Wikileaks

[Sir Bandelot]

I see a lot of news about the recent reports put out on Wikileaks. Thousands of pages of documents, some showing that war crimes were committed.

There's even some information about Canadian troops were killed by friendly fire, and we were never told about it. I'd be surprised if the government didn't know.

But the thing is, the news is mostly about WHO leaked it, the name of the soldier(s) involved, and attacking their charcter as well as the founder of Wikileaks. No analysis of the content of the information, no one calling for action to be taken, if crimes were committed.

Just stuff like this-

Informant says WikiLeaks suspect had civilian help

Edit-Stop changing my title!

Edited May 8, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[bush_cheney2004]

....Thousands of pages of documents, some showing that war crimes were committed.

..... no one calling for action to be taken, if crimes were committed.

Make up your mind...were "war crimes" committed or not? What action do you want?

[eyeball]

...No analysis of the content of the information, no one calling for action to be taken...

What's there to analyze? The gist of it, that this ridiculous war on terror was always doomed to become the near bottomless quagmire these reports have chronicled, was well understood years ago. As for taking action... that ship sailed long long ago. Its far too late to take action to stop it now. What's done is done.

Nothing to do now but sit back and watch and wait until India and Pakistan finally start throwing nukes at each other. As for what might follow that...its probably too late to even worry about that.

As for Wikileaks and the whistle-blower(s) it represents. Bravo, job well done, Mission Accomplished, Bullseye. This poor old world of our's really needs a hero right now.

[Shady]

As for Wikileaks and the whistle-blower(s) it represents. Bravo, job well done, Mission Accomplished, Bullseye. This poor old world of our's really needs a hero right now.

It does. Unfortunately, this creep from Wikileaks is far from it. The only thing this douchebag succeeded in doing, was publish the names of hundreds of Afghan citizens who've risked their lives in an effort to defeat the Taliban. If these people end up dead in the near future, this douchebag should be charged with manslaughter.

On an ironic note. Remember how some people were so upset about Valarie Plame? When the biggest danger she was ever in was over-bleaching her hair. However, in this case, outing the names of hundreds of Afghans on our side and putting their lives in immense danger, earns this douchebag praise and admiration from those people who were so critical of the Plame leak.

*cough* both posters above *cough*

[Sir Bandelot]

*cough* both posters above *cough*

Exactly as stated, you people attack the messenger first and foremost, and ignore the message. Must be hard to roll them eyes so much as you do, with your head constantly buried in the sand.

WikiLeaks report details previously unknown `friendly fire' incident involving Canadians.

OTTAWA - The dramatic WikiLeaks report contains details of what appears to be a previously unknown `friendly fire' incident in Afghanistan in which it says four Canadians were killed and seven were injured.

The incident may have occurred the same day, Sept. 3, 2006, as four Canadians were officially reported killed by Taliban insurgents - not by their own side in the conflict.

In its report the anti-secrecy group refers to a ``friendly fire'' incident in which soldiers received small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades from a building, returned fire and dropped a guided bomb, heavily damaging the building.

``Casualties 4xCND KIA 4xCDN WIA,'' the report says, meaning four Canadians killed in action and four wounded. A few minutes later, wounded had increased to seven Canadians and one Afghan civilian interpreter.

September was a devastating month for the Canadian Armed Forces in Afghanistan, where 10 soldiers lost their lives.

Afghanistan-war analyst Janice Stein said there are more friendly fire incidents than ever make it into the public domain because officials do not go back and correct themselves if they find an incident was friendly fire - not enemy fire as first announced.

[capricorn]

WikiLeaks report details previously unknown `friendly fire' incident involving Canadians.

OTTAWA - The dramatic WikiLeaks report contains details of what appears to be a previously unknown `friendly fire' incident in Afghanistan in which it says four Canadians were killed and seven were injured.

The incident may have occurred the same day, Sept. 3, 2006, as four Canadians were officially reported killed by Taliban insurgents - not by their own side in the conflict.

In its report the anti-secrecy group refers to a ``friendly fire'' incident in which soldiers received small arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades from a building, returned fire and dropped a guided bomb, heavily damaging the building.

``Casualties 4xCND KIA 4xCDN WIA,'' the report says, meaning four Canadians killed in action and four wounded. A few minutes later, wounded had increased to seven Canadians and one Afghan civilian interpreter.

September was a devastating month for the Canadian Armed Forces in Afghanistan, where 10 soldiers lost their lives.

Afghanistan-war analyst Janice Stein said there are more friendly fire incidents than ever make it into the public domain because officials do not go back and correct themselves if they find an incident was friendly fire - not enemy fire as first announced.

There is overwhelming evidence that the 4 deaths in September 2006 were in fact due to enemy action.

