Print 133 comment(s) - last by Able225.. on Aug 4 at 5:43 PM

  (Source: flickr / essellessell)

Navy Admiral Michael G. Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff  (Source: U.S. Department of Defense)
Turns out the Joint Chiefs of Staff's assessment that Wikileaks would have "blood" on its hands may be right

After a period of inactivity following the arrest of top U.S. military leaker Bradley Manning, Wikileaks roared back to life this week, releasing a virtual stockpile of 90,000 U.S. military documents on operations in Afghanistan, many of them classified.  Wikileaks chief Julian Assange, whose own organization operates in utter secrecy, criticized the U.S.'s lack of transparency and justified the leaks by saying they revealed questionable behavior by Pakistan and detailed 195 accidental civilian deaths on the hands of the U.S. and its allies.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen condemned the leak at a press conference.  Speaking to reporters, Mullen remarked that "Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing.  But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family."

That prediction may have been proven correct.  A spokesperson named Zabihullah Mujahid who represents the Taliban, said that the group's leadership was thankful for the leaks and was pouring over the leaked documents searching for the names of the U.S.'s supporters in Afghanistan.

Mujahid states, "We are studying the report.  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."

The Taliban spokesperson bragged of past killings of local officials which he claims were informants.  He even recalls one occasion in which Taliban officers strapped "two alleged traitors to explosives before detonating them in public."  Other "traitors" have been murdered by means such as beheadings, shootings, or hangings.

Like journalists, the U.S. government says it tries to protect its sources and supporters.  Defense Secretary Gates commented, "I spent most of my life in the intelligence business, where the sacrosanct principle is protecting your sources.  It seems to me that, as a result of this massive breach of security, we have considerable repair work to do in terms of reassuring people and rebuilding trust, because they clearly—people are going to feel at risk."

President Obama has condemned the leak.  Before the leak, his administration's officials had reportedly begged 
Wikileaks' Assange to not release all the documents, saying they could endanger lives.

Assange admitted in media interviews that he did not review even the majority of the released documents personally.  It now appears that the documents may not just contain civilian death reports, but also records of U.S. supporters.

Comments     Threshold

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

Show us the evidence
By asuffield on 7/30/2010 4:38:13 PM , Rating: 3
You have all the documents. Show us the ones which do this. There is no justifiable reason why you should make an accusation like this without proving it. That is your job as a journalist.

RE: Show us the evidence
By Murloc on 7/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Show us the evidence
By funkyd99 on 7/30/2010 4:50:36 PM , Rating: 2
Speculation? The Taliban came forward saying they're pouring over the documents. They were classified for a reason...

RE: Show us the evidence
By notquite1yet on 7/30/2010 5:56:30 PM , Rating: 5
So all of a sudden the Taliban is the shining beacon of truth and accuracy? Maybe they're just fanning the flames. Or maybe they've bought into the still unsubstantiated claims that the documents reveal valuable information about informants and are engaging in a bit of wishful thinking.

There's no reason to assume that the leaked documents contain information about informant identities and whereabouts until someone actually confirms that such information is present. It's not like doing so is hard. Just find one document with one name, and the claim is proven. Until then, however, it's just FUD and bad journalism. The fact that people are looking for something doesn't mean that it actually exists (see: Iraqi WMD's).

RE: Show us the evidence
By heffeque on 7/30/2010 6:50:16 PM , Rating: 4
Interesting how, before publishing it, they offered the White House to review the documents to prevent that some names would slip and... the White House declined the offer.

So, yet more proof that the White House is full of bull sh¡t.

RE: Show us the evidence
By Chillin1248 on 7/30/2010 8:05:22 PM , Rating: 1
I cannot understand your logic. These are government classified documents which are not meant to be released, names are but a small part of the information which were released.

The logic of some people who back up the release of these documents is astounding. I mean by the same logic why should we not also pressure the FBI for more "transparency" and release all information regarding their witness protection program along with the other documents.


RE: Show us the evidence
By Master Kenobi on 7/30/2010 8:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
The general public is stupid, and they have no grasp of how classified information or operations work. Your average whistle blower like the Army PFC and Julian Assange is also an idiot because they are idealistic to a fault and are really no different than a religious extremist that is here to fight in "holy war" against allied forces. The PFC is going to be doing hard time for treason during a time of war, which is punishable by death. He will end up getting life in prison without the possibility of parole. Leaking classified documents is a serious offense, especially during wartime. Julian Assange will hopefully be dealt with by his government or by another european government.

