backtop


Print 113 comment(s) - last by heffeque.. on Aug 11 at 6:13 PM


  (Source: Flickr)

Taliban gunmen mudered a tribal elder, who they believed was revealed as a U.S. "spy" by Wikileaks documents.  (Source: Sky News)

Wikileaks founder and convicted computer criminal Julian Assange  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Over 70 other tribal elders receive death threats, U.S. Congressman calls on death penalty for leaker Manning

It's been a nightmarish last few months for U.S. Military officials.  First they discovered that a young soldier serving in Iraq had acted as a spy passing documents to the site Wikileaks.  Then they endured Wikileaks release of 90,000 U.S. Military documents -- many of them classified -- detailing their operations in Afghanistan.

The Taliban, a radical Islamic militia in Afghanistan, announced its gratitude to Wikileaks for the release and vowed to hunt down those revealed in the documents to be collaborating with the U.S.  It appears that they have now made good on that threat.

Khalifa Abdullah, a tribal elder, was removed from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, by gunmen.  He was then executed.

At the same time, 70 other tribal elders received death threats warning them that the Taliban had obtained reason to believe they were collaborating with the U.S.  One such threat is signed by Abdul Rauf Khadim, a senior Taliban official who was imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.  When the Cuban prison was partially shut down by President Obama Khadim was transferred to Afghan custody in Kabul, where he subsequently escaped.

The note reads:
We have made a decision for your death. You have five days to leave Afghan soil. If you don’t, you don’t have the right to complain.
NewsWeek first reported on the murder.  They report that the Taliban believes the documents showed it U.S. sources, including the murder victim, Abdullah -- whether or not they truly do.

Wikileaks
founder and convicted Australian computer criminal Julian Assange claimed in a TIME interview that the leak was justified in the name of transparency.  He assured that no one would be harmed by the leak, stating:
We feel confident. The material is seven months old; we reviewed it extensively. We held back 15,000 documents that we felt needed further review because the type of classifications they had. We've been publishing for four years a range of material that has caused the changing of constitutions and the removal of governments, but there's never been a case that we are aware of that has resulted in the personal injury of anyone.
In related news, U.S. Congressman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) has called on the U.S. Military to pursue the death penalty in the Manning case.  He says Manning's actions constitute treason in a time of war and thus should be punishable by death.  His statements came in an interview, which is preserved here in an audio recording.

We spoke with key government witness Adrian Lamo, who turned Manning in, about Rogers' remarks.  He tells us he doubts the U.S. government would pursue the death penalty given that they didn't in the case of Robert Hanssen, a former FBI agent-turned-Russian spy.  Lamo states, "The damage done by Bradley Manning doesn't begin to approximate the damage Robert Hanssen did."

Hanssen received a life sentence, which he is currently serving.

If the government were to pursue such a sentence, though, Lamo says he would refuse to testify.

He states,"I elected to turn Manning in, in the hopes of saving lives.  I'm not going to participate in a process that's going to take a life.  There should be no other blood spilled by Wikileaks."

He concludes, "Under any other circumstances I will testify in the case.  [But] my concern for human life comes first."


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Link between murder and wikileaks?
By aston12 on 8/3/2010 3:43:42 PM , Rating: 4
The topic states "Taliban Murders Afghan Elder, Thanks Wikileaks for Revealing "Spies" "

So you make it look like wikileaks is the reason behind the murder...

Where exactly is the source that shows the link or the source that shows the victim mentionned in the wikileaks document?

I am not saying it can not be true, just that "newsweek" reported is not enough...... .




RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By mcnabney on 8/3/2010 3:54:22 PM , Rating: 3
The leaked documents were by no means fully redacted of identifying details. The names of many tribal leaders that have worked with the Afghanie government and US troops were found in the leaked documents. If the executed individual was in fact one of the leaked names than Assange (and Bradley) is fully responsible for their deaths.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By adiposity on 8/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By mcnabney on 8/3/2010 4:08:17 PM , Rating: 2
You probably don't understand exactly how the law works. You don't have to pull the trigger to be guilty of a death. If your buddy shoots someone while holding-up a liquor store and you drove him there and drove him away, you are going to be convicted of that death. Any contributory act that leads to a deliberate murder can also be convicted of the crime. The assasination of these tribal leaders is an obvious risk to the release of their names.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By adiposity on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By tjvanpat on 8/3/2010 6:14:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In theory this statement might be true. However, the vast majority of "contributory acts" are highly unlikely to result in a murder conviction. Driving the car in a drive-by is one case where you probably would get convicted. Driving someone to the location where they committed a murder is less likely.


Incorrect. If you knowingly drive someone to a place where they are going to commit a murder, you have a very good chance of being convicted of murder as well (guilty by association). It would be more difficult to convince the jury you are innocent, than guilty.

I think you are misinterpreting the use of the term "fully responsible". Perhaps "undoubtedly responsible" would fit you better?


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By adiposity on 8/3/2010 6:33:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think you are misinterpreting the use of the term "fully responsible". Perhaps "undoubtedly responsible" would fit you better?


I can accept that phrase.

To me, "fully responsible" means, "100% responsible." As opposed to "partially responsible," which is what I would say Assange is, here.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By heffeque on 8/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By afkrotch on 8/3/2010 9:42:47 PM , Rating: 5
Releasing document for transparency of the government is one thing, but releasing documents that happen to mention possible spies that are currently still out in the field is another.

Regardless of what you think, there is no such thing as strictly black and white in the world. There is always a gray area. There will always be things within the government, any government, that the world is best off not knowing.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By TheEinstein on 8/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By jonup on 8/4/10, Rating: -1
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:39:34 AM , Rating: 5
Assange is not an American. His rights are not protected by our Constitution. Manning is an American. But, since we're at war, and he leaked secret intelligence to the enemy which may well result in the death of allied forces, he has committed treason and will be tried as such.

