Wikileaks

[LeazesMag 0]

Coalition cover ups. well fuck my old boots.

 

Old news. I'm just surprised the us haven't killed more of our people out there. let alone the iraqi's and afghan's.

 

 

the very nature of the beast automatically leads people to think of "cover up", even when it's a genuine security reason. That's the way it is and you won't change it.

 

You can't make such things "accountable".

Partly true but also (and probably more so) just an excuse to keep stuff quiet that the government would rather than public didn't know about. To suggest everything that is 'covered up' is purely for security reasons just doesn't wash I'm afraid. As is evidenced by stuff that comes out after something like this. There's no way in the world it's purely for security reasons. An example is Abu Ghraib.

Another is Watergate?

 

 

Fair enough that one.

[Guest alex]

Coalition cover ups. well fuck my old boots.

 

Old news. I'm just surprised the us haven't killed more of our people out there. let alone the iraqi's and afghan's.

 

 

the very nature of the beast automatically leads people to think of "cover up", even when it's a genuine security reason. That's the way it is and you won't change it.

 

You can't make such things "accountable".

Partly true but also (and probably more so) just an excuse to keep stuff quiet that the government would rather than public didn't know about. To suggest everything that is 'covered up' is purely for security reasons just doesn't wash I'm afraid. As is evidenced by stuff that comes out after something like this. There's no way in the world it's purely for security reasons. An example is Abu Ghraib.

 

Maybe. But the people who decide what is and what isn't made "accountable" are the same people who may or may not have something to "cover up". You won't change it, because it essentially is for security reasons. Sometimes something may go tits up but it is still covered, in essence, by the need for security when lives are involved.

 

Personally, I don't have a problem with beating up some terrorist shitbag and I also accept mistakes are made when lives are at risk, these things don't come under the "accountability" banner and never can be.

That's where we disagree you see because it's people who have a vested interest deciding what should and shouldn't be covered up. It's fine to have things kept secret at the time for security reasons but that always has to be looked at by the wider public / the press etc. at a later date otherwise you just have stuff covered up for political reasons without any accountability. I think that's a given tbh and it should also be made clear that it's my concern that these things come out because it could well be that the government is covering up things like troops not having the proper equipment. That's endangering the lives further of people already putting their neck on the line for the purported interests of our country. I also don't see how keeping quiet about the Taliban getting hold of surface-to-air missiles is anything other than a political decision. But that's the trouble when you give carte blanche to people under the guise of national security.

Incidentally Abu Ghraib was probably more about inadvertently creating future 'terrorist shitbags' than doling out 'justice' to ones who had already committed offences.

[Kitman 2207]

The best you can say about it is the whole thing's seedy as fuck. Imo it's as mcuh to do with the desire to conceal the mess that's been made from the American public as preserving the security of operations. This strikes me as Iraq Mark 2, where the American administration has executed a poorly thought out campaign, got into terrible trouble and has tried to dig itself out of the shit by a combination of throwing money at the problem and trampling over human rights and international law.

 

It also seems to me that the Allied Coalition is losing in Afghanistan. But any student of history will tell that was always going to happen anyway. The British couldn't win in the 19th century, and the Russians couldn't win in the 20th century, so heaven knows why the Yanks think they can win in the 21st. It's corrupt, feudal, anti-Western, sectarian, fragmented, funded by drugs and comprised of and surrounded by factional interests, the terrrrain is impossible to fight modern warfare in or keep supply lines open in and so on. Added to that there's vested interests in the American military and industry, the numbskulls at the CIA, and the fuckwits in the Republican party that either want to get rich from war or prosecute some kind of holy crusade against a third world country.

 

The whole "war on terror" has been a political and humanitarian disaster imo and this Wiki Leaks thing doesn't surprise me at all. I don't trust the American or British governments to get it right on our behalf and I don't think they've served the interests of democracy or world security well at all. It sounds like the WikiLeaks material shows they don't deserve our trust either. The thing that strikes me most about the American govenrment, particularly under George Bush, is their stupidity and arrogance; under the circumstances I can understand their panic that the American public will now wake up and smell the coffee on how their tax dollars have really been spent.

[Happy Face 29]

The best you can say about it is the whole thing's seedy as fuck. Imo it's as mcuh to do with the desire to conceal the mess that's been made from the American public as preserving the security of operations. This strikes me as Iraq Mark 2, where the American administration has executed a poorly thought out campaign, got into terrible trouble and has tried to dig itself out of the shit by a combination of throwing money at the problem and trampling over human rights and international law.

 

It also seems to me that the Allied Coalition is losing in Afghanistan. But any student of history will tell that was always going to happen anyway. The British couldn't win in the 19th century, and the Russians couldn't win in the 20th century, so heaven knows why the Yanks think they can win in the 21st. It's corrupt, feudal, anti-Western, sectarian, fragmented, funded by drugs and comprised of and surrounded by factional interests, the terrrrain is impossible to fight modern warfare in or keep supply lines open in and so on. Added to that there's vested interests in the American military and industry, the numbskulls at the CIA, and the fuckwits in the Republican party that either want to get rich from war or prosecute some kind of holy crusade against a third world country.

 

The whole "war on terror" has been a political and humanitarian disaster imo and this Wiki Leaks thing doesn't surprise me at all. I don't trust the American or British governments to get it right on our behalf and I don't think they've served the interests of democracy or world security well at all. It sounds like the WikiLeaks material shows they don't deserve our trust either. The thing that strikes me most about the American govenrment, particularly under George Bush, is their stupidity and arrogance; under the circumstances I can understand their panic that the American public will now wake up and smell the coffee on how their tax dollars have really been spent.

 

Agree with all that.

 

The problem with pinning it on the Republicans and Bush in particular is that people think things are going any better under new leadership, which is not the case at all. The Democrats have thrown more money, more soldiers and more drones at Afghanistan. They've killed more civilians and as a result created more resentment and more jihadists among the population.

 

The White House have tried to spin the leak as a Republican problem too. Arguing that they only report up to December 2009.....when Obama had been in office for a year.

 

Far from fixing the problem, the house today voted they would throw even more money at it, while ignoring domestic hardship....

 

The House is sending to President Barack Obama a bill to fund the troop surge in Afghanistan after accepting the reality that adding money for domestic programs was unfeasible.

 

House Democrats reluctantly voted for the $59 billion measure Tuesday that will pay for Obama's 30,000-troop surge and other programs such as replenishing disaster funds. But the bill was stripped of money to keep teachers on the job or boost student aid. The vote comes a week after the Senate soundly rejected the larger House-favored bill.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/27/...in6718896.shtml

Edited July 28, 2010 by Happy Face

[Kitman 2207]

The best you can say about it is the whole thing's seedy as fuck. Imo it's as mcuh to do with the desire to conceal the mess that's been made from the American public as preserving the security of operations. This strikes me as Iraq Mark 2, where the American administration has executed a poorly thought out campaign, got into terrible trouble and has tried to dig itself out of the shit by a combination of throwing money at the problem and trampling over human rights and international law.

 

It also seems to me that the Allied Coalition is losing in Afghanistan. But any student of history will tell that was always going to happen anyway. The British couldn't win in the 19th century, and the Russians couldn't win in the 20th century, so heaven knows why the Yanks think they can win in the 21st. It's corrupt, feudal, anti-Western, sectarian, fragmented, funded by drugs and comprised of and surrounded by factional interests, the terrrrain is impossible to fight modern warfare in or keep supply lines open in and so on. Added to that there's vested interests in the American military and industry, the numbskulls at the CIA, and the fuckwits in the Republican party that either want to get rich from war or prosecute some kind of holy crusade against a third world country.

 

The whole "war on terror" has been a political and humanitarian disaster imo and this Wiki Leaks thing doesn't surprise me at all. I don't trust the American or British governments to get it right on our behalf and I don't think they've served the interests of democracy or world security well at all. It sounds like the WikiLeaks material shows they don't deserve our trust either. The thing that strikes me most about the American govenrment, particularly under George Bush, is their stupidity and arrogance; under the circumstances I can understand their panic that the American public will now wake up and smell the coffee on how their tax dollars have really been spent.

 

Agree with all that.

 

The problem with pinning it on the Republicans and Bush in particular is that people think things are going any better under new leadership, which is not the case at all. The Democrats have thrown more money, more soldiers and more drones at Afghanistan. They've killed more civilians and as a result created more resentment and more jihadists among the population.

 

The White House have tried to spin the leak as a Republican problem too. Arguing that they only report up to December 2009.....when Obama had been in office for a year.

 

Far from fixing the problem, the house today voted they would throw even more money at it, while ignoring domestic hardship....

 

The House is sending to President Barack Obama a bill to fund the troop surge in Afghanistan after accepting the reality that adding money for domestic programs was unfeasible.

 

House Democrats reluctantly voted for the $59 billion measure Tuesday that will pay for Obama's 30,000-troop surge and other programs such as replenishing disaster funds. But the bill was stripped of money to keep teachers on the job or boost student aid. The vote comes a week after the Senate soundly rejected the larger House-favored bill.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/27/...in6718896.shtml

 

I guess the problem the Democrats have is that unless they're seen to have won the "war", any withdrawal looks like capitulation. And a humiliating Vietnam syle withdrawal would be political suicide. I expect the strategy is, as you say, blame the mess on the Rebuplicans, throw enough money at it to get some progress over the Taliban, then get the hell out claiming credit for sorting it out and hoping Karzai can survive long enough for it all to have some credibility.

[Happy Face 29]

The best you can say about it is the whole thing's seedy as fuck. Imo it's as mcuh to do with the desire to conceal the mess that's been made from the American public as preserving the security of operations. This strikes me as Iraq Mark 2, where the American administration has executed a poorly thought out campaign, got into terrible trouble and has tried to dig itself out of the shit by a combination of throwing money at the problem and trampling over human rights and international law.

 

It also seems to me that the Allied Coalition is losing in Afghanistan. But any student of history will tell that was always going to happen anyway. The British couldn't win in the 19th century, and the Russians couldn't win in the 20th century, so heaven knows why the Yanks think they can win in the 21st. It's corrupt, feudal, anti-Western, sectarian, fragmented, funded by drugs and comprised of and surrounded by factional interests, the terrrrain is impossible to fight modern warfare in or keep supply lines open in and so on. Added to that there's vested interests in the American military and industry, the numbskulls at the CIA, and the fuckwits in the Republican party that either want to get rich from war or prosecute some kind of holy crusade against a third world country.

 

The whole "war on terror" has been a political and humanitarian disaster imo and this Wiki Leaks thing doesn't surprise me at all. I don't trust the American or British governments to get it right on our behalf and I don't think they've served the interests of democracy or world security well at all. It sounds like the WikiLeaks material shows they don't deserve our trust either. The thing that strikes me most about the American govenrment, particularly under George Bush, is their stupidity and arrogance; under the circumstances I can understand their panic that the American public will now wake up and smell the coffee on how their tax dollars have really been spent.

 

Agree with all that.

 

The problem with pinning it on the Republicans and Bush in particular is that people think things are going any better under new leadership, which is not the case at all. The Democrats have thrown more money, more soldiers and more drones at Afghanistan. They've killed more civilians and as a result created more resentment and more jihadists among the population.

 

The White House have tried to spin the leak as a Republican problem too. Arguing that they only report up to December 2009.....when Obama had been in office for a year.

 

Far from fixing the problem, the house today voted they would throw even more money at it, while ignoring domestic hardship....

 

The House is sending to President Barack Obama a bill to fund the troop surge in Afghanistan after accepting the reality that adding money for domestic programs was unfeasible.

 

House Democrats reluctantly voted for the $59 billion measure Tuesday that will pay for Obama's 30,000-troop surge and other programs such as replenishing disaster funds. But the bill was stripped of money to keep teachers on the job or boost student aid. The vote comes a week after the Senate soundly rejected the larger House-favored bill.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/27/...in6718896.shtml

 

I guess the problem the Democrats have is that unless they're seen to have won the "war", any withdrawal looks like capitulation. And a humiliating Vietnam syle withdrawal would be political suicide. I expect the strategy is, as you say, blame the mess on the Rebuplicans, throw enough money at it to get some progress over the Taliban, then get the hell out claiming credit for sorting it out and hoping Karzai can survive long enough for it all to have some credibility.

 

If they say they've won...they've won.

 

There's not an opponent in this war that can surrender. There's not even an organised, cohesive resistance. Attacks come from people with no alliances to any group at all, just pissed off people that look up 'bomb making' on the internet when they see their wives and children indiscriminately killed.

 

Declared active jihadists are limited to a hundred or so people in the mountains, that's enough to say "we've incapacitated terror networks and now plan to work on reducing recruitment by withdrawing from the country" .

 

Instead they've allocated another £59 billion to fighting that 100 odd strong army while cutting every other government department. Permanant war is a profitable business the people that own Washington like to maintain.

Edited July 28, 2010 by Happy Face

[Kitman 2207]

The best you can say about it is the whole thing's seedy as fuck. Imo it's as mcuh to do with the desire to conceal the mess that's been made from the American public as preserving the security of operations. This strikes me as Iraq Mark 2, where the American administration has executed a poorly thought out campaign, got into terrible trouble and has tried to dig itself out of the shit by a combination of throwing money at the problem and trampling over human rights and international law.

 

It also seems to me that the Allied Coalition is losing in Afghanistan. But any student of history will tell that was always going to happen anyway. The British couldn't win in the 19th century, and the Russians couldn't win in the 20th century, so heaven knows why the Yanks think they can win in the 21st. It's corrupt, feudal, anti-Western, sectarian, fragmented, funded by drugs and comprised of and surrounded by factional interests, the terrrrain is impossible to fight modern warfare in or keep supply lines open in and so on. Added to that there's vested interests in the American military and industry, the numbskulls at the CIA, and the fuckwits in the Republican party that either want to get rich from war or prosecute some kind of holy crusade against a third world country.

 

The whole "war on terror" has been a political and humanitarian disaster imo and this Wiki Leaks thing doesn't surprise me at all. I don't trust the American or British governments to get it right on our behalf and I don't think they've served the interests of democracy or world security well at all. It sounds like the WikiLeaks material shows they don't deserve our trust either. The thing that strikes me most about the American govenrment, particularly under George Bush, is their stupidity and arrogance; under the circumstances I can understand their panic that the American public will now wake up and smell the coffee on how their tax dollars have really been spent.

 

Agree with all that.

 

The problem with pinning it on the Republicans and Bush in particular is that people think things are going any better under new leadership, which is not the case at all. The Democrats have thrown more money, more soldiers and more drones at Afghanistan. They've killed more civilians and as a result created more resentment and more jihadists among the population.

 

The White House have tried to spin the leak as a Republican problem too. Arguing that they only report up to December 2009.....when Obama had been in office for a year.

 

Far from fixing the problem, the house today voted they would throw even more money at it, while ignoring domestic hardship....

 

The House is sending to President Barack Obama a bill to fund the troop surge in Afghanistan after accepting the reality that adding money for domestic programs was unfeasible.

 

House Democrats reluctantly voted for the $59 billion measure Tuesday that will pay for Obama's 30,000-troop surge and other programs such as replenishing disaster funds. But the bill was stripped of money to keep teachers on the job or boost student aid. The vote comes a week after the Senate soundly rejected the larger House-favored bill.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/07/27/...in6718896.shtml

 

I guess the problem the Democrats have is that unless they're seen to have won the "war", any withdrawal looks like capitulation. And a humiliating Vietnam syle withdrawal would be political suicide. I expect the strategy is, as you say, blame the mess on the Rebuplicans, throw enough money at it to get some progress over the Taliban, then get the hell out claiming credit for sorting it out and hoping Karzai can survive long enough for it all to have some credibility.

 

If they say they've won...they've won.

 

There's not an opponent in this war that can surrender. There's not even an organised, cohesive resistance. Attacks come from people with no alliances to any group at all, just pissed off people that look up 'bomb making' on the internet when they see their wives and children indiscriminately killed.

 

Declared active jihadists are limited to a hundred or so people in the mountains, that's enough to say "we've incapacitated terror networks and now plan to work on reducing recruitment by withdrawing from the country" .

 

Instead they've allocated another £59 billion to fighting that 100 odd strong army while cutting every other government department. Permanant war is a profitable business the people that own Washington like to maintain.

 

Interesting viewpoint, not sure I wholly agree....I don't think it's the sort of look the Democrats want and I don't see Obama as the crusading type either. Time will tell I suppose.

[ewerk 30647]

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange accused of rape

 

Swedish authorities say they have issued an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, on accusations of rape and molestation.

 

The warrant was issued late on Friday, said Karin Rosander, communications head at Sweden's prosecutors' office.

 

Swedish police have been trying to contact Mr Assange, but have not yet been able to, she told the BBC.

 

Wikileaks, criticised for leaking Afghan war documents, quoted him saying the charges were "without basis".

 

The message, which appeared on Twitter and was attributed directly to Mr Assange, said the appearance of the allegations "at this moment is deeply disturbing".

 

In a series of other messages posted on the Wikileaks Twitter feed, the whistle-blowing website said: "No-one here has been contacted by Swedish police", and that it had been warned to expect "dirty tricks".

 

Last month, Wikileaks published more than 90,000 secret US military documents on the war in Afghanistan.

 

US authorities criticised the leak, saying it could put the lives of coalition soldiers and Afghans, especially informers, at risk.

 

Mr Assange has said that Wikileaks is intending to release a further 15,000 documents in the coming weeks.

 

Ms Rosander said there were two separate allegations against Mr Assange, one of rape and the other of molestation.

 

She gave no details of the accusations. She said that as far as she knew they related to alleged incidents that took place in Sweden.

 

Media reports say Mr Assange was in Sweden last week to talk about his work and defend the decision by Wikileaks to publish the Afghan war logs.

 

The allegations were first reported in the Swedish newspaper Expressen.

[Ketsbaia 0]

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange accused of rape

 

Swedish authorities say they have issued an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, on accusations of rape and molestation.

 

The warrant was issued late on Friday, said Karin Rosander, communications head at Sweden's prosecutors' office.

 

Swedish police have been trying to contact Mr Assange, but have not yet been able to, she told the BBC.

 

Wikileaks, criticised for leaking Afghan war documents, quoted him saying the charges were "without basis".

 

The message, which appeared on Twitter and was attributed directly to Mr Assange, said the appearance of the allegations "at this moment is deeply disturbing".

 

In a series of other messages posted on the Wikileaks Twitter feed, the whistle-blowing website said: "No-one here has been contacted by Swedish police", and that it had been warned to expect "dirty tricks".

 

Last month, Wikileaks published more than 90,000 secret US military documents on the war in Afghanistan.

 

US authorities criticised the leak, saying it could put the lives of coalition soldiers and Afghans, especially informers, at risk.

 

Mr Assange has said that Wikileaks is intending to release a further 15,000 documents in the coming weeks.

 

Ms Rosander said there were two separate allegations against Mr Assange, one of rape and the other of molestation.

 

She gave no details of the accusations. She said that as far as she knew they related to alleged incidents that took place in Sweden.

 

Media reports say Mr Assange was in Sweden last week to talk about his work and defend the decision by Wikileaks to publish the Afghan war logs.

 

The allegations were first reported in the Swedish newspaper Expressen.

 

It was only a matter of time

[ewerk 30647]

Swedish rape warrant for Wikileaks' Assange cancelled

 

Sweden has cancelled an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange on accusations of rape and molestation.

 

The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said the chief prosecutor had come to the decision that Mr Assange was not suspected of rape but did not give any further explanation.

 

The warrant was issued late on Friday.

 

Wikileaks, which has been criticised for leaking Afghan war documents, had quoted Mr Assange as saying the charges were "without basis".

 

That message, which appeared on Twitter and was attributed directly to Mr Assange, said the appearance of the allegations "at this moment is deeply disturbing".

 

In a series of other messages posted on the Wikileaks Twitter feed, the whistle-blowing website said: "No-one here has been contacted by Swedish police", and that it had been warned to expect "dirty tricks".

 

In its "official blog" on Saturday before the warrant was cancelled, Wikileaks said it was "deeply concerned about the seriousness of these allegations. We the people behind Wikileaks think highly of Julian and and he has our full support".

 

The current whereabouts of Mr Assange, a 39-year-old Australian, are unclear.

 

The Swedish Prosecution Authority website said chief prosecutor Eva Finne had come to the decision that Julian Assange was not subject to arrest.

 

In a brief statement Eva Finne said: "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape."

 

The website said there would be no further immediate comment.

 

Earlier, Karin Rosander, communications head at Sweden's prosecutors' office, said there were two separate allegations against Mr Assange, one of rape and the other of molestation. She gave no details of the accusations. She said that as far as she knew they related to alleged incidents that took place in Sweden.

 

Media reports say Mr Assange was in Sweden last week to talk about his work and defend the decision by Wikileaks to publish the Afghan war logs.

 

Last month, Wikileaks published more than 75,000 secret US military documents on the war in Afghanistan.

 

US authorities criticised the leak, saying it could put the lives of coalition soldiers and Afghans, especially informers, at risk.

 

Mr Assange has said that Wikileaks is intending to release a further 15,000 documents in the coming weeks.

 

[Happy Face 29]

I thought for a millisecond I should maybe change my avatar. Didn't think it would be debunked so quickly though.

 

Of course it'll become the de facto label for Assange in the US to discredit him....he can't be trusted because he was accused of rape.

Edited August 22, 2010 by Happy Face

[Kitman 2207]

I expected the CIA to make a better job of framing tbh

[Park Life 71]

I expected the CIA to make a better job of framing tbh

[Happy Face 29]

Following yesterday's reveations......

 

Channel 4's Dispatches on Monday is devoted to the Iraq war logs. Among its findings are more than 300 reports alleging abuse by US forces on Iraqi prisoners after April 2004; evidence of more than 1,300 individual cases of the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Iraqis in police stations and army bases; and how the US authorities were aware of horrific violence by Iraqi militias, including 32,500 murders - of which 160 victims were children.

 

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatc...es-74/episode-1

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24...tml?_r=2&hp

 

Revealing the Afghan intelligence sources is disgraceful, will potentially put their lives at risk and genuinely harm the effort. Patraeus relies heavily on this sort of intelligence gathering from local sources which has proved highly successful wherever he has employed the strategy.

 

"But now, WikiLeaks has been met with new doubts. Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have joined the Pentagon in criticizing the organization for risking people’s lives by publishing war logs identifying Afghans working for the Americans or acting as informers. "

 

"Mr. Assange defended posting unredacted documents, saying he balanced his decision “with the knowledge of the tremendous good and prevention of harm that is caused” by putting the information into the public domain. “There are no easy choices on the table for this organization,” he said."

 

What a crock of shit. I hope the fame and notoriety is worth it for him, got a feeling he'll top himself one of these days.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Happy Face 29]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24...tml?_r=2&hp

 

Revealing the Afghan intelligence sources is disgraceful, will potentially put their lives at risk and genuinely harm the effort. Patraeus relies heavily on this sort of intelligence gathering from local sources which has proved highly successful wherever he has employed the strategy.

 

"But now, WikiLeaks has been met with new doubts. Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have joined the Pentagon in criticizing the organization for risking people’s lives by publishing war logs identifying Afghans working for the Americans or acting as informers. "

 

"Mr. Assange defended posting unredacted documents, saying he balanced his decision “with the knowledge of the tremendous good and prevention of harm that is caused” by putting the information into the public domain. “There are no easy choices on the table for this organization,” he said."

 

What a crock of shit. I hope the fame and notoriety is worth it for him, got a feeling he'll top himself one of these days.

 

This is how the U.S. government and American media jointly disseminate propaganda: in the immediate wake of some newsworthy War on Terror event, U.S. Government officials (usually anonymous) make wild and reckless -- though unverifiable -- claims. The U.S. media mindlessly trumpets them around the world without question or challenge. Those claims become consecrated as widely accepted fact. And then weeks, months or years later, those claims get quietly exposed as being utter falsehoods, by which point it does not matter, because the goal is already well-achieved: the falsehoods are ingrained as accepted truth.

 

I've documented how this process works in the context of American air attacks (it's immediately celebrated that we Killed the Evil Targeted Terrorist Leader [who invariably turns out to be alive and then allegedly killed again in the next air strike], while the dead are always, by definition, "militants"); with covered-up American war crimes, with the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman frauds -- the same process was also evident with the Israeli attack on the flotilla -- and now we find a quite vivid illustration of this deceitful process in the context of WikiLeaks' release of Afghanistan war documents:

 

CNN, July 29, 2010:

 

Top military official: WikiLeaks founder may have 'blood' on his hands

 

The top U.S. military officer said Thursday that Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, was risking lives to make a political point by publishing thousands of military reports from Afghanistan.

 

"Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a news conference at the Pentagon. . . .

 

In equally stern comments and at the same session, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the massive leak will have significant impact on troops and allies, giving away techniques and procedures.

 

"The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world," Gates said. "Intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures will become known to our adversaries."

 

The Guardian, July 26, 2010:

 

The White House today condemned whistleblower WikiLeaks, accusing the website of putting the lives of US, UK and coalition troops in danger and threatening America's national security of the US after it posted more than 90,000 leaked US military documents about the war in Afghanistan.

 

Sen. Carl Levin, CNN, August 1, 2010:

 

CANDY CROWLEY: I want to turn you to WikiLeaks, which also comes under your bailiwick to a certain extent. Some 90,000 documents with secret information or top secret information. Can you quantify the damage?

 

LEVIN: Not yet. I think that's being assessed right now as to how many sources of information that gave us information that was useful to us are now in jeopardy. That -- that determination and damage assessment is being made right now by the Pentagon.But there quite clearly was damage.

 

DoD Spokesman Geoff Morrell, August 5, 2010:

 

WikiLeaks's public disclosure last week of a large number of our documents has already threatened the safety of our troops, our allies and Afghan citizens who are working with us to help bring about peace and stability in that part of the world.

 

The Heritage Foundation's Conn Carroll, August 24, 2010:

 

Julian Assanage -- you know, molesting charges aside -- is a criminal. He broke the law.He is, you know, a murderer of American and Afghani people. His carelessness has killed people.

 

Steven Aftergood, self-proclaimed transparency advocate and leading WikiLeaks critic, August 16, 2010:

 

Wikileaks has failed to demonstrate similar discernment in handling classified records, and it will be up to others to try to repair the damage it has caused.

 

Liz Cheney, August 2, 2010:

 

Dick Cheney's daughter, Liz Cheney wants the government of Iceland to stop its Wikileaks support. . . . "Our Government should make sure that Mr. Assange, Wikileaks founder and spokesman, never gets a U.S. Visa -- He has blood on his hands," Liz Cheney said.

 

She didn't stop there. She went on to say: "What he's done is very clearly aiding and abetting al Qaeda. And as I said, he may very well be responsible for the deaths of American soldiers in Afghanistan," she concluded.

 

Newt Gingrich, Newsmax interview, July 31, 2010:

 

Q: What does that do the Afghanistan war effort, and how does that put our men and women at risk?

 

GINGRICH: The release of these documents should be regarded as an act of treason. When you release 70 or 80,000 documents, you don't know how many people you're going to kill . . . . Frankly, I think we should be very aggressive about the website that was set up, WikiLeaks, and I think we should be very, very strong on the condemnation of the newspapers that published them.

 

Paul Rieckhoff, August 2, 2010:

 

At the end of the day I think Admiral Mullen is right. I think Julian Assange and WikiLeaks already probably have blood on their hands.

 

CNN, today:

 

The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks

did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded

. . . .

 

The assessment, revealed in a letter from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), comes after a thorough Pentagon review of the more than 70,000 documents posted to the controversial whistle-blower site in July. . . .

 

The defense secretary said that the published documents do contain names of some cooperating Afghans, who could face reprisal by Taliban.

 

But a senior NATO official in Kabul told CNN that there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.

 

Let's repeat that. Despite Gates' ongoing assertion that "the initial assessment in no way discounts the risk to national security" and that "there is still concern Afghans named in the published documents could be retaliated against by the Taliban," even the DoD and NATO admit that the WikiLeaks release "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods" and that "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak." Nonetheless, the accusation that WikiLeaks and Assange have "blood on their hands" was -- as intended -- trumpeted around the world for weeks without much question or challenge.

 

It's been clear from the start that -- despite the valid concern that WikiLeaks should have been more vigilant in redacting the names of innocent Afghan civilians -- the Pentagon (and its media and pundit servants) were drastically exaggerating the harms, as The Associated Press noted on August 17:

 

The WikiLeaks leak is unrivaled in its scope, but so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation.

 

Some private analysts, in fact, think the danger has been overstated. "I am underwhelmed by this argument. The Pentagon is hyping," says John Prados, a military and intelligence historian who works for the anti-secrecy National Security Archive. He said in an interview that relatively few names have surfaced and it's not clear whether their present circumstances leave them in jeopardy.

 

And on August 11, even the DOD was forced to admit to The Washington Post the complete absence of any evidence to support its wild accusations: "'We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents,' [Pentagon spokesman Geoff] Morrell said." Nonetheless, the initial spate of hysterically accusatory rhetoric, combined with the uncritical media dissemination, poisoned public opinion about WikiLeaks, and the fact that those accusations have been subsequently revealed as baseless will receive little attention and undo none of that deceit-based damage.

 

The benefits to the Government from spewing baseless accusations against WikiLeaks are obvious: they inure the public to the thuggish steps being taken to cripple and otherwise intimidate the whistleblowing site from exposing more government secrets about the truth of our wars. WikiLeaks' American spokesman, Jacob Appelbaum, was detained for hours at the airport when entering the U.S. in August, had his property seized (his laptop and cellphones), and was threatened with similar treatment each time he re-enters the U.S., and the following day was interrogated by FBI agents at a conference at which he spoke in New York. This week, WikiLeaks was notified that the service it uses to collect online donations "had closed down its account because it had been put on an official US watchlist and on an Australian government blacklist." And, of course, both the organization itself and Julian Assange have been repeatedly and publicly threatened with prosecution.

 

The effort to smear WikiLeaks is a by-product not only of anger over past disclosures, but fear of future ones as well. As CBS News reported yesterday: "The Pentagon is bracing for the possible release of as many as 400,000 potentially explosive secret military documents on the U.S.-Iraq war by WikiLeaks. The self-described whistleblower website could release the files as early as Sunday. . . . part of the fear about the potential release is the unknown: Defense officials are not sure exactly what documents WikiLeaks has."

 

Whatever else is true about this latest release (and future leaks by WikiLeaks as well), substantially greater caution is obviously warranted when assessing and repeating Pentagon accusations about the damage caused by these new documents and the supposed recklessness of WikiLeaks in releasing them. But that is unlikely to happen. If our established media is governed by any overarching principle, it's this: when the U.S. military speaks, its pronouncements -- especially in the beginning -- are to be respected, believed and repeated without question or challenge no matter how many times that deference proves to be unwarranted.

 

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_gr...eaks/index.html

 

And as predicted, the smearing started immediately after the latest release.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Did you read the article HF?

 

Tbh I view the guy in the same way I view the phone hackers in the British media: they should face due process and be dealt with.

[Happy Face 29]

Did you read the article HF?

 

Tbh I view the guy in the same way I view the phone hackers in the British media: they should face due process and be dealt with.

 

I stopped when they got to the rape allegation that was withdrawn almost as soon as it was set up, which (as predicted earlier in this thread) will be used as a baseless smear against him forever more.

 

I'll finish reading it just for you though sweetie.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Happy Face

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Did you read the article HF?

 

Tbh I view the guy in the same way I view the phone hackers in the British media: they should face due process and be dealt with.

 

I stopped when they got to the rape allegation that was withdrawn almost as soon as it was set up, which (as predicted earlier in this thread) will be used as a baseless smear against him forever more.

 

I'll finish reading it just for you though sweetie.

 

I only ask because it contains an interview of sorts with Assange (met him in a restaurant) and thought you'd be interested.

 

"He is also being investigated in connection with accusations of rape and molestation involving two Swedish women. Mr. Assange has denied the allegations, saying the relations were consensual. But prosecutors in Sweden have yet to formally approve charges or dismiss the case eight weeks after the complaints against Mr. Assange were filed, damaging his quest for a secure base for himself and WikiLeaks. Though he characterizes the claims as “a smear campaign,” the scandal has compounded the pressures of his cloaked life. "

 

Is the above inaccurate or slanderous or have you just got a major hard-on for Julian? (genuine question)

 

 

He is a criminal and should face due process. What's he doing releasing the BNP membership list? That is shocking tbh, and Leazes will not be happy at all with it, nor should he be. As I say I view his actions in the same light as the phone-hacking scandal here. Sounds like he'll end up topping himself though due to his lifestyle.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[LeazesMag 0]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24...tml?_r=2&hp

 

Revealing the Afghan intelligence sources is disgraceful, will potentially put their lives at risk and genuinely harm the effort. Patraeus relies heavily on this sort of intelligence gathering from local sources which has proved highly successful wherever he has employed the strategy.

 

"But now, WikiLeaks has been met with new doubts. Amnesty International and Reporters Without Borders have joined the Pentagon in criticizing the organization for risking people’s lives by publishing war logs identifying Afghans working for the Americans or acting as informers. "

 

"Mr. Assange defended posting unredacted documents, saying he balanced his decision “with the knowledge of the tremendous good and prevention of harm that is caused” by putting the information into the public domain. “There are no easy choices on the table for this organization,” he said."

 

What a crock of shit. I hope the fame and notoriety is worth it for him, got a feeling he'll top himself one of these days.

 

hopefully someone will top him first. Painfully.

 

Wanker.

[LeazesMag 0]

Did you read the article HF?

 

Tbh I view the guy in the same way I view the phone hackers in the British media: they should face due process and be dealt with.

 

I stopped when they got to the rape allegation that was withdrawn almost as soon as it was set up, which (as predicted earlier in this thread) will be used as a baseless smear against him forever more.

 

I'll finish reading it just for you though sweetie.

 

I only ask because it contains an interview of sorts with Assange (met him in a restaurant) and thought you'd be interested.

 

"He is also being investigated in connection with accusations of rape and molestation involving two Swedish women. Mr. Assange has denied the allegations, saying the relations were consensual. But prosecutors in Sweden have yet to formally approve charges or dismiss the case eight weeks after the complaints against Mr. Assange were filed, damaging his quest for a secure base for himself and WikiLeaks. Though he characterizes the claims as “a smear campaign,” the scandal has compounded the pressures of his cloaked life. "

 

Is the above inaccurate or slanderous or have you just got a major hard-on for Julian? (genuine question)

 

 

He is a criminal and should face due process. What's he doing releasing the BNP membership list? That is shocking tbh, and Leazes will not be happy at all with it, nor should he be. As I say I view his actions in the same light as the phone-hacking scandal here. Sounds like he'll end up topping himself though due to his lifestyle.

 

I've never voted BNP like

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Is this one slanderous and inaccurate?

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...ttoWhatsNewsTop

 

"A group of human-rights organizations is pressing WikiLeaks to do a better job of redacting names from thousands of war documents it is publishing, joining the list of critics that claim the Web site's actions could jeopardize the safety of Afghans who aided the U.S. military.

The letter from five human-rights groups sparked a tense exchange in which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange issued a tart challenge for the organizations to help with the massive task of removing names from thousands of documents, according to several of the organizations that signed the letter. The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents' publication.

The human-rights groups involved are Amnesty International; Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, or CIVIC; Open Society Institute, or OSI, the charitable organization funded by George Soros; Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission; and the Kabul office of International Crisis Group, or ICG.

The groups emailed WikiLeaks to say they were concerned for the safety of Afghans identified as helping the U.S. military in documents obtained by WikiLeaks, according to several of the groups. WikiLeaks has already published 76,000 of the documents and plans to publish up to 15,000 more."

[Happy Face 29]

Did you read the article HF?

 

Tbh I view the guy in the same way I view the phone hackers in the British media: they should face due process and be dealt with.

 

I stopped when they got to the rape allegation that was withdrawn almost as soon as it was set up, which (as predicted earlier in this thread) will be used as a baseless smear against him forever more.

 

I'll finish reading it just for you though sweetie.

 

I only ask because it contains an interview of sorts with Assange (met him in a restaurant) and thought you'd be interested.

 

"He is also being investigated in connection with accusations of rape and molestation involving two Swedish women. Mr. Assange has denied the allegations, saying the relations were consensual. But prosecutors in Sweden have yet to formally approve charges or dismiss the case eight weeks after the complaints against Mr. Assange were filed, damaging his quest for a secure base for himself and WikiLeaks. Though he characterizes the claims as “a smear campaign,” the scandal has compounded the pressures of his cloaked life. "

 

Is the above inaccurate or slanderous or have you just got a major hard-on for Julian? (genuine question)

 

 

He is a criminal and should face due process. What's he doing releasing the BNP membership list? That is shocking tbh, and Leazes will not be happy at all with it, nor should he be. As I say I view his actions in the same light as the phone-hacking scandal here. Sounds like he'll end up topping himself though due to his lifestyle.

 

I genuinely do have a hard on for him. He was my avatar for most of this year.

 

You'll see a quote of his on the left of this post.

 

I don't know if the rape investigation will stick....but the warrant for his arrest on the charge was withdrawn almost as soon as it was released.

[Ketsbaia 0]

I don't care much for Assange the person, he comes across as a bit of a cunt tbh, but Wikileaks performs a vital task. You need to hold these fuckers to account or they'll get up to all sorts in 'our name'.

 

Any whinging about the safety of Afghans being compromised because of the leaks is laughable as the allegations have been proven to be utter shite.

[Happy Face 29]

Is this one slanderous and inaccurate?

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405...ttoWhatsNewsTop

 

"A group of human-rights organizations is pressing WikiLeaks to do a better job of redacting names from thousands of war documents it is publishing, joining the list of critics that claim the Web site's actions could jeopardize the safety of Afghans who aided the U.S. military.

The letter from five human-rights groups sparked a tense exchange in which WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange issued a tart challenge for the organizations to help with the massive task of removing names from thousands of documents, according to several of the organizations that signed the letter. The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents' publication.

The human-rights groups involved are Amnesty International; Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, or CIVIC; Open Society Institute, or OSI, the charitable organization funded by George Soros; Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission; and the Kabul office of International Crisis Group, or ICG.

The groups emailed WikiLeaks to say they were concerned for the safety of Afghans identified as helping the U.S. military in documents obtained by WikiLeaks, according to several of the groups. WikiLeaks has already published 76,000 of the documents and plans to publish up to 15,000 more."

 

From August 9th.

 

Read the CNN quote above from this week, where the administration have admitted there's no evidence to back up such claims

 

The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks

did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded

. . . .

 

The assessment, revealed in a letter from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), comes after a thorough Pentagon review of the more than 70,000 documents posted to the controversial whistle-blower site in July. . . .

 

The defense secretary said that the published documents do contain names of some cooperating Afghans, who could face reprisal by Taliban.

 

But

a senior NATO official in Kabul told CNN that there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.