RE: Show us the evidence
By notquite1yet on 7/30/2010 9:04:24 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, yes. The general public is stupid, and yet somehow the leaders that we stupid people elect are more qualified to know this information than the idiots who elected them in the first place. Or in other words...being elected by a bunch of stupid people means that you are not stupid yourself?

If your position is followed to its logical conclusion, then why waste time with democracy in the first place? Leaders are apparently vastly more intelligent and capable than the stupid electorate that votes them into office, so why not take the current leadership, give them all permanent positions, and let them appoint all their own replacements? Problem solved forever, right?

RE: Show us the evidence
By Archibald Gates on 7/31/10, Rating: 0
RE: Show us the evidence
By Ammohunt on 8/2/2010 2:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
Are you more qualified to know your bank account information and pin number to your bank card? I think we need more tranparency with your bank account information since obviously there is a reason not to trust you with that information.

RE: Show us the evidence
By notquite1yet on 8/2/2010 3:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
Am I a public officer? No. Did I fund my bank account with other people's tax dollars? No. Does a significant portion of the electorate have any vested interest in knowing my account information? No.

Try harder next time. There's a difference between public and private (and public officials and organizations are routinely expected to provide all sort of details about their finances).

The government is a public entity, as are any organizations that it directly controls/operates. Every dollar that the government spends comes from the electorate, and as such, the electorate is entitled to know what is being done with that money. The only secrets that the government should be allowed to keep are those that pose a *clear and immediate* threat if released to the public.

So no, the government shouldn't release its bank account information either, because then everyone that's upset over how much taxes they have to pay will take their own personal "refund" (the information is clearly useful towards such an end, and there are potentially millions of people who would want to use it, so that's a *clear and immediate* threat). But records of past military operations, where those records (if you take the time to actually read them instead of just buying into the propaganda about what they contain) do not contain any information about present or future operations, or any personally identifying information about informants, spies, and the like, are all fair game.

Let's stop kidding ourselves here. These documents weren't classified because someone reviewed them and decided that the content was dangerous if it ever got out. They are marked classified as a matter of standard operating procedure. Because all such documents are automatically marked as classified.

So it's pointless to pretend that the classified status automatically means that the information must be valuable or damaging. In fact, everything I've seen so far fails to fall into either category. If you can find something in the leaked documents that is both specific and recent enough to be valuable and damaging, then by all means, cite it. Otherwise we might as well be debating whether or not God exists, given the amount of actual proof that's been brought to the table.

RE: Show us the evidence
By Ammohunt on 8/2/2010 6:17:12 PM , Rating: 2
Its obivous that you have never held a Clearance or been part of the military; I have and what you are saying has no basis in reality war is messy! soldiers are not police and this isn't CSI. Collateral damage e.g. dead civilians and the like is an unfortunate reality of war to assume that any of it is criminal and covered up by the military is plain insulting and reeks or agenda driven demagoguery. Every aspect of missions carried out by special operators are CLASSIFIED some of the operators don't even know where they have been The details of these operations are not for general consumptions for about a 1000 good reasons. Still to this day there are operations from Vietnam to the gulf war that are CLASSIFIED. If you don't like what these guys are doing then vote for new leadership! If justice still lives then wikileaks will be subject to one of these special operations as well.

RE: Show us the evidence
By topkill on 8/3/2010 2:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
Dude, it has people's names in there. I don't care about the rest of it, because that will eventually come out and people should know what we're really doing over there.

War is dirty, tragic and horrible, it's about killing people. Sometimes you have to go to war, but people should be aware of what they are really getting into when they do so.

But to include the names of people and not scrub the crap before they publish??? THAT is criminal. You just signed the death warrants of those people and the Taliban is gladly telling anyone that will listen that they are going to find everyone named and kill them. It's not even a question.

So to me, not taking the time to scrub people's names out before you released the information is the TRUE crime here. It shows that all they cared about was getting credit for blowing the whistle here, and not a damn thing about the people that will be killed because of this.

RE: Show us the evidence
By notquite1yet on 7/30/2010 8:52:47 PM , Rating: 4
So now you logic is that it is just plain wrong to release anything that the government decides to declare "classified", regardless of what it is? That's even worse than your earlier position.

In a democracy, the electorate needs free access to as much information as possible. It's the only way for people to make informed and accurate decisions about their governance and current issues. If the government (or anyone else) is allowed to have a monopoly on the flow of information by arbitrarily declaring things "classified", then you start moving away from democracy and towards totalitarianism. The people in power should not be able to control the flow of information to the electorate, or they will just abuse that ability to help keep themselves in charge. If nothing else, leaks like this help keep everyone that much more honest.