I also don't see how tax dollars are being wasted here. We left Afghanistan to fend for itself back in the 80s, and the Taliban took over, got to supporting Al Qaeda and then we got 9/11 and a complete collapse of the United States economy. There's a saying that those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

One more - there are no inhuman actions going on - the leaked documents have showed nothing of the sort. The casualty figures are lower than any other war of similar ever fought.

And what's this stuff about Republicans and small government? This isn't a Republican war. It's an American War. Damn near everyone in Congress authorized it. Believe me - we're all ready to leave, but there's a fair precedent that's been set that says if we mess this up, it will probably bite us in the ass a lot harder than if we'd stayed.


By asuffield on 8/5/2010 1:19:33 AM , Rating: 1
Assange is not an American. His rights are not protected by our Constitution.

An interesting attitude, but I'm fairly sure your courts have disagreed with it on several occasions. Citizenship is not a requirement for constitutional protection in the US. Fortunately.

Manning is an American. But, since we're at war, and he leaked secret intelligence to the enemy which may well result in the death of allied forces, he has committed treason and will be tried as such.

The US is not at war. That requires an act of congress. The US is merely "conducting peacemaking operations overseas". This is the official position of the US government.

Manning has already been charged and will not be tried for treason. He is charged with two counts of violation of the uniform code of military justice. The first is article 92 (failure to obey orders) and the second is article 134 (general conduct bringing discredit upon the armed forces).


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Hyraxxx on 8/8/2010 6:45:09 PM , Rating: 1
Our Constitution does not grant us rights, it reinforces rights we already have because we are human. Lets our rules know our individual sovereignty.

We are not at war. We are in a military incursion. The media just likes throwing the word 'war' around.

Assange is a true patriot. US just being there is a crime. How many civilians has the US murdered? Where is the outrage against the war during the Obama administration?


By Chaser on 8/9/2010 3:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
I can't speak for everyone but I'm outraged over the 3000 civilians that were murdered when the World Trade cCenter buildings were flown into and blown up.

Assange voluntarily joined the U.S. military service. It's shameful and saddening when "patriots" like Assange (and you) gleefully justify treason and endangering fellow military personnel with impunity.


By TheEinstein on 8/5/2010 3:22:29 AM , Rating: 3
Rating me down does not change the facts.

This man aided and abetted terrorists. The United Nations recognizes them as terrorists. Russia recognizes them as terrorists, NATO recognizes them as terrorists.

His deliberate choice to reveal classified information without filtering them aided and abetted the terrorists.

If we sent a drone to kill this man we would be in our rights. If we seized him from his hiding hole and put him in gitmo, we would be in our rights.

Wiki-Leaks is GONE.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By jonup on 8/4/10, Rating: -1
By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:25:00 AM , Rating: 5
We live in a Republic, not a direct democracy. You don't have the right to personally know everything that's going on at any given time in the government. Transparency is one thing, but releasing classified documents in the middle of an ongoing war is treason.

The Romans recognized millenia ago that a direct democracy was simply not feasible. So, in closing - I hope you like knowing that we're doing a good job over here, even though that knowledge comes at the expense of the lives of our Afghan allies.

*Warm Fuzzies*


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By heffeque on 8/4/2010 4:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Releasing document for transparency of the government is one thing, but releasing documents that happen to mention possible spies that are currently still out in the field is another."

The White House made that possible. It was the White House's job to filter the possible spies and they didn't do it, so he's obviously not responsible for that.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By clovell on 8/4/2010 4:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm gonna let you off with a warning for not using sarcasm tags on a Wednesday, sir - but, next time, I'll have to issue a citation ;)


By heffeque on 8/11/2010 6:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
There's no sarcasm there. He asked the White House to help him filter the info and the White House didn't want to cooperate.

Here's your citation ;)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/07/29/...


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By inperfectdarkness on 8/4/2010 9:57:37 AM , Rating: 5
wait...

so you think that the white house should condone leaks such as this by being willing to "filter" them out?

negative.

the white house is not about to let the world think that we're "ok" with having protected information in the public sector. worse, even IF they agreed to filter the documents--the filtered parts would likely still find the light of day; thanks to conspiracy idiots.

rest assured that if the white house had filtered anything, the same apologists (of which you are yourself a staunch believer) would come out with a statement painting the white house as culpable and quite complicitous. IF such a transaction ever did happen between wiki-leaks and the white house--the response from the white house was the correct one.

the blood is on the hands of wikileaks and the source behind these documents. blood also resides on the hands of al qaeda; but the latter has not changed circumstances by this development.

collaborators should be tried and punished to the maximum extent allowable under law. in this case, that includes execution.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By jonup on 8/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By clovell on 8/4/2010 12:45:08 PM , Rating: 5
A small price to pay? The rate of collateral civilians casualties in this war has been one of the lowest of any war ever waged?

The tactics have been respectable and commendable. It's time to give it up and stop spreading FUD.


By priusone on 8/5/2010 5:31:05 AM , Rating: 2
Have any of the deaths listed in the documents done out of malice or were they accidents, mainly based on identity? Our troops are held to a very high standard and exercise great constraint in their actions, yet the tens of thousands of women and children IED's kill, well they are not important. People like Jon would rather that Saddam be in power, punishing the 70+% of his population, killing off the Kurds, and spending the rest of the money on his fellow Sunni's. Oh well.

And if you think that Manning's actions will result in only 70 "elderly" people dying, you have no idea. The Taliban will kill way more than that using the excuse that Islam is a Religion of Piece.

Those of us who have had our boots on the ground and have walked among the downtrodden truly know and understand what freedom means.


By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:18:07 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the White House would rather that secret documents remain secret. Blaming the negligence of Wikileaks on the White House is patently ridiculous.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By adiposity on 8/3/2010 6:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Incorrect. If you knowingly drive someone to a place where they are going to commit a murder, you have a very good chance of being convicted of murder as well (guilty by association).


