Wikileaks

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

His 'new book' has been out since before he was diagnosed with cancer and it's a memoir, this article is unrelated. Are you taking a leaf out of Juan Cer's book and making crass, baseless statements when you have nothing to say of any substance? It wouldn't be the first time.

I was actually referring to the fact that you are clearly only familiar with one side of the argument, despite your claims that you're as much a fan of Hitchens - someone who has written extensively on Afghanistan/Iraq conflicts - as Juan Cole. You had absolutely no idea about the origins of the Afghan mission, and your arguments against it basically boiled down to, "look, there was a war on and some people died! this is unacceptable!" You should stick to watching Playdays and Tellytubbies if that is your attitude.

[Happy Face 29]

His 'new book' has been out since before he was diagnosed with cancer and it's a memoir, this article is unrelated. Are you taking a leaf out of Juan Cer's book and making crass, baseless statements when you have nothing to say of any substance? It wouldn't be the first time.

I was actually referring to the fact that you are clearly only familiar with one side of the argument, despite your claims that you're as much a fan of Hitchens - someone who has written extensively on Afghanistan/Iraq conflicts - as Juan Cole. You had absolutely no idea about the origins of the Afghan mission, and your arguments against it basically boiled down to, "look, there was a war on and some people died! this is unacceptable!" You should stick to watching Playdays and Tellytubbies if that is your attitude.

 

Have you read his article? It's about a book he's been involved in getting published...the life of a US soldier.....not his memoir. I was making a comment on the substance of the article.

 

Can you follow Tellytubbies any better?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

He hasn't written a word of the book you mention.

[Park Life 71]

His 'new book' has been out since before he was diagnosed with cancer and it's a memoir, this article is unrelated. Are you taking a leaf out of Juan Cer's book and making crass, baseless statements when you have nothing to say of any substance? It wouldn't be the first time.

I was actually referring to the fact that you are clearly only familiar with one side of the argument, despite your claims that you're as much a fan of Hitchens - someone who has written extensively on Afghanistan/Iraq conflicts - as Juan Cole. You had absolutely no idea about the origins of the Afghan mission, and your arguments against it basically boiled down to, "look, there was a war on and some people died! this is unacceptable!" You should stick to watching Playdays and Tellytubbies if that is your attitude.

 

Have you read his article? It's about a book he's been involved in getting published...the life of a US soldier.....not his memoir. I was making a comment on the substance of the article.

 

Can you follow Tellytubbies any better?

 

[vinnieq 0]

Anyone see Dispatches? Crazy stuff...

[Happy Face 29]

Still haven't watched it. It's on my V+.

 

The arrival of WikiLeaks is one of the most exciting developments in the enduring struggle of ordinary people for the right to call secret power to account. This is what journalism should do.

 

For all the lip-service paid to Edmund Burke's idea of a fourth estate, the media remain an extension of the established order. The current wars demonstrate this. Instead of exposing the lies that have led to the carnage, journalists, with honourable exceptions, have amplified and echoed them. Scott McClellan, George W Bush's former press secretary, says his administration relied on the media's "complicit enablers".

 

WikiLeaks, says its founder Julian Assange, has "created a space that permits a form of journalism which lives up to the name that journalism has always tried to establish for itself". This year, WikiLeaks has released tens of thousands of official documents that describe the casual, almost industrial killing of civilians, assassination squads, and attempts at cover-up.

 

Anyone watching the leaked cockpit video of an Apache helicopter gunning down cameramen and children in Baghdad will not forget the pilot's reaction: "Nice." Having witnessed the brutalising effects of war, I felt like cheering when this was exposed and I read that it was viewed 4.8 million times in one week. This is the new "space" for a truth-telling we need urgently, as great power promotes its "perpetual war" and strives for what it calls "information dominance".

 

I have got to know Julian Assange, and what strikes me most about him is the unabashed morality he invests in WikiLeaks. It is unusual to hear the words: "The goal is justice, the method is transparency." He reminds me of one of our compatriots, Wilfred Burchett, the courageous reporter who incurred the wrath of the powerful by exposing the "atomic plague" of the Hiroshima bomb. Like Burchett, Assange has made some serious enemies for blowing such a loud whistle; the Pentagon has already threatened to "terminally marginalise" WikiLeaks. And this is his great risk and his honour.

 

I asked him what he had learned most from his glimpses of rampant power. "In one way or another I've been reading generals' emails since I was 17," he said (he is 39), "and what I see now is a vast, sprawling estate that is becoming more and more secretive and uncontrolled. "This is not a sophisticated conspiracy; it is a movement of self-interest to produce an end result that is [the wars in] Iraq and Afghanistan, which are used to wash money out of the US tax base and back to [arms] companies like Northrop Grumman and Raytheon." Another release of leaked documents is due soon.

 

I salute such principled audacity.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/digital/2010/0...kileaks-assange

[LeazesMag 0]

Still haven't watched it. It's on my V+.

 

The arrival of WikiLeaks is one of the most exciting developments in the enduring struggle of ordinary people for the right to call secret power to account. This is what journalism should do.

 

For all the lip-service paid to Edmund Burke's idea of a fourth estate, the media remain an extension of the established order. The current wars demonstrate this. Instead of exposing the lies that have led to the carnage, journalists, with honourable exceptions, have amplified and echoed them. Scott McClellan, George W Bush's former press secretary, says his administration relied on the media's "complicit enablers".

 

WikiLeaks, says its founder Julian Assange, has "created a space that permits a form of journalism which lives up to the name that journalism has always tried to establish for itself". This year, WikiLeaks has released tens of thousands of official documents that describe the casual, almost industrial killing of civilians, assassination squads, and attempts at cover-up.

 

Anyone watching the leaked cockpit video of an Apache helicopter gunning down cameramen and children in Baghdad will not forget the pilot's reaction: "Nice." Having witnessed the brutalising effects of war, I felt like cheering when this was exposed and I read that it was viewed 4.8 million times in one week. This is the new "space" for a truth-telling we need urgently, as great power promotes its "perpetual war" and strives for what it calls "information dominance".

 

I have got to know Julian Assange, and what strikes me most about him is the unabashed morality he invests in WikiLeaks. It is unusual to hear the words: "The goal is justice, the method is transparency." He reminds me of one of our compatriots, Wilfred Burchett, the courageous reporter who incurred the wrath of the powerful by exposing the "atomic plague" of the Hiroshima bomb. Like Burchett, Assange has made some serious enemies for blowing such a loud whistle; the Pentagon has already threatened to "terminally marginalise" WikiLeaks. And this is his great risk and his honour.

 

I asked him what he had learned most from his glimpses of rampant power. "In one way or another I've been reading generals' emails since I was 17," he said (he is 39), "and what I see now is a vast, sprawling estate that is becoming more and more secretive and uncontrolled. "This is not a sophisticated conspiracy; it is a movement of self-interest to produce an end result that is [the wars in] Iraq and Afghanistan, which are used to wash money out of the US tax base and back to [arms] companies like Northrop Grumman and Raytheon." Another release of leaked documents is due soon.

 

I salute such principled audacity.

 

http://www.newstatesman.com/digital/2010/0...kileaks-assange

 

utter drivel

[Guest alex]

Surely these leaks have value given the 'real life experience' of the sources

[LeazesMag 0]

Surely these leaks have value given the 'real life experience' of the sources

 

your flippant replies are on the increase mate....the opposite to the credibility factor

[The Fish 10857]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

[Happy Face 29]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

 

Good question.

 

Do you have an example of a clandestine operation that was beneficial to society in the past, which a leak like this would make a leader more hesitant to authorise?

[Guest alex]

Surely these leaks have value given the 'real life experience' of the sources

 

your flippant replies are on the increase mate....

Utter drivel.

[LeazesMag 0]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

 

Good question.

 

Do you have an example of a clandestine operation that was beneficial to society in the past, which a leak like this would make a leader more hesitant to authorise?

 

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

 

"A clandestine operation is an intelligence or military operation carried out in such a way that the operation goes unnoticed".

[Happy Face 29]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

 

Good question.

 

Do you have an example of a clandestine operation that was beneficial to society in the past, which a leak like this would make a leader more hesitant to authorise?

 

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

 

"A clandestine operation is an intelligence or military operation carried out in such a way that the operation goes unnoticed".

 

 

I understand. Many clandestine operations are now out in the open though, whether due to leaks or being so far in the past they're no longer a matter of "national security" and goverment disclosure wasn't an issue.

 

So the question stands.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

Aye, it's meant to at the time but not necessarily afterwards. COAB!

[LeazesMag 0]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

 

Good question.

 

Do you have an example of a clandestine operation that was beneficial to society in the past, which a leak like this would make a leader more hesitant to authorise?

 

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

 

"A clandestine operation is an intelligence or military operation carried out in such a way that the operation goes unnoticed".

 

 

I understand. Many clandestine operations are now out in the open though, whether due to leaks or being so far in the past they're no longer a matter of "national security" and goverment disclosure wasn't an issue.

 

So the question stands.

 

How do you know ?

 

And how many ?

Edited October 27, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

[Happy Face 29]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

 

Good question.

 

Do you have an example of a clandestine operation that was beneficial to society in the past, which a leak like this would make a leader more hesitant to authorise?

 

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

 

"A clandestine operation is an intelligence or military operation carried out in such a way that the operation goes unnoticed".

 

 

I understand. Many clandestine operations are now out in the open though, whether due to leaks or being so far in the past they're no longer a matter of "national security" and goverment disclosure wasn't an issue.

 

So the question stands.

 

How do you know ?

 

And how many ?

 

I'll give you one example (from this weeks Wikileaks revelations) of a bad one we now know about, that future leaders might think twice about (if they felt any shame)

 

Frago 242

 

This was a secret order given to not investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict, such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members of the coalition. This meant soldiers were under orders to turn a blind eye to beatings, burning, electrocution and rape by the authorities installed by the coalition.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/2...-torture-saddam

 

The question is whether you know of any other clandestine operation, now in the open, that has real justification other than to protect the people authorising it, and whether leaks like this compromise a similar operation being authorised in future.

 

I don't, but it's a good question and i'd be interested to hear of examples.

Edited October 27, 2010 by Happy Face

[LeazesMag 0]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

 

Good question.

 

Do you have an example of a clandestine operation that was beneficial to society in the past, which a leak like this would make a leader more hesitant to authorise?

 

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

 

"A clandestine operation is an intelligence or military operation carried out in such a way that the operation goes unnoticed".

 

 

I understand. Many clandestine operations are now out in the open though, whether due to leaks or being so far in the past they're no longer a matter of "national security" and goverment disclosure wasn't an issue.

 

So the question stands.

 

How do you know ?

 

And how many ?

 

I'll give you one example (from this weeks Wikileaks revelations) of a bad one we now know about, that future leaders might think twice about (if they felt any shame)

 

Frago 242

 

This was a secret order given to not investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict, such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members of the coalition. This meant soldiers were under orders to turn a blind eye to beatings, burning, electrocution and rape by the authorities installed by the coalition.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/2...-torture-saddam

 

The question is whether you know of any other clandestine operation, now in the open has real justification other than to protect the people authorising it, and whether leaks like this compromise a similar operation being authorised in future.

 

I don't , but it's a good question and i'd be interested to hear of examples.

 

good.

 

That shows the system still works and will hopefully stay that way.

 

The underlined only shows you don't understand. Sorry like.

Edited October 27, 2010 by LeazesMag

[Happy Face 29]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

 

Good question.

 

Do you have an example of a clandestine operation that was beneficial to society in the past, which a leak like this would make a leader more hesitant to authorise?

 

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

 

"A clandestine operation is an intelligence or military operation carried out in such a way that the operation goes unnoticed".

 

 

I understand. Many clandestine operations are now out in the open though, whether due to leaks or being so far in the past they're no longer a matter of "national security" and goverment disclosure wasn't an issue.

 

So the question stands.

 

How do you know ?

 

And how many ?

 

I'll give you one example (from this weeks Wikileaks revelations) of a bad one we now know about, that future leaders might think twice about (if they felt any shame)

 

Frago 242

 

This was a secret order given to not investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict, such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members of the coalition. This meant soldiers were under orders to turn a blind eye to beatings, burning, electrocution and rape by the authorities installed by the coalition.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/2...-torture-saddam

 

The question is whether you know of any other clandestine operation, now in the open has real justification other than to protect the people authorising it, and whether leaks like this compromise a similar operation being authorised in future.

 

I don't , but it's a good question and i'd be interested to hear of examples.

 

good.

 

That shows the system still works and will hopefully stay that way.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

 

Good question.

 

Do you have an example of a clandestine operation that was beneficial to society in the past, which a leak like this would make a leader more hesitant to authorise?

 

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

 

"A clandestine operation is an intelligence or military operation carried out in such a way that the operation goes unnoticed".

 

 

I understand. Many clandestine operations are now out in the open though, whether due to leaks or being so far in the past they're no longer a matter of "national security" and goverment disclosure wasn't an issue.

 

So the question stands.

 

How do you know ?

 

And how many ?

 

I'll give you one example (from this weeks Wikileaks revelations) of a bad one we now know about, that future leaders might think twice about (if they felt any shame)

 

Frago 242

 

This was a secret order given to not investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict, such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members of the coalition. This meant soldiers were under orders to turn a blind eye to beatings, burning, electrocution and rape by the authorities installed by the coalition.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/2...-torture-saddam

 

The question is whether you know of any other clandestine operation, now in the open has real justification other than to protect the people authorising it, and whether leaks like this compromise a similar operation being authorised in future.

 

I don't , but it's a good question and i'd be interested to hear of examples.

 

good.

 

That shows the system still works and will hopefully stay that way.

 

 

last post edited further.

 

So tell us how many clandestine operations you have uncovered and are in the public domain, and how many are not ?

 

[Happy Face 29]

Not neccesarily in this case, but Happy, do you think the parties striving for complete transparency are not considering the benefits of future clandestine operations and the damage that such transparency could mete upon them?

 

I'm all for accountability, but I also think that there's a little too much grandstanding where the reveal is worth more to the parties than the impact of their story.

 

I guess it just feels that rather than looking for transparency, the parties are primarily looking to damage/attack the establishment.

 

Good question.

 

Do you have an example of a clandestine operation that was beneficial to society in the past, which a leak like this would make a leader more hesitant to authorise?

 

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

 

"A clandestine operation is an intelligence or military operation carried out in such a way that the operation goes unnoticed".

 

 

I understand. Many clandestine operations are now out in the open though, whether due to leaks or being so far in the past they're no longer a matter of "national security" and goverment disclosure wasn't an issue.

 

So the question stands.

 

How do you know ?

 

And how many ?

 

I'll give you one example (from this weeks Wikileaks revelations) of a bad one we now know about, that future leaders might think twice about (if they felt any shame)

 

Frago 242

 

This was a secret order given to not investigate any breach of the laws of armed conflict, such as the abuse of detainees, unless it directly involves members of the coalition. This meant soldiers were under orders to turn a blind eye to beatings, burning, electrocution and rape by the authorities installed by the coalition.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/2...-torture-saddam

 

The question is whether you know of any other clandestine operation, now in the open has real justification other than to protect the people authorising it, and whether leaks like this compromise a similar operation being authorised in future.

 

I don't , but it's a good question and i'd be interested to hear of examples.

 

good.

 

That shows the system still works and will hopefully stay that way.

 

 

last post edited further.

 

So tell us how many clandestine operations you have uncovered and are in the public domain, and how many are not ?

 

 

That's a far less interesting question than the one from the fish. The answers are none and I have no idea.

 

Do you understand what fish is asking though? He's defending your point of view and it's one I'm open to accepting....if there's any examples.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The Pentagon have admitted they left the Iraqi forces to deal with themselves with regard to disciplinary matters, which was the result of Frago 242. There is nothing particularly revealing about the wikileaks documents, I don't say that as a criticism; it's a bit like the Murphy report, worst kept secret going.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

 

Look at the state of these hippys, what a disgrace. I actually think it's an insult to the memory of that Iraqi journo who threw his shoes at Bush. He was smartly dressed, and threw two good shots with considerable venom. He put his heart into it, but he had underestimated Bush's dodging ability. Now all these tree huggers try to emulate him and fail miserably with their limp wristed nonsense, and they aren't even at any real risk, whereas the Iraqi was sent down for considerable time.

[Happy Face 29]

The Pentagon have admitted they left the Iraqi forces to deal with themselves with regard to disciplinary matters, which was the result of Frago 242. There is nothing particularly revealing about the wikileaks documents, I don't say that as a criticism; it's a bit like the Murphy report, worst kept secret going.

 

It confirms the as yet unconfirmed.....

 

The logs contain numerous reports of previously unknown or unconfirmed events that took place during the war.

 

*According to the Iraq Body Count project, a sample of the deaths found in about 800 logs, extrapolated to the full set of records, shows around 15,000 civilian deaths that had not been previously admitted by the US government. 66,000 civilians were reported dead in the logs, out of 109,000 deaths in total.

 

*The Guardian states that, according to the logs, "US authorities failed to investigate hundreds of reports of abuse, torture, rape and even murder by Iraqi police and soldiers"; the coalition, according to The Guardian, has "a formal policy of ignoring such allegations", unless the allegations involve coalition forces.

 

*Sometimes US troops classified civilian deaths as enemy casualties. For example, the July 12, 2007, Baghdad airstrike by US helicopter gunships which killed two Reuters journalists along with several armed men suspected to be insurgents. They, including the journalists, were all listed as "enemy killed in action".

 

*According to Wired Magazine, even after the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse incident came to light in 2004, abuse of prisoners or detainees by Iraqi security forces continued; in one recorded case, US troops confiscated a "hand cranked generator with wire clamps" from a Baghdad police station, after a detainee claimed to have been brutalized there.

 

*According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, one report shows that "the US military cleared an Apache helicopter gunship to open fire on Iraqi insurgents who were trying to surrender".

 

*According to Wired Magazine, "WikiLeaks may have just bolstered one of the Bush administration’s most controversial claims about the Iraq war: that Iran supplied many of the Iraq insurgency’s deadliest weapons and worked hand-in-glove with some of its most lethal militias. The documents indicate that Iran was a major combatant in the Iraq war, as its elite Quds Force trained Iraqi Shiite insurgents and imported deadly weapons like the shape-charged explosively formed penetrator bombs into Iraq for use against civilians, Sunni militants and U.S. troops."

 

*According to the Boston Globe, US military documents show Iraqi operatives being trained by Hezbollah in precision military-style kidnappings. Reports also include incidents of US surveillance aircraft lost deep in Iranian territory.

 

*According to Al-Jazeera, the documents show that US troops killed almost 700 civilians for coming too close to checkpoints, including pregnant women and the mentally ill. At least a half-dozen incidents involved Iraqi men transporting pregnant family members to hospitals.

 

*According to The New York Times, the reports contain evidence of many abuses, including civilian deaths, committed by contractors. The New York Times points out some specific reports, such as one which says "after the IED strike a witness reports the Blackwater employees fired indiscriminately at the scene." In another event on 14 May 2005, an American unit "observed a Blackwater PSD shoot up a civ vehicle" killing a father and wounding his wife and daughter.

 

*According to The Australian, "a document from December 2006 describes a plan by a Shia militia commander to kidnap US soldiers in Baghdad in late 2006 or early 2007." Also, The Australian reports that "detainee testimony" and "a captured militant's diary" are cited among the documents, in order to demonstrate "how Iran provided Iraqi militias with weapons such as rockets and lethal roadside bombs."

 

*According to The New York Times, a number of the documents "portrays the long history of tensions between Kurds and Arabs in the north of Iraq and reveals the fears of some American units about what might happen after American troops leave the country by the end of 2011."

 

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

Edited October 27, 2010 by Happy Face