Now, you do have a point with your "witness protection program" analogy, in that when information poses a *direct and immediate* threat to someone, there is justification for keeping it secret. However, I have yet to see any proof that such is the case here. Without such proof, your comparison does not apply to this leak.

So I'm not saying that there aren't things that can be legitimately classified. Things like current troop positions, future battle plans, informant contact information, and the like. However, absolutely nothing that I've seen in this leaked information has fallen into any of those categories. Most of it appears to be routine documentation of past operations. There's little need for it to be secret, and little justification for the amount of outrage that it has provoked.

RE: Show us the evidence
By theapparition on 7/31/2010 1:00:52 AM , Rating: 1
Now, you do have a point with your "witness protection program" analogy, in that when information poses a *direct and immediate* threat to someone, there is justification for keeping it secret. However, I have yet to see any proof that such is the case here. Without such proof, your comparison does not apply to this leak.

The Afgahn civilians and thier families cooperating with American forces would probably beg to differ with you if they weren't busy running for thier lives and hiding.

RE: Show us the evidence
By Lerianis on 7/31/2010 9:12:44 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you, someone with a brain has posted. I agree totally with you: little of this stuff is of CRITICAL IMMEDIATE IMPORT or something that could get soldiers killed.

As to people who are working with us over there? This information is probably in the hands of numerous UNtrustworthy people in the Afghani government, so it doesn't really matter.

The Taliban probably already knew who these 'traitors' (in their minds) were and are planning how to kill them.

RE: Show us the evidence
By SunTzu on 7/30/2010 9:36:33 PM , Rating: 5
The logic is that this article claims that people were named, yet they cannot find a reference to an informant that was actually named. This is a compleatly different issue then the overall issue of the leakage. If you claim that individual informats were implicated, you should be able to back that up.

RE: Show us the evidence
By SunTzu on 7/30/2010 9:18:42 PM , Rating: 4
Yes. They were bad PR for the US. They were classified, because everything interal is. This wasnt a top secret single document, hidden under red tape. Everything that goes in internally, in any army, is classified.

RE: Show us the evidence
By bfellow on 7/30/2010 4:54:31 PM , Rating: 2
The Taliban rather not tell you which documents they read. On the other hand, they want your home address right now so they can send you a care package.

RE: Show us the evidence
By mkrech on 7/30/2010 4:57:40 PM , Rating: 2
Please help me understand your point.

Are you actually trying to make a point that in some way this release of classified information was not completely reckless and done without any consideration of the mortal consequences?

RE: Show us the evidence
By Lerianis on 7/31/2010 9:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
Need I remind you of Iran-Contra? No, the release of this information was NOT reckless in the slightest and WAS done with consideration of the mortal consequences.

As the conservatives like to say however "Sometimes a few dead bodies are less bad than allowing the status quo!"

RE: Show us the evidence
By Chillin1248 on 7/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Show us the evidence
By notquite1yet on 7/30/2010 5:51:29 PM , Rating: 2
You need to read that again. Those are the names of three terrorists/suspected terrorists who are planning an IED ambush against our troops. They are not informants. They are not even on our side.

I doubt the Taliban is interested in killing the men named there. And even if they were, what would be the harm in that?

RE: Show us the evidence
By Chillin1248 on 7/30/2010 6:11:18 PM , Rating: 1
You misunderstand how these kinds of intelligence ops work.

They usually capture the person, interrogate them for any current knowledge and then give them an option. To be released quietly and then be paid for any future information they bring. As such these three names are very likely informants today, whose use has just ended.

Most of the "terrorists" planting IEDs are simple farmers and villagers who get a message promising them $100 if they put an IED in a certain location. As soon as they drop off the IED they continue life as normal.


RE: Show us the evidence
By SunTzu on 7/30/2010 6:16:11 PM , Rating: 3
So, in what way were these collaborators or informants again?

RE: Show us the evidence
By notquite1yet on 7/30/2010 6:29:59 PM , Rating: 3
I don't see anything in there that indicates that the people named were either captured or interrogated. It states that that are believed to be in SC [Squad Commander? Sector Commander?] 23's immediate AO [Area of Operations], and planning an IED attack involving up to 4 IED's. The Bushmaster reported this based upon intercepted communications (presumably radio or phone). The Bushmaster is aware of their location, keeping up observation, but not planning to attack/engage them yet.