First, you did not say "knowingly" before. And that is something you would have to prove (that the driver knew what was going to happen), in any case. I was just saying, vs. a driveby (where the driver is actively involved in the crime), a "drive-to" is less likely to be considered murder. The key word would be "knowingly," however.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Mojo the Monkey on 8/4/2010 4:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
Look, its obvious you have a lay person's understanding of the law and you should not try and tell others how it works. The original poster was trying to describe the "felony murder rule" concept.

In a felony murder rule situation, you only need to be a small part of ANY felony. And if any murder happens during that felony (the robber accidentally discharges his weapon and kills the clerk), then EVERYONE involved is guilty of "felony murder" - which is typically punished the same as a full blown 2nd degree murder... even same as first degree in some jurisdictions.

So yeah - no "knowingly" is necessary. The "knowing" (guilty intent) requirement is satisfied as to the underlying felony... it just gets transfered to the murder.

Its still a stretch to apply here though. Too tenuous. Assange does not fit that concept, as he is not in cahoots with the taliban.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By adiposity on 8/4/2010 5:41:12 PM , Rating: 1
My point was, if you drive someone to a location, and they murder someone there, you are not automatically guilty of the murder. For example, if you did not "know" what the person was going to do, you would likely be found not guilty.

I am not talking about a case where someone is accidentally murdered during the commission of a felony.

That is my point concerning the word "knowingly." You cannot be complicity in a crime if you are unaware of the crime.


By adiposity on 8/4/2010 6:41:17 PM , Rating: 1
err, complicit.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By fic2 on 8/3/2010 6:47:10 PM , Rating: 2
I think you mean accomplice.

Guilt by association is more - Al-Qaeda is composed of Muslims. Al-Qaeda is a group of terrorists. Therefore, all Muslims are terrorists.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By tastyratz on 8/3/2010 7:13:47 PM , Rating: 5
no
I think the correct legal term is actually "accessory"

The driver of a car would be convicted of "accessory to murder" Provided the DA wanted to press charges (you bet your ass here)

Manning is screwed, Assange will probably float around in mixed jurisdiction land and never actually be extradited. On US soil they would both be guilty of accessory and most likely prosecuted to the maximum to well deserving be made an example of.


By fic2 on 8/3/2010 7:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct. I kept trying to think of the proper term but couldn't get it out of my age addled brain.


By bfellow on 8/5/2010 3:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
What if the driver of the car also ordered the hit or wanted that person to die? Then he would be just as guilty as the shooter.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Ard on 8/3/2010 7:13:59 PM , Rating: 5
As an attorney I can tell you that you're wrong. If you drive someone to a location knowing they're about to commit a murder, there are two likely crimes you're going to be charged with:

Conspiracy to commit murder
Accessory to/Aiding & abetting murder

You will not be charged with the murder itself UNLESS the murder was completed in the midst of another felony (i.e. robbery; the underlying murder does not cause murder to attach to the non-acting party). In that instance you would be charged with felony murder . Every state penal code has it's own particularities, especially in the realm of aiding & abetting, but those are the general principles.


By JonnyDough on 8/4/2010 2:39:53 AM , Rating: 2
Without actually checking an internet source due to laziness and the fact that anyone who cares will inevitably go looking it up I believe I may be correct on the following:

An accessory is someone who helps plan and execute the events leading up to a murder, but is not involved in directly causing the death.

An accomplice is someone who has a hand in the death, but is not the instigator or the mastermind or whatever. In virtually every multiple person crime there is someone who pushes the hardest to commit the crime, and a follower. For more on this study criminal behaviors.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By namechamps on 8/4/2010 8:21:52 AM , Rating: 1
To take this even further off topic....

quote:
However, the vast majority of "contributory acts" are highly unlikely to result in a murder conviction.


Felony murder statute. You and friend rob a bank. Guard gets killed and in the process he kills you friend. You face murder charge. In some states you face 2 murder charges however not all states include death of co-conspirator in felony murder statute.

Same situation except guard MISSES your friend and kills bystander. Now you are looking at double murder charge (bystander and guard).

BTW: I agree with you on the fully. Most people use the English language imprecisely.


By adiposity on 8/4/2010 2:32:16 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, I agree with all this.

A "contributory act" could include telling them where the bank was. Would someone who did so also be charged with murder? Probably not.

Obviously, what Assange did was more significant than that. But he did not participate directly in the deaths here. He just provided the information that instigated it. To equate it to murder is a stretch.

If you tell a violent person their wife is cheating on them, and they murder their wife, are you responsible?

-Dan


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By aston12 on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
By mcnabney on 8/3/2010 4:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
That is why trials are good and asking some tribal leader before you shoot someone is bad.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By NullSubroutine on 8/3/2010 4:16:36 PM , Rating: 5
Counter-point, the Taliban are merely playing (violent) politics, these tribal leaders are only being targeted because it sends a message to the perceived weakness of the United States. They could in fact have nothing to do with the US and be sided with Taliban for all anyone knows, but that isn't the point. The point is fear and intimidation, even if you sacrifice one of your own, it puts all the other sheep in line, or at least makes them think twice.

The elder could have been targeted for other reasons, but claiming his name is on this list is only politically expedient for the Taliban to put doubt in the minds of others.

Here is the best example I can come up with. Let's say that there is a public list of sex-offenders, someone on that list gets murdered. Even if the sex offender was killed during a story robbery, it can be claimed he died because he was on the list. This sends a clear message to other sex offenders on the list, regardless of the validity, it also makes the point he would have died irregardless, even if he was not on the list.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By DougF on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
By NullSubroutine on 8/3/2010 9:34:40 PM , Rating: 5
I think we both have too much time on our hands.


By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:29:28 AM , Rating: 2
And that may be, at this point, what's happening. The Taliban are playing this up while the story is fresh.