For those interested in knowing the truth about what happened to Warrant Officer Richard Nolan, Warrant Officer Frank Mellish, Sgt. Shane Stachnik and Pte. William Cushley I suggest you read the excellent report by Adam Day of Legion Magazine. Day was in Afghanistan at the time of the battle, he spoke to the soldiers that were there, he conducted several interviews. When you read Day’s reporting, listen to the family members recount their own stories, there is no doubt that the official version is the truth.

http://blogs.canoe.ca/eyeonthehill/cbc/cbc-is-unhinged-over-wikileaks/

For Wikileaks to be correct on the dates would mean that a cover up started on the very day of the tragic incident, i.e. the very day Adam Day filed his field report which was published not long afterward in the Legion Magazine. There would have had to be a good number of eyewitnesses and field commanders involved in an instantaneous cover up at the very outset.

Consider these quotes from Sir B.'s link.

"The incident may have occurred the same day, Sept. 3, 2006, as four Canadians were officially reported killed "

``Casualties 4xCND KIA 4xCDN WIA,'' the report says, meaning four Canadians killed in action "

What I think happened is that the September 2006 casualties are actually references to the four casualties of April 2002 which were indeed attributed to friendly fire.

Thursday 18 April 2002 10.48 BST

Four Canadian soldiers died in Afghanistan last night after a US fighter jet mistakenly dropped one or two 500lb, laser-guided bombs on their unit.

Canadian officials said at least eight of their soldiers were wounded in the incident, which occurred during a well publicised live-fire training exercise near the southern town of Kandahar.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/18/afghanistan

A military report released by WikiLeaks claiming four Canadians died as a result of "friendly fire" was dismissed as a mistake yesterday.

Corporal Jody Mitic put it more succinctly. "I was there and our boys were not killed by friendly fire. Ask anyone from Charlie Company. Friendly fire my ass ..." wrote Cpl. Mitic on Twitter. Cpl. Mitic was a sniper who lost both legs when he later stepped on a land mine during another mission in Afghanistan.

The WikiLeaks document appears to be a raw intelligence report that states four Canadians died on Sept. 3, 2006 during Operation Medusa, after a guided bomb was dropped during a fight with the Taliban.

But retired general Rick Hillier, Canada's former chief of defence staff and the man who was in charge during the time of Operation Medusa, said the report was a mistake likely generated during the fog of war, and then kept in a report for years without being corrected.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Friendly+fire+claims+mistake+colonel/3330129/story.html

I think the mistake is that somehow, the wikileaks documents on friendly fire confused the incidents of four Canadian casualties that occurred on different dates. In 2006, four deaths due to enemy action. In 2002, four deaths due to friendly fire. Both incidents had almost the same number of injured soldiers.

The document itself is not definitive as it says "may have occurred the same day". Not happened, but "may have" happened.

I can't think of any other explanation than the dates got confused. Sad really. The families of the fallen and injured soldiers just want to get on with their lives. Now they're being dragged back into the public eye.

[Sir Bandelot]

I can't think of any other explanation than the dates got confused. Sad really. The families of the fallen and injured soldiers just want to get on with their lives. Now they're being dragged back into the public eye.

True that. As usual, there are some reports that attempt to cast doubt on the leaked information, while others take it at face value. I am not going to "make up my mind" yet to whether any of the leaked information is true, or not. Having not read the thousands of reports, and having no way to corroborate the information, I leave it to the partisans to "believe" what they will at this stage. (Not you Cap, he knows who I mean...) It is ironic that in this age of information, we actually have a lot less info we can rely on.

So, in this sea of confusion caused by wave upon wave of information, some of it true and some of it lies, there is really only a few ways one can get a sense of whether something is true or not. That is based on the administrations response to it, whether they come out and refute it, or bury it. Or go after the guys who leaked it. Those are often the only clues we have to the real truth. And in this case all I can say so far is, they demonized the guy who leaked it, and they don't seem to want to talk about it. I'll keep watching.

Edited August 2, 2010 by Sir Bandelot

[bloodyminded]

True that. As usual, there are some reports that attempt to cast doubt on the leaked information, while others take it at face value. I am not going to "make up my mind" yet to whether any of the leaked information is true, or not. Having not read the thousands of reports, and having no way to corroborate the information, I leave it to the partisans to "believe" what they will at this stage. (Not you Cap, he knows who I mean...) It is ironic that in this age of information, we actually have a lot less info we can rely on.

So, in this sea of confusion caused by wave upon wave of information, some of it true and some of it lies, there is really only a few ways one can get a sense of whether something is true or not. That is based on the administrations response to it, whether they come out and refute it, or bury it. Or go after the guys who leaked it. Those are often the only clues we have to the real truth. And in this case all I can say so far is, they demonized the guy who leaked it, and they don't seem to want to talk about it. I'll keep watching.

Exactly so. I imagine the demonization would occur whether all the info was accurate or not, since to the powers-that-be, accuracy is in some ways beside the point.

When Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers--which told us unequivocally that officials had continually lied about the Vietnam War--he was deemed "the most dangerous man in America."

But still, you're right. It'll take a long time for the documents to be pored over, discussed, and debated. Best to remain an agnostic on most of these matters for the time being.

[WIP]

I think the most important related issue to wikileaks is how it is highlighting the failure of the mainstream media. Back in the days of the Vietnam War, the media was more centralized and limited than it is today, but the major journalists and TV newsmen were not completely in the tank, and taking orders from the Administration, as they are doing now. When Cronkite had enough of the excuses from McNamara and others, he said so. The reporters in the field were not spokesmen for the generals, as they seem to be now.

Maybe it's because they start suffering from Stockholm Syndrome after being embedded for too long, but in all honesty, what can you learn from some twit like Lara Logan that you can't learn from the Pentagon or Whitehouse official spokesman? Her rant against Rolling Stone regarding the publishing of McCrystal's real thoughts on the war and the Obama Administration, was all based on how important having access is for her kind of journalism. No surprise that she and other MSM reporters are panicked about a new technique like wikileaks that doesn't need them to get the information out.

[Wild Bill]

As for Wikileaks and the whistle-blower(s) it represents. Bravo, job well done, Mission Accomplished, Bullseye. This poor old world of our's really needs a hero right now.

Glad YOU are happy! Some of that information might eventually put one of our soldier boys in peril, perhaps even killed!

If that were to happen, whoever leaked the information should be forced to confront the victim's families and then hung by the neck until dead!

Wiki should look up from what's in front of its nose and have some perspective on the possible effects of their publishing all that information. "Useful idiots", the lot of them!

[Remiel]

Glad YOU are happy! Some of that information might eventually put one of our soldier boys in peril, perhaps even killed!

If that were to happen, whoever leaked the information should be forced to confront the victim's families and then hung by the neck until dead!

Wiki should look up from what's in front of its nose and have some perspective on the possible effects of their publishing all that information. "Useful idiots", the lot of them!

I find it amazing how selective some people are about others being held to account for the consequences of their actions. Not that, you know, there is any system on Earth that can actually calculate the actual consequences. You would never know if one person getting killed also resulted in two others being saved.

[ToadBrother]

As for Wikileaks and the whistle-blower(s) it represents. Bravo, job well done, Mission Accomplished, Bullseye. This poor old world of our's really needs a hero right now.

You wouldn't think so if you were one of the poor bastards named who had been helping out NATO.

[capricorn]

You wouldn't think so if you were one of the poor bastards named who had been helping out NATO.

A spokesman for the Taliban told Britain’s Channel 4 News on Thursday that the insurgent group is scouring classified American military documents posted online by the group WikiLeaks for information to help them find and “punish” Afghan informers.

Speaking by telephone from an undisclosed location, Zabihullah Mujahid, who frequently contacts news organizations, including The Times on behalf of the Taliban, said, “We are studying the report.” He added:

We knew about the spies and people who collaborate with U.S. forces. We will investigate through our own secret service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/taliban-study-wikileaks-to-hunt-informants/

I don't think Mujahid and company will stop at waterboarding those they hunt down.

[eyeball]

Do you mean to tell me that we went in without an exit strategy that included an evacuation plan for collaborators? Given we knew full well that not a single invader has ever managed to succeed in Afghanistan all I can say is shame on us.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... Given we knew full well that not a single invader has ever managed to succeed in Afghanistan all I can say is shame on us.

This is patently false...as "invaders" have succeeded in Afghanistan. The traits of invaders can still be seen today.

[DogOnPorch]

This is patently false...as "invaders" have succeeded in Afghanistan. The traits of invaders can still be seen today.

Next...out comes the Kipling...5, 4, 3...wait for it...2...

[Wild Bill]

Do you mean to tell me that we went in without an exit strategy that included an evacuation plan for collaborators? Given we knew full well that not a single invader has ever managed to succeed in Afghanistan all I can say is shame on us.

Oh, I see. You've gone from praising those who put people in peril by revealing information to trying to blame ourselves for not being able to evacuate all collaborators in the event of someone being a blabbermouth!

Newsflash! It's the blabbermouths who are to blame! We WERE protecting the 'collaborators' by keeping their identities secret!

The people who operate Wiki should be tried for treason!

One thing is for sure. Any Afghani would need his head read before helping any Allied force against the Taliban. At one stroke, the Wikileaks have dried up all the intelligence info being provided by the Afghani people!

Nice move, idiots!

[ToadBrother]

Do you mean to tell me that we went in without an exit strategy that included an evacuation plan for collaborators? Given we knew full well that not a single invader has ever managed to succeed in Afghanistan all I can say is shame on us.

What I mean is that by simply disclosing information with no concern for all parties involved, Wikileaks has very likely assured peoples' deaths. What you're trying to do is misdirect that back on to us.

During virtually any modern conflict, you will have spies and collaborators, often embedded deep in an enemy organization or camp, and extraction may not be possible. While, in general, I can't see that I feel sorry for NATO over these leaks, I think leaking information about those who have been helping NATO is tantamount to murdering those people.

I love how your liberal "save the civilian" crapola gets shed when someone points out that these leaks will kill. I sometimes wonder whether you really are cheering for the Taliban.

Edited August 3, 2010 by ToadBrother

[capricorn]

One thing is for sure. Any Afghani would need his head read before helping any Allied force against the Taliban. At one stroke, the Wikileaks have dried up all the intelligence info being provided by the Afghani people!

Nice move, idiots!

And another thing, coalition soldiers were having a tough enough time trying to win the hearts and minds of Afghans. This strategy is now down the toilet.

[DogOnPorch]

And another thing, coalition soldiers were having a tough enough time trying to win the hearts and minds of Afghans. This strategy is now down the toilet.

As per the Simpsons...

[capricorn]

[GostHacked]

http://blogs.forbes.com/firewall/2010/08/01/stealthy-government-contractor-monitors-u-s-internet-providers-says-it-employed-wikileaks-informant/

Take it as you wish.

[Sir Bandelot]

It's entirely possible that information like this can be used to cause harm to soldiers or civilians who cooperated with them. Even mission parameters could be compromised. If so, how is it possible to leak such vital information, what safeguards are in place that should have prevented it from happening. Surely with the kind of money we spend on the military and on communications technology, it should be possible to have processes in place that would make it difficult to leak sensitive information.

Going after the perpetrators is one thing, as is looking at the system that safeguards information that is so vital, that people could be killed if it was given unauthorized access.

Is there any possibility to protect people now at risk. Why were the names of Afghanis who cooperated with our troops recorded in a database that is not secure.

What is in these documents that is so dangerous. Why is no one really analyzing and commenting on the content of the documents.

[WIP]

What I mean is that by simply disclosing information with no concern for all parties involved, Wikileaks has very likely assured peoples' deaths. What you're trying to do is misdirect that back on to us.

Has the Pentagon or the Whitehouse produced any names or numbers of informants, collaborators, U.S. forces etc. that they claim have been killed because of the leaks? They and their puppets in the mainstream media claim that nothing new has been learned from wikileaks document-dump, and yet lives are in danger! Anyone else smell bullshit here?

During virtually any modern conflict, you will have spies and collaborators, often embedded deep in an enemy organization or camp, and extraction may not be possible. While, in general, I can't see that I feel sorry for NATO over these leaks, I think leaking information about those who have been helping NATO is tantamount to murdering those people.

And how about when those we are helping are also working with the Taliban....should we be kept in the dark about that too?

I love how your liberal "save the civilian" crapola gets shed when someone points out that these leaks will kill. I sometimes wonder whether you really are cheering for the Taliban.

Quick question: a few months back, an unconfirmed source quotes Gen. McCrystal saying that we will lose the war if he doesn't get more money, more war toys and more troops; didn't that leak imply that the present war strategy of the Obama Whitehouse is a lost cause? And doesn't the fact that the general in charge was deliberately leaking info that U.S. and allied forces would have to leave, also put collaborators in danger, not to mention cause potential allies against the Taliban to be more reluctant to cooperate with U.S. forces? And why wasn't there any attempt to discover the source of that leak, which was as deadly as anything in the documents dump?

[bush_cheney2004]

Anyone else smell bullshit here?

Yes...right here in your post. Disclosure of sources and methods has long been very sensitive regardless of perceived impact.

And how about when those we are helping are also working with the Taliban....should we be kept in the dark about that too?

Yes. The world is more complicated than what you see on American TV.

Quick question: a few months back, an unconfirmed source quotes Gen. McCrystal saying that we will lose the war if he doesn't get more money, more war toys and more troops; didn't that leak imply that the present war strategy of the Obama Whitehouse is a lost cause?

No....it was funding a strategy...not a leak.

And doesn't the fact that the general in charge was deliberately leaking info that U.S. and allied forces would have to leave, also put collaborators in danger, not to mention cause potential allies against the Taliban to be more reluctant to cooperate with U.S. forces?

No....it was his job to garner support from those who could provide it. Your objections are secondary.

And why wasn't there any attempt to discover the source of that leak, which was as deadly as anything in the documents dump?

Because it wasn't.