I don't knew where you are concluding that these people were captured and/or interrogated. And even if they were, the possibility that some captured individuals may become informants is not sufficient to prove that the documents contain information about informants. It is equally plausible to assert that most of the people who agree to "be released quietly and then be paid for any future information they bring" decide to disappear rather than work as an informant.

I think your assertion that these three people are "very likely informants today" is questionable, at best. If nothing else I think it is equally likely that the Bushmaster eventually called "game on", and all three were killed.

RE: Show us the evidence
By Master Kenobi on 7/30/2010 8:06:10 PM , Rating: 3
Most of the "terrorists" planting IEDs are simple farmers and villagers who get a message promising them $100 if they put an IED in a certain location. As soon as they drop off the IED they continue life as normal.

Gonna have to disagree with that Chillin.

RE: Show us the evidence
By Chillin1248 on 7/30/2010 8:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
This is based on personal experience, granted it may not apply to every theater.

I'll check online to see if there is any public information on this.


RE: Show us the evidence
By Master Kenobi on 7/30/2010 8:15:42 PM , Rating: 2
I haven't seen any unclass or OFUO information on this, so if you find any I would be rather surprised.

RE: Show us the evidence
By Chillin1248 on 7/30/2010 8:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
Here is the first unclassified information I can find:


They did kill Americans, though, certainly. And they recruited and paid willing local Iraqis to help them.

“To get paid by AQI for killing Americans,” Lieutenant Hightower said, “the attack must be videotaped. They often used tracer rounds so they could prove it was real. We found whole piles of these tapes when we cleaned the city out. We found and killed a sniper just northeast of the city. He had all kinds of video tapes of himself shooting and killing American soldiers.”

Conveniently for Al Qaeda, the economy in Ramadi utterly disintegrated during the war. Almost everybody needed money, and even those who did have money had a hard time buying anything since all the stores had closed down.

And here is another one about the intelligence:


"One terrorist’s gunshot wounds, compliments of Deuce Four, were covered in hundreds of flies when the soldiers pulled him from the Iraqi hospital, cleaned his wounds and kept him. He is now providing valuable intelligence on the location of other terrorists responsible for planting IEDs. We know the enemy wants to bomb the inside of the 4-West police station with some kind of IED, or kill US Soldiers when they visit the station. There is an especially high price on the head of the police chief because he is damaging the insurgency."

Moving on hot intelligence, Deuce Four conducted nine simultaneous raids on May 19th. One insurgent in particular was believed to know the locations of others. If the Deuce Four had gone in and just shot the man, he would be dead and useless, but instead LTC Kurilla asked him about the locations of two predominant terrorists. The insurgent answered, “For me to give the locations of these two men would be treason. However, in Iraq we have a saying: if death comes to greet you at your door, introduce him to your brother.” The soldiers loaded the Strykers and headed to that location. A capture-cascade had begun.

Unfortunately, the information I have is classified; so I cannot back it up other than my words and experience.


RE: Show us the evidence
By Master Kenobi on 7/31/2010 11:05:32 PM , Rating: 1
Much the same here. All the good info remains where it should be, locked away.

RE: Show us the evidence
By SunTzu on 7/31/2010 11:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
How convenient! You could always mail it to Assange..

RE: Show us the evidence
By Chillin1248 on 8/1/2010 1:32:01 AM , Rating: 2
Some of us have enough common sense and care for our fellow soldiers to not post classified documents on the internet.


RE: Show us the evidence
By SunTzu on 8/1/2010 2:01:45 AM , Rating: 1
And some of us dont make up stories about our alleged top secret clearances in an online discussion, and then claim they cant talk about it. If you cant back it up, dont say it.

RE: Show us the evidence
By Able225 on 8/4/2010 5:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be fairly ignorant to me. You have a discussion with someone, they reply with fact and personal opinion and you insult them for having personal opinion when everything that I've read from you thus far has been personal opinion or insult.

RE: Show us the evidence
By jonmcc33 on 7/30/2010 8:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
You think they hand over delicate explosives to farmers? Explosives aren't even armed before they are planted. You think these farmers know how to arm explosives as well?

RE: Show us the evidence
By Chillin1248 on 7/30/2010 8:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
Planting a mine is not rocket science. All it requires is digging a small hole, putting in the mine and pulling the pin.


RE: Show us the evidence
By SunTzu on 7/30/2010 9:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
Afaik most IEDs arent just straight up mines. If they were, they would be "mines" and not "IED"s. Improvised being the keyword.

RE: Show us the evidence
By Sagath on 7/30/2010 10:23:56 PM , Rating: 2
No, they aren't just straight up mines you're right. Usually it is some kind of combustible material, some HE rounds (105mm Artillery, etc), and oxidizers of various sorts, all with a trigger of sorts. The trigger may be remote, manual, or automatic...Or sometimes they just stack 5+ AT mines on top of one another and pull the pin on the top one.

The end result is the same. Blown up soldiers and Armored Vehicles that any farmer and his kids have the brains to set up.

RE: Show us the evidence
By kstatefan40 on 7/31/2010 3:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
First off, yes. Absolutely they give explosives to farmers. They hand over explosives to anyone who is willing to blow themselves up either for money, "the greater good of Al Quaeda", or religious reasons. That includes farmers, young adults, students, and anyone else who is prepared to give their life. Not everyone is willing - you don't see their leaders going out and executing suicide attacks - if you did, the organization wouldn't have lasted very long.

In fact, I was reading just the other day that 1/2 of suicide attacks result in only one death - the person holding the explosives:

Terrorists aren't always intelligent. In fact, it could be said that the extremism breeds ignorance.

Chillin, I think people should be able to read between the lines enough on the Human Terrain System to support your claim. Of course we get information from people we captured - and sometimes they continue to provide actionable intel when they are released. Maybe they realize their former alliances would not have provided them that opportunity.

Here's the link describing HTS, which is arguably the best source supporting your claim that is unclassified (note: I do not (and have not) had a security clearance of any kind.)

As to the larger question of the effects of these leaks:

War is hell. The public - at large - does not always accept/understand this and is certainly not prepared for raw accounts of the killings (as happened with the helicopter video). The outrage I heard from some complaining of the language the soldiers used - when they were killing what they thought were insurgents - was of people who couldn't imagine the horrors of war. As a result, their support for the war drops, which hurts the war effort and may end up costing lives.

Leaking raw intel reports during the same conflict is just stupid. Many of these reports will be declassified with time, so historians can review them for primary source documentation. People judging a civilian death here, an accident there, are judging with their heads up their asses. They don't see the conflict as a whole. That is to say, they don't have a commander's view of the battlefield. They are not trained to access these reports and often have no qualification or experience to do so. It is not that they are stupid, it is that they do not see the whole picture (and they wouldn't be able to handle the full picture.)

If the leaker was the alleged Bradley Manning, his charges will be expanded significantly with each successive Wikileaks show. If you read the UCMJ, whether he is found guilty of espionage (and sentenced to death) will directly correlate to the court's reading of the following:

"(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2),"

"(2) An entity referred to in paragraph (1) is—

(A) a foreign government;
(B) a faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States; or

(C) a representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen of such a government, faction, party, or force."

Does providing the document to Wikileaks constitute the definition in paragraph 2? Foreign governments have certainly used Wikileaks as a means to download the information - you can bet their intel agencies are reading the accounts with interest. Does his leaking to Wikileaks pass through to who downloads the documents?

I think he will be charged with a capital offense of espionage and, if found guilty, be sentenced to death. If he leaked diplomatic cables too (he referred to these to Lamo, but Wikileaks has not published any such documents), he will certainly be charged with leaking COMINT and thus is eligible for the death penalty.

RE: Show us the evidence
By SunTzu on 7/31/2010 1:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
Giving people all the information (Not withstanding any eventual repercussions of that information, civilian/military deaths etc) can never be a bad thing. Yes, some people will start to oppose the war, but that is their right. Your not a traitor, just because you dont support your country "right or wrong", i would call that person a patriot. If they sincerly believe that whats going on is wrong, they have a duty to themselves and the country to oppose it.

You say that many of these documents will be declassified, this is true. Alot of them wont, though, because they make the US military look bad. You guys (The US government at large that is) have a long history of coverups of politically sensitive material, and i think that the more that gets out there, the better. This information doesnt seem to be very dangerous, and ive yet to see any concrete links to damaging information. Now, if they had just dumped the 15k documents they have that they claim are actually dangerous, you would have a case.

RE: Show us the evidence
By Chillin1248 on 7/31/2010 1:59:22 PM , Rating: 3
If they sincerly believe that whats going on is wrong, they have a duty to themselves and the country to oppose it.

Yes, by going through the correct channels. Releasing classified military intelligence to your enemies is not the correct way to do it. If he thought there was something wrong and had an urge to release it, well at least keep the 90,000 other classified documents to yourself and release only the pertinent information.

This information doesnt seem to be very dangerous

Is this a military experts opinion? From my reading of some of the documents they are very damaging. They name time, place and assets in play. They show from the American point of view which actions were successful, unsuccessful and why. This kind of information is what gets soldiers and civilians killed.


RE: Show us the evidence
By LeftFootRed on 7/31/2010 5:42:09 PM , Rating: 3
Ditto. Exposing sources, troop movements, tactics, etc has nothing to do with holding politicians accountable and everything to do with helping the other guys kill your guys.

It would be a just world if they could trade places with the people they exposed.

RE: Show us the evidence
By LeftFootRed on 7/31/2010 5:42:11 PM , Rating: 2
Ditto. Exposing sources, troop movements, tactics, etc has nothing to do with holding politicians accountable and everything to do with helping the other guys kill your guys.

It would be a just world if they could trade places with the people they exposed.

RE: Show us the evidence
By SunTzu on 7/31/2010 5:59:09 PM , Rating: 2
And what would the correct channels be? Remember, we're talking about someone on active duty here, he cant spend hours and hours and hours poring over detailed logs. (If we assume that the source was Bradley) The only thing he could do, was what he did: He gave it to someone he trusted. They pored over the documents and removed 15k of them that they judged would be harmful. Will people be hurt by this in Afghanistan? Most likely. Collateral damage.

No, im not a military expert. I did do my military service more geared towards military intelligence then gruntwork though. (Where i live, it used to be mandatory, kinda)

The information released looks to be as scrubbed as can be. Ive yet to see any document that shows an informants name, or something i can immediatly see as harmful. Information like this, where the aim is to show the big picture, cant be scrubbed down to that level because by then it no longer shows anything.

This kind of information is also one of the few things that can change public opinion. In my mind, the war in Afghanistan used to be run horribly. Its looking better now, but theres still alot of improvement to be done. I think this war is a good thing, and i think the fight is overall good. If we're still in it a couple of years from now, i might actually have my boots on the ground.

/Johan, Sergeant in the Swedish reserves.

RE: Show us the evidence
By Chillin1248 on 7/31/2010 7:25:48 PM , Rating: 3
The correct channel would be his immediate superior, there are other channels as well that you can file complaints. He did not even try the correct channels.

Will people be hurt by this in Afghanistan? Most likely. Collateral damage.

And I'm not sure if I'm interpreting you correctly but if I am then it shows an extreme sense of a hypocritical nature. You say the documents being released is good because it shows collateral damage in the past, yet you agree that with its release it will cause even more unnecessary casualties.

I'm going to share with you something, I was a "grunt" in the military. And I can't tell you how many times that loose lips nearly got me killed. We were going to an ambush once and some new desk jockey saw our sniper rifles and got all excited and decided to call someone else about the operation, he mentioned our location for the ambush. Guess what, we had several artillery rounds fall on us.

Yes, simple facts that might look unimportant to one person causes the death of another one. That is why it is always best to keep your mouth shut when in doubt. My opinion on the war itself is irrelevant, but by god at least give the troops a chance without being back stabbed.

Staff Sgt. "Arik", Airborne Assault.


RE: Show us the evidence
By SunTzu on 7/31/2010 7:40:49 PM , Rating: 2
No, it doesnt. I doubt we will be seeing a whole slew of otherwise preventable casualties coming from this leak, and the publification might actually stop more casualties in the future. This is war, people die, im not naive enough to think that civilian casualties are avoidable, they will always happen. Some of them though, can be, and i believe these documents show some of the cases where they could have been.

I doubt his superior would have cared much. Do you know (if this is actually Bradley who's the leak) that he didnt try offical or unoffical channels? Afaik, that information would also be classified.

This wasnt up to date information about operations soon to be executed, its "old" info. The worst it can do is point to overall trends, and if the Taliban are organized well enough to use that information, they will already have their own observations down for this. Most of this info is already widely availible in military manuals, or its standard protocol.

If he didnt speak out, its likely noone would. Saying that he shouldnt, because someone else would, is naive at best.

RE: Show us the evidence
By knutjb on 8/1/2010 2:22:33 AM , Rating: 2
If he didnt speak out, its likely noone would. Saying that he shouldnt, because someone else would, is naive at best.
Come up for air, Manning had a number of ways that he could have used, all of which would have been far easier than this. If he doesn't get the death penalty life in Leavenworth prison is probably worse.

They, forensics, will figure out what Manning took and hopefully anyone else who did the same or enabled those who did. This is a catastrophic event for the US military and I hope many others who allowed this to happen go down as well.

If Manning had sent info to a Congressman or a Senator, there are plenty who would have sought to correct any problems. If Manning had reported it and followed the chain through the whole process he would have a copy that he chose to take such an action.

RE: Show us the evidence
By Able225 on 8/4/2010 2:51:40 PM , Rating: 2
You really don't get it. The information doesn't seem to be dangerous to you because you're used to a set of rules and regulations that protect you from being falsely accused. "The enemy", in this case Taliban and Al-Qaida (forgive my spelling), don't care about whether you're truly innocent or not. They'll murder you and your whole family, if they're right it's an example set. If they're wrong then it's the Americans fault, they leaked the information deliberately in an attempt to get their own high value targets killed without having to get their hands dirty. Then where are we? Oh, that's right...SCREWED. Just because the information doesn't appear bad to you doesn't mean that it can't be used. I'm sure that if I were taliban and I were told that soldiers love cheese omelet MRE's then I'd find a way to use that. Protect as much information as possible, because you never know which little bit gets your buddy killed. As for saying "it's all past operations, it can't hurt anything now", that's just ignorant. How do you think we establish our TTP's and gather intelligence on things? We look at information from past operations and use that to create our Tactics Techniques and Procedures for future operations. Not to mention if a certain operation went very well, chances are we'll do something in a very similar fashion again somewhere down the road. Now that information is out there so once another unit tries something similar, they're going to be slaughtered. I hope the individuals that released this information get buried under Leavenworth, never to see the light of day again, because though it may not be evident there will be a cost that comes with these leaks. There is no question about it.

RE: Show us the evidence
By Able225 on 8/4/2010 5:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
You actually think these explosives are that complicated or very expensive? Some are, but not all. Many people make them by the truck load in their own homes. You can make some of them from the crap under your sink. As far as arming hard do you honestly think that finding a battery and two pieces of wire is? After all, that is all that it takes. Armed before they're planted? It's not like this is an American JDAM or a nuclear warhead. There's no code, nothing of the sort. There's simply explosives, usually mixed with many nasty little objects designed to rip your body to shreds, and an ignition source. Sometimes Det. cord, most of the time just some electrical cord (remote or command detonation).

RE: Show us the evidence
By nafhan on 8/2/2010 9:36:46 AM , Rating: 3
My understanding is that a lot of the 90,000 pages were "boring" logistics information. Logistics info generally isn't going to contain any smoking guns about how terrible the US military is, but it will contain the type of info that hostile groups would find very useful while planning their own ops. Another thing to realize is that "hostile" includes both currently hostile groups such as the Taliban and any adversaries the US may have in the near future. There's a reason detailed logistics info is classified!

Good job
By dwalton on 7/30/2010 5:29:17 PM , Rating: 5
Good job Wikileaks. You just turn this story about the horrors of US activities in Afghanistan into a story about all the afghans you unknowingly exposed to Taliban retaliation. Talking about shooting yourself in the foot.

RE: Good job
By dwalton on 7/30/2010 5:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ohh and Bradley Mannings' circumstances are about to become a whole lot worse if the Taliban is successful in carrying out any retaliations.

RE: Good job
By mcnabney on 7/30/2010 5:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see how accumulating sensitive data and releasing it to a 'hostile' foreign entity isn't treason.

Try him.

Execute him.

RE: Good job
By gixser on 7/30/2010 6:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
Try him.

Execute him.

Why bother with the trial if you are ready to proceed to the sentencing?

RE: Good job
By LRonaldHubbs on 7/30/2010 7:47:57 PM , Rating: 4
Because an internet post does not constitute a court of law. He is innocent until proven guilty in the courts and will receive his fair trial. But that doesn't stop us internet users from posting our own personal verdicts -- free speech and all that...

RE: Good job
By gixser on 7/31/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good job
By drycrust3 on 8/1/2010 3:46:53 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, the sarcasm got lost in the fog. Do you think this comment is sarcasm:
We will investigate through our own secret service whether the people mentioned are really spies

Does that look like a sarcastic comment?

I think this whole thing smacks of "We could, so we did" and not some belief they were trying to save lives. Do the people involved consider they might have a responsibility for the deaths of thousands?

I realise "God" isn't a popular concept on Daily Tech, but God knows exactly who is responsible for who's death or misery, and what their motivation was, and hiding behind some proxy servers or however they hide won't stop God from knowing they did it. I just hope the people responsible take the time to consider their own religious freedom and the offer of repentance that was bought by the blood of an innocent man, before they die because if the Taliban claim to investigate isn't sarcasm, and I don't think it is, then they will certainly need it.

RE: Good job
By Sibuna on 7/30/2010 7:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
He's from Norway; they have more freedoms than we have by law, and the US has to respect those laws. Plus, it's not really treason if it's not your country.

RE: Good job
By LRonaldHubbs on 7/30/2010 7:55:27 PM , Rating: 5
He was talking about Bradley Manning, the US soldier who leaked info to Wikileaks. He most certainly is a US citizen and can be tried for treason.

Who are you talking about that's from Norway? Assange? From what I've read he moves all over the place, most recently to Iceland. Never heard anything about Norway though...

RE: Good job
By mcnabney on 7/31/2010 12:54:57 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, I was talking about our 'home-grown' dipshiat, and yes I would not want him to be punished if he is innocent of the crimes. However, the evidence that has been published concerning his action is about as damning as I can imagine. My post also reinforces my belief that the death penalty is a perfectly reasonable punishment for his actions.

As to Assange and Wikileaks. They are treading thin ice. If their actions can be tied directly to benefits in enemy actions they will likely added to the terrorist watch list and actually have the NSA pursue them. A good friend of mine from college recently moved from the ATF to the NSA and he went on and on over a great number of beers what the NSA is capable of. Wikileaks will cease to exist when the political will shifts against them.

RE: Good job
By SunTzu on 7/31/2010 6:21:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, they wont. The public backlash that would be created by the impression of the US trying to take down the site would be far, far worse then anything Wikileaks can ever leak, especially since most of the information leaked would have come out anyways.

Take a look at the Rainbow Warrior case and how much that cost france.

RE: Good job
By knutjb on 8/1/2010 12:44:37 AM , Rating: 2
No, they wont. The public backlash that would be created by the impression of the US trying to take down the site would be far, far worse then anything Wikileaks can ever leak, especially since most of the information leaked would have come out anyways.
With all the other possible sources to take down the wiki site so they can blame the US as well as those countries outside the US who don't want this anymore public than the US.
Take a look at the Rainbow Warrior case and how much that cost france.

This IS a whole lot different than the Rainbow Warrior. Assange isn't worried about it and he has no need to be, he didn't commit the criminal offense. As to his moral argument that is debatable but not illegal.

RE: Good job
By SunTzu on 8/1/2010 2:19:28 AM , Rating: 2
Im sorry, but i didnt really understand any of this: " With all the other possible sources to take down the wiki site so they can blame the US as well as those countries outside the US who don't want this anymore public than the US."

RE: Good job
By knutjb on 8/1/2010 2:27:58 AM , Rating: 2
If another entity made attempts to take down Wiki they would do so believing the US would be blamed for it.

RE: Good job
By Able225 on 8/4/2010 5:08:34 PM , Rating: 2
No, it's not treason if it's not your country, it's just espionage and "spying". Which itself carries a hefty sentence and generally someone caught during said activities if caught on foreign soil is tried on that would simply be unreasonable to believe that either country would be unbiased in that situation. Needless to say it is a good idea for any "spy" to remain undetected.

RE: Good job
By quiksilvr on 7/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good job
By inperfectdarkness on 7/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good job
By hughlle on 7/31/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good job
By cmdrdredd on 7/31/10, Rating: -1
RE: Good job
By hughlle on 7/31/2010 4:55:06 PM , Rating: 1
Lol, that helicopter was not being attacked... what about shooting someone who is essentially a medical. So they don't sign a treaty so you don't feel like following it? This is why the world is fed up to the gills of America. And that video was leaked via wikileaks so is kinda relevant..

RE: Good job
By knutjb on 8/1/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good job
By Able225 on 8/4/2010 5:43:45 PM , Rating: 1
In war is it always necessary to wait until you are being attacked yourself to fire on an enemy? Think about this. You're in a fox-hole, one hundred meters to your right you buddy is in another fox-hole, he's being fired on by five fighters three hundred meters to both your front. You are not being fired upon because they either cannot see you or think your buddy is the immediate threat to them. According to your logic here, you would not fire to assist your buddy who is about to be killed. Instead you would rather wait until they kill him and turn to fire on you, at which time you're dead already, your body just doesn't realize it yet. War is not meant to be fair, it is not meant to be pretty. It's not a dance-off to see who gets the fag of the month trophy. We had the upper hand, an apache gunship in the air, it would have been stupid for us not to utilize it. The gunship identified targets that according to ROE at the time were to be engaged. The individuals in the area all knew that was the way things were at that time. Especially the reporters since they get briefed on these things.

RE: Good job
By knutjb on 8/1/2010 12:46:54 AM , Rating: 1
Enter the gunship leaked video about now ;) The coalition isn