Make no mistake, these guys are intelligent killers, and they have the means to translate these documents and turn them into actionable intelligence. They will glean targets from this, and they will move against those targets.

Their tactic now is fear, because it's the best hand they have. In a couple weeks, their hand will be better for vengeance.


By Aloonatic on 8/3/2010 4:58:15 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If the executed individual was in fact one of the leaked names than Assange (and Bradley) is fully responsible for their deaths.
Call me old fashioned, but I reserve a little blame/responsibility for the guys pulling the trigger and whoever ordering them to do so. Not to mention the people who put these poor people (your everyday average Afgans) in the middle of all this in the first place.

The leaked documents are just one small part in the chain of events that lead to any exacution, so I think it's a bit unfair to say that teh wiki-leaks people are fully responsible.


By Lerianis on 8/8/2010 10:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, they are not. The fact is that they could have and probably would have gotten this information in ANOTHER way. This is like saying that these people are responsible for a person's death when they expose people who have poisoned children in corporations and they are killed.

I hate to put it to you, but in the eyes of a good bit of the Afghani people, the people who work with us ARE traitors.


By hlper on 8/3/2010 6:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
My guess is that the Taliban will look for more than names. A lot of these communities are very small, and saying a location, a title of someone cooperating, or description is probably enough for the Taliban to kill an individual. Even if they are not sure they have the right person, it works for them to say they do. It keeps the people too afraid to support anyone else.

Even if there is no identifying information at all, the Taliban is also likely to say there is because it is an embarassment for the US and it's allies, and they can make any examples they want (legitimate or otherwise) that we can't keep those who help us safe. Of course, the further you go down that line of logic, the harder it is to put it squarely at the feet of Wikileaks, but nothing was gained from this mess. It's not like there was really anything new in the documents, just more of the same depressing news.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Nik00117 on 8/3/2010 8:39:16 PM , Rating: 5
I work with the military very closely, I can tell you for a fact if it's secret it's secret for a reason.

Now I could understand if the military was abusing people and breaking serious international laws yes that's fine leak it. But releasing the names of our informants? I don't want to know who informs our military of Taliban operations because I want them to keep informing us.

Seriously the search for truth can kill many, sometimes it's best not too look for it.


By inperfectdarkness on 8/4/2010 10:07:07 AM , Rating: 5
precisely.

which is why i was so amazed about the last article on this--and how all the GOOD comments got down-rated by the apologists.

let me paint a different picture:

would you be ok with the names of everyone protective-custody and information-relocation had ever worked with---to be released into the public sector?

that's precisely what's going on here. think about it.

trevor goodchild's "total openness" is a nice utopian fantasy. it's also quite impossible. bad people will do bad things if certain types of information are publically available.

the apologists may now resume suckling at bin laden's teet.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Dark Legion on 8/3/2010 8:56:22 PM , Rating: 2
There is actually no proof in this article that the two are connected. There is only this statement from newsweek:
quote:
They report that the Taliban believes the documents showed it U.S. sources, including the murder victim, Abdullah -- whether or not they truly do.

Not saying it's not true either, but to answer your question, nowhere. Shoddy reporting at best.

For the love of atheismo, DT, get Mick off the wikileaks articles.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By rdeegvainl on 8/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/4/2010 12:41:03 AM , Rating: 2
You call my statement weak, then follow it up with several weaker hypothetical statements yourself.

quote:
The parents of anyone who committed murder set in motion the chain of events that lead to murder, same of the parents of anyone else who committed a crime.


Are you serious? How is this even remotely comparable to my statement? Reaching a bit much...

quote:
What is absolutely not in dispute is the lives of at least 70 people are ruined by terrorists in a different country that believe they can do or kill whoever they want as long as the claim in it the name of jihad.


Of this we are in perfect agreement. But exposing our Afghan informants isn't exactly going to help us stop those terrorists.


By rdeegvainl on 8/4/2010 4:21:38 PM , Rating: 4
Show where the afghan informants were exposed.


By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:08:10 AM , Rating: 1
It's not weak at all - it's how the world works. It's more on par with a Polish family during WW2 that ratted out their neighbors and all the Jews hiding in their basement.

It's pretty fucking obvious that it's going to lead to their death. Get a clue, dude.


RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By AEvangel on 8/4/10, Rating: 0
RE: Link between murder and wikileaks?
By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:45:09 AM , Rating: 2
Prove it? That's not really the point - it doesn't matter if these 70 people are informants or not. Their lives are still ruined all the same.

Still - I can see where you're coming from (even though I don't find the story unbelievable at all), and I, too, hope we get some confirmation soon.


By AEvangel on 8/4/2010 5:49:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Prove it? That's not really the point - it doesn't matter if these 70 people are informants or not. Their lives are still ruined all the same.


I guess your right to some extent people need to realize this is someones simple opinion a "blog post" and as much as they would like to make it seem credible with links to Newsweek, it's quite obvious their personal bias shows through.

Also at the end of the day it's all done to get hits on his blogs and the website to generate more internet traffic, so his employer can make more money.

This has nothing to do with spreading the truth, real facts, or actually helping the poor people living in this war torn land, it's about money, half truths, hearsay, and innuendos.


Bad journalism *and* fabrications
By asuffield on 8/3/2010 5:29:54 PM , Rating: 5
The complete documents released by wikileaks are, of course, available for everybody to download and examine. It took me ten minutes to examine every occurrence of the words "Khalifa", "Abdullah", and "Monar", and determine that there are no documents in the corpus relating to this individual - in fact, there are no references to anybody in the village of Monar having any kind of relations with the US forces.

Obviously this whole story is a lie - it's probably counterintel propaganda from somebody (feel free to speculate about who, I'm not going to).

But the real disgrace here is that Jason Mick did not spend even ten minutes doing the very obvious and easy fact checking before reposting it. I shall now go and send a complaint to DT about this, and encourage other readers to do the same.




RE: Bad journalism *and* fabrications
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/2010 6:23:31 PM , Rating: 1
So ignorant. It didn't have to spell out the guy by name. They might have had a suspicion based on information we don't have. And anything, even the slightest hint on those documents, would have been enough for them to kill someone. Do you think they believe someone is "innocent until proven guilty" like us?

These people aren't stupid. If you give them enough clues and intel, they are going to connect the dots. And honestly, to them, it doesn't matter if they got the right guy or not. They will just kill until they are CERTAIN they killed the one they were after. Or until everyone is so scared that it has the same effect.

Do you think those reporters they beheaded got a fair trial for their oh-so terrible crimes?

The Taliban already came out and cited the leaks themselves. I think it's a little late to accuse Jason of making up this story and telling lies, don't you?


By asuffield on 8/5/2010 12:48:08 AM , Rating: 2
The Taliban already came out and cited the leaks themselves.

Where did they do this, exactly? Even the dodgy stories that Mick cites do not make this claim.

I think it's a little late to accuse Jason of making up this story and telling lies, don't you?

I specifically stated that I would not speculate on who might be running this cointelpro operation. I don't find your suggestion that it might be Mick to be very convincing, though. He's clearly just repeating it without bothering to check.


By DigitalFreak on 8/3/2010 6:46:40 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But the real disgrace here is that Jason Mick did not spend even ten minutes doing the very obvious and easy fact checking before reposting it.


LOL. That's nothing new.

Notice Mick didn't post anything about this article "http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9179998/Mee...", since it shows that Lame-o is nothing more than a puppet.

quote:
Wikileaks founder and convicted Australian computer criminal Julian Assange


So Mick, I haven't seen you refer to Lamo as a "convicted US computer criminal", which he most certainly is. Your bias is so obvious it's disgusting.


RE: Bad journalism *and* fabrications
By aston12 on 8/3/2010 7:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly what i tried to say in my start post. Why would i just believe him if he does not back it up with a valid link that shows it source.

Congrats for you for actually checking that source (what the author shoulda done) and as i expected nothing was found.


RE: Bad journalism *and* fabrications
By Reclaimer77 on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bad journalism *and* fabrications
By asuffield on 8/5/2010 12:51:08 AM , Rating: 2
He did give the source. Sky News

Ah, I see you fell for that little trick. Sky News is the source of the photograph.

Jason Mick made up the death threats and a possible murder relating to these documents?

No. Somebody made it up. Mick printed it without checking.


By priusone on 8/5/2010 5:41:18 AM , Rating: 2
Death threats? Fabrications? When I first heard that those documents were leaked, I knew that the Taliban would be digging through it to find "reasons" to kill fellow humans. I would fabricate a story tomorrow about sales surging this December? Decades of statistics say that sales will surge, and statistics say that the Taliban will be busy doing Allah's work.


By DiscipleOfKane on 8/3/2010 8:22:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
But the real disgrace here is that Jason Mick did not spend even ten minutes doing the very obvious and easy fact checking before reposting it. I shall now go and send a complaint to DT about this, and encourage other readers to do the same.


You see Jason Mick has been on an anti Wikileaks crusade since Assange wouldn't give him an interview, or as Assange put it
I don't have time to deal with CNN, and you want me to play 20
questions with a Lamo puppet from 'daily tech'?


This was where his campaign really started http://www.dailytech.com/Adrian+Lamo+Outed+Self+As...

So facts don't come into it, they didn't give Jason Mick an interview and treat him like a Daily Tech Senior News Editor deserves, so this time it's personal.

DailyTech rebranding coming up soon, new yellow theme to fit the "journalism"


RE: Bad journalism *and* fabrications
By tmouse on 8/4/2010 2:10:20 PM , Rating: 3
Are you really that limited in your ability to think? Look up Arghandab (the district Monar is in)there are several intel reports about recruitment. Now given that the taliban know where the events took place even if it’s not mentioned directly in the report. Put a few together and they could easily determine who could be responsible for releasing this information. It’s not even up for debate they admitted they were aided by the information so I haven't a clue where you can get off stating "no they didn't". You clearly do not have an idea how to figure out things that are not handed to you on a silver platter.


RE: Bad journalism *and* fabrications
By asuffield on 8/5/2010 12:54:47 AM , Rating: 1
Look up Arghandab (the district Monar is in)there are several intel reports about recruitment.

I looked up Arghandab. It took approximately half an hour to check all references and reports from that district. There are no reports about recruitment (almost every report is about enemy fire or discovery of IEDs).

Readers are free to speculate on why you might lie about this.

It’s not even up for debate they admitted they were aided by the information

Even the dodgy stories cited by Mick do not make this claim. There appears to be no evidence whatsoever that the Taliban have claimed any connection between these events and the leaked documents.


By tmouse on 8/6/2010 8:41:19 AM , Rating: 3
Took me a lot less than a half hour, put the csv into excel. There are numerous reports about discoveries of uxo (un exploded ordinance) if there is no abbreviation mentioned as a source this means the items were discovered by sources outside of the military or afghan security forces. There are also numerous reports about drug site destruction. Many of the NPCC reports mention arrests of suspicious individuals, here it’s not clear if they were caught by chance or the checkpoints were alerted. finally there is a specific report about an individual named Abdul Rahman Akhundzada who is a Taliban Tactical Commander the information was released by a source described as:

"HUMINT Source: B2 rated Source who has reported reliably 12 times in the past. Source can PID with detailed physical description. Additionally, Source has operated with ODA in the past to PID".

Was this Khalifa Abdullah? I do not know could this be one of the others? Possibly.

We do not have the necessary information to piece these together BUT they certainly could. You simply cannot declare the information as harmless with the extremely limited information you have available. As for "There appears to be no evidence whatsoever that the Taliban have claimed any connection between these events and the leaked documents" There are NUMEROUS reports all over, from their own spokes people mentioning that the information will be helpful, and from a cursory glance if there are more mentions of HUMINT (which is mil speak for human intelligence sources) there is certainly damaging information.


RE: Bad journalism *and* fabrications
By bh192012 on 8/4/2010 2:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
Here's your problem. Unlike you I actually spent more than 10 minutes looking at it and I see links to Monar getting help from the US. Looks like they had a big medical clinic put on etc. Obviously the tribal elders allowed it.

Khalifa (may not be the same person) is mentioned in a section about winning local support, and areas that are fully trafficable (aka locals not resisting)

Anyone who thinks this release of info will not get people killed should actually look at the data, it totally points people out.

This release will get Afghan locals assassinated, for certain. We will likely loose the local support we had, which was the only way out. So now we're either stuck there longer, or we'll leave and the country will be in conflict and a heaven for terrorists for many many years to come. This release was probably the most effective way to LOSE the war. It is really effective in stirring up chaos.


By asuffield on 8/5/2010 1:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
Unlike you I actually spent more than 10 minutes looking at it and I see links to Monar getting help from the US. Looks like they had a big medical clinic put on etc. Obviously the tribal elders allowed it.

I saw that report on my first pass and determined that this was not the case and in any event was something that the Taliban and insurgency must have known about for years. It was not a "big clinic", it was a visit from a group of mobile doctors in 2007, probably only for a single day. People in Afghanistan do not need the permission of their elders to seek aid from a group of doctors who pull up in trucks next to their village, and the trucks do not require permission to park there.

It is this report: http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/event/2006/03/AF... (scroll to the bottom to read it)

Definitions:

MEDCAP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_action_program#...
PRT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provincial_Reconstruc...

Many villages in Afghanistan have been visited by a PRT on more than one occasion. Everybody knew where they were; the US actively announces their activities for propaganda reasons. This was never a secret and most certainly could not be construed as any reason for assassinating people. Even the Taliban do not have a problem with people being treated by doctors.

Khalifa (may not be the same person) is mentioned in a section about winning local support, and areas that are fully trafficable (aka locals not resisting)

I could not find that report. Khalifa is a title, it means something like "leader" (bad translation). Feel free to link to whatever one it was, but I'm pretty sure you have the wrong place, since I've checked everything in that area and it wasn't any of them.


Obcession with Lamo?
By gamefoo21 on 8/3/2010 3:46:28 PM , Rating: 5
Does Jason have a bit of a man crush on Lamo, he keeps going to him, and keeps trying to make him sound more important than he really is... He's some washed up former hacker, who squealed to the feds in hopes of some reward, which he may have gotten via backroom dealings. Yet here is Mr. Mick constantly trying to win over Lamo for what? A date? A one nighter?

Honestly, someone tell me why Jason Mick is blowing his credibility like this? I mean is he hoping for a job with the National Inquirer?

lol




RE: Obcession with Lamo?
By glennforum on 8/3/2010 4:13:00 PM , Rating: 5
Jason has credibility??? WOW that is a stretch.

He is a shill for the Progressive movement. He loves governments that lie and manipulate people and most of all people like Jason can't stand it when the truth shines in the light of day.

As much as these leaks are bad it shows America just how corrupt their government is.

Bottom line if you had honest true leaders with integrity and principles based on ethics and moral compass none of this would have to happen.

So people like Jason do their hardest to provide cover for the miscreants destroying our world...so who is worse Wikileaks or the Jason's of the world?


RE: Obcession with Lamo?
By threepac3 on 8/3/2010 4:23:54 PM , Rating: 1
Good luck with that. The next politician you vote will be worst then last.


RE: Obcession with Lamo?
By cmdrdredd on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obcession with Lamo?
By LordSojar on 8/3/10, Rating: -1
RE: Obcession with Lamo?
By VitalyTheUnknown on 8/3/2010 6:02:51 PM , Rating: 5
"There should be no other blood spilled by Wikileaks"

Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Civilians killed as a result of U.S-led military actions:

direct deaths: at least 5,568 - 8,360
indirect deaths in initial invasion: 3,200 - 20,000
direct & indirect deaths: 8,768 - 28,360
(Total of available estimates, lower - upper)
source - " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_o...–present) "

Civilians killed as a result of insurgent actions:

direct deaths: at least 4,029 - 5,579

"Wikileaks documents associated Deaths:"

Khalifa Abdullah, a tribal elder, was removed from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, by gunmen. He was then executed.

Jason Mick's expected reaction - "I feel most indignant at the Julian Assange and wikileaks' politically biased actions.

One more article on DT concerning Afghanistan war or Wikileaks by Jason and my patience will quickly turn into acute rage.

"There should be no other blood spilled by Wikileaks" - ha, this is amazing.


RE: Obcession with Lamo?
By tmouse on 8/4/2010 8:18:40 AM , Rating: 4
Please, if you’re going to use a wiki as a source, at least try to understand it and think what are the limits or weaknesses in the information. The totals in the bottom are total BS. Did you notice that they simply totaled ALL of the minimums and maximums to get the numbers? Now look closely this time, see how the column sources do not match up? You cannot use unpaired data and it is also totally stupid to aggregate different sources to get a "total". The 20,000 figure is a number pulled out of the a@@ from a Guardian article totally unsubstantiated by ANY other source cited in the wiki and 5-6x higher than ANY other source, do you know what an outlier means? The different sources certainly overlap so totaling the numbers is equally stupid.

Now what was your point?

Yes a lot of people have been killed in this conflict (there are MANY other conflicts that make this look like a drop in the bucket), how pray tell does this even remotely limit the FACT that people are now being killed and their deaths are being justified by their identification from the wikileaks release? There is simply no way ANYONE can reliably scan that amount of documentation and have ANY confidence that they are not releasing information that will lead to exposing sources and their subsequent executions. I'm certain ALL the "review" was merely looking at the classifications on the documents. Clearly in small regions an "innocent" mention of a source as “a prominent elder in the region X” is enough information with the suspicions they already have to lead to the death of someone. Releasing ANY documents that contain ANY references to individuals ; in no way, shape or form aids in transparency. IF you see something that looks wrong release a digest, summary form of it and as the story gains momentum the details may be released ONLY AFTER EXTREAMLY CAREFUL AND PAINSTAKING REVIEW. Then and ONLY then can you have ANY confidence that you are making an effort to cause minimal harm. This was not done AT ALL by wikileaks, clearly there is a personal agenda with no real interest in "transparency" and certainly no interest in the potential harm that could be done. So yes blood is on his hands and he has direct responsibility for these deaths.


RE: Obcession with Lamo?
By DougF on 8/4/2010 9:14:04 AM , Rating: 2
(Stands on soapbox)

(clears throat)

Well Said!


RE: Obcession with Lamo?
By Kensei on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Obcession with Lamo?
By clovell on 8/4/2010 11:48:13 AM , Rating: 2
These leaks don't speak to any corruption or 'badness' of America.

Of all the examples you could use to prove your point, you picked the leak of 90K secret Afghan War documents that show it to be one of the cleanest wars of this length ever fought in the history of mankind.

So, it's ironic how much you speak about credibility while undermining your own.


RE: Obcession with Lamo?
By Lerianis on 8/8/2010 10:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me, but the Progressive movement is codespeak for the liberal movement and we are the ones who are looking at this and saying "Big deal, maybe this will get the people in America good and mad, then they will push for a constitutional amendment saying that we will NOT go to war with any other country unless they directly attack us first.


RE: Obcession with Lamo?
By SSDMaster on 8/3/2010 4:13:19 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sorry but... "Obcession?" Don't criticize someone with words you can't spell.

Even though I do agree Jason is a bit obsessed with this story, and this hasn't been real "tech" news for awhile now.


RE: Obcession with Lamo?
By DigitalFreak on 8/3/2010 6:49:12 PM , Rating: 3
I suspect he's looking for a Cleveland Steamer. BTW, he never had any credibility to blow, so that won't be an issue.


Off with his head...
By MrBlastman on 8/3/2010 3:44:50 PM , Rating: 3
Manning should be treated like the stravag dogs he (perhaps unexpectedly) supported when they violate sharia law--either have his head cut off or be stoned to death. He is not worthy of being treated like a citizen anymore. He lost that right when he (indirectly) committed treason.

At the best, he deserves to be taken in front of a firing squad and have .22's shot at him. He is not worthy of main-line ammunition being expended on him. I suggest they use trainees as well, as a true, blooded soldier should not be shooting at cowards like him.

This guy is filth. I feel bad for all those who now have their lives on the line due to his cowardice and contempt for those who helped give him the freedom he had.




RE: Off with his head...
By ClownPuncher on 8/3/2010 5:09:13 PM , Rating: 5
We have laws in place for treason. I'm sure we can just follow those, get his execution done quickly, and not have to resort to the very stone age tactics we are "fighting against".

Or we could just become ultra radical reactionaries and throw our laws out in favor of much more Taliban style ones. I wouldn't consider that winning, though.


RE: Off with his head...
By wired00 on 8/3/2010 11:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
wow.


Death penalty
By carigis on 8/4/2010 12:41:31 AM , Rating: 2
IF this is true. manning should definatly be subject to the death penalty. Not only for the death (and ones to possibly come)but for the damage he has likely caused in cooperation that may well result in the deaths of US soldiers due to intelligence not be provided out of fear. Releasing evidence of war crimes is one thing... releasing 90,000 documents without even looking at all of them is called treason.. plain and simple. and treason at a time of war none the less.




RE: Death penalty
By Zoridon on 8/4/2010 4:43:02 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with your statment but will add to all posters: I said weeks ago that if the president had any sense of decency he would make a blanket statement that if even one American died as result of these leaks and it could be proven that Manning should recieve the death penalty for treason. I'm not convinced based on the report that this has been proven. It will be either confirmed or denied withing the week. What really gets me is those who post who seem to know the intentions of people who do things as if they are god. I can tell you right now accusing American Soliers of "Knowingly" commiting war crimes is a big stretch. I'm not saying it doesn't happen since just like society you get a few bad apples. The key term is "Knowingly" so please stop making judgments based off your bias and think critically about something for once in your life. The military gets training on an annual basis about the law of war and what is permitted and what is a war crime. They are not a bunch of psychos gatherd in a conspiracy to murder. I hate Mannings guts but I at least will not jump conclusions and say right now he deserves the death penalty, within a week that may change. This message is for all posters who seem to think they know it all without thinking one original thought as if sheep following the latest fad.


RE: Death penalty
By inperfectdarkness on 8/4/2010 10:32:27 AM , Rating: 2
it baffles me how limo somehow believes that this is less damaging that the effects of what hassan did.

perhaps on a technology or weapons-system level hassan did more damage. on a strategic/operational level, manning did FAR more damage. it's going to be VERY difficult to find new informants now.

thanks, manning & wikileaks.


Former Guantanamo Prisoner back in business
By omgwtf8888 on 8/4/2010 10:23:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
One such threat is signed by Abdul Rauf Khadim, a senior Taliban official who was imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. When the Cuban prison was partially shut down by President Obama Khadim was transferred to Afghan custody in Kabul, where he subsequently escaped.


Seems like we really need to get a grip on what war is. These extremists want us and our lifestyle dead. They live in a different world then we do, and do not play by our rules. Congrats to all of you who cried boo-hoo about the people locked up a Guantanamo, YOU! are responsible for this and any other deaths this man commits. We need to understand that some people are just mad dogs and need to be put down. Unfortunately, you can not fight a civilized war with uncivilized people.




By inperfectdarkness on 8/4/2010 10:35:16 AM , Rating: 2
said it before, i'll say it again.

release prisoners into the US populace & issue a standing pardon for whomever assassinates them.


2 Words to illustrate my disgust for Obama
By msheredy on 8/4/2010 11:38:24 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
When the Cuban prison was partially shut down by President Obama Khadim was transferred to Afghan custody in Kabul, where he subsequently escaped.


FUCK Obama!




By Piiman on 8/5/2010 12:34:21 PM , Rating: 3
Be sure to send a big FU to Buch also he has done the same.


By amanojaku on 8/3/2010 4:13:27 PM , Rating: 3
They would kill anyone just to show their power. It's not like anyone would have defended the tribal elder and asked to see the evidence against him as that would also be a death sentence. This has consolidation of power written all over it, and Wikileaks is as good an excuse as any to start purging.




Correction
By clovell on 8/3/2010 5:07:34 PM , Rating: 3
First off - thanks for the article, Jason. Well done.

I do have a comment on part of the article:

> If the government were to pursue such a sentence, though, Manning says he would refuse to testify.

> He states,"I elected to turn Manning in, in the hopes of saving lives. I'm not going to participate in a process that's going to take a life. There should be no other blood spilled by Wikileaks."


Is Manning speaking of himself in the third person or is it Assange saying that he will not participate in Manning's trial if the death penalty is pursued?




Maybe...
By ianweck on 8/3/2010 7:59:12 PM , Rating: 3
If we build a mosque at ground zero the Taliban will all surrender?




afdafa
By IamJedi on 8/3/2010 6:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
The question is where do you draw the line between allowing your government to be private and making it transparent to the people? If this report is to be true, I must say that I am somewhat dissatisfied with what Wikileaks has done in relation to the recent leak of the 90,000 documents from Iraq. In truth, it may have taken awhile to censor/change the names of everyone mentioned in those 90,000 documents, but I personally believe that this would have been an ideal thing to do.

There are times when it is appropriate to reveal secrets the government is keeping (I.e. Apache helicopter incident in Iraq), and then there are times when it is not, or at least not in its true form, such as with the 90,000 documents.

I am in no way saying that the documents should not have been released, but I myself would have changed all the names in the document to John Doe. Long and tedious as it may be, it would keep secret all identifies in said document.




Treason
By bfdd on 8/3/10, Rating: 0
RE: Treason
By YashBudini on 8/3/2010 9:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
Like leaking the name Valerie Plame?


RE: Treason
By VultureTX on 8/4/10, Rating: 0
These people...
By Thelookingglass on 8/3/2010 9:46:34 PM , Rating: 2
Idealists like this Assange never understand the impact of their decisions.

If you believe the world can be a perfect utopia where everyone is happy and everyone's ideally moral, you will be taken advantage of and in the end, pay your price.

The basic nature of humanity is that of a predator, because that's what we are and that's how we got to where we're at.

If you want to end a war you need to provide a solution. Not complicate the matter by foolishly flaunting your ignorance.




CIA
By wired00 on 8/3/2010 11:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
I really wouldn't be shocked if the US govt / CIA was behind this. They want to get rid of Assange and this is a great CIA way of doing it. Same thing with political leaders mysteriously dying in airplane crashes who don't come to the US party




Just a thought.......
By jabber on 8/4/2010 5:48:45 AM , Rating: 2
Now I'm not saying this report isnt true.

But does anyone know if this village elder actually ever existed?

Who would know, how could you check up without actually going to the village?

You can create a lot of misinformation from chaos. What better way to try to stop "internet pinkos" from putting out more data if you make it look like its responsible for getting people killed.

Who knows.




This article, and the response....
By croc on 8/4/2010 8:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
It is quite nice (from an objectivity stand-point) to live somewhere else...

For instance, I REALLY doubt that anyone else posting on this site has ACTUALLY read through all of these documents. I have, so I can have some perspective on the subject... And nowhere in there are there some 93 tribal leaders named, identified by area, etc. So looks to me as if the Taliban is using Wikileaks as an excuse to do some purging.... BAU. Just like the recent attacks by the Taliban on several people trying to provide relief to the Pakistanis left homeless, foodless, etc. from the recent flood.....

Not that any one will ever read this, or care, because it goes against what the posters' on this site WANT to believe....




well,
By Soldier1969 on 8/3/2010 6:19:36 PM , Rating: 1
Now if we can just get them to take out "Snookys" fat munchkin ass and the entire jersey shore garbage show...




Assange...
By mmatis on 8/3/2010 9:44:12 PM , Rating: 1
needs to rot in Hell where he belongs. Since the Taliban are taking advantage of his evil, maybe someone can show them how it's REALLY done?




By msheredy on 8/4/2010 11:38:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
When the Cuban prison was partially shut down by President Obama Khadim was transferred to Afghan custody in Kabul, where he subsequently escaped.


FUCK Obama!




By Piiman on 8/5/2010 12:49:15 PM , Rating: 1
I have to ask how many of you bleeding hearts actually have a son or daughter fighting in Afghanistan? I'm betting NONE. Anyone that thinks leaking classified documents during a war are just plan stupid or have no stake in it. IE a loved one that could end up dead becasue of it.

And for those that want to know if women and children are being killed I say. You must also be stupid if you ever thought they won't be especially since this enemy hides behind them and takes them on the battlefield. So now we have an enemy that hides behind women and children so what do you suggest? Walk away as they shoot at you?

There is a difference between targeting women and children and killing them by accident. Which I might add it something the Taliban doesn't care about. They will kill are you kids just for fun and you want to defend them from the big bad USA? Get real.





"It looks like the iPhone 4 might be their Vista, and I'm okay with that." -- Microsoft COO Kevin Turner














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki