what is being discussed and is unconscionable. Not to mention the setback to legitimate operations.

since when are collaborators innocent people?

 

[ZQrn]

Let's not get silly. This can be considered International espionage.

So can spying on the Taliban?

The only difference is that the US is a big player you don't want to offend, just as China is.

Do you know that the wikileaks site is blocked by the Australian government?

Sure, you know they blocked a lot more sites which are simply 'critical towards the Australian government', or sites that have to do with self-help with suicide for instance.

I personally don't believe in censorship as you probably already gathered, I also don't believe that 'x blocking y' is a good metre to determine whatever from y. I mean, China blocks youtube, is youtube now an evil?

Of course, some of the biggest censors of all times were the Taliban, and that's a road I don't want to go down to myself. I draw the line at a very clear and transparent point, at 0, which is similar to the views Assange holds I guess, reading up on him.

Don't get me wrong, I do think that an organisation has the right to protect its secrets, as in, to stop others from obtaining that information, possibly through the bullwhip of its own employes or staff. I also feel however that once information is out there it's free for all to use, information is not created, it has always existed and will always exist. It's not a conservative magnitude like mass or energy, I don't see how any person can 'own' it or control how it is used.

since when are collaborators innocent people?

I guess this depends on if you side with the cause of the US/UN here or not. If you do, then these people are heroes, if you side with the Taliban, they are traitors. As said, it's in the eye of the beholder.

I prefer to not use such terms in the absolute sense, but rather 'traitor with respect to ...', in that sense, the person that leaked it is a traitor with respect to the US, and a hero with respect to the Taliban, Assange is neither because he never took an oath of loyalty to either faction.

 

[edward]

since when are collaborators innocent people?

Since when does saving American lives make them guilty of anything??

 

[ZQrn]

Since when does saving American lives make them guilty of anything??

They kill Taliban lives in the process?

Unless you wish to assume that American lives are worth more.

 

[Evo]

since when are collaborators innocent people?

When they want their normal lives back and aren't carrying out raids?

 

[edward]

They kill Taliban lives in the process?

Unless you wish to assume that American lives are worth more.

You are damn right I think that American lives are worth more. This is war not a Sunday school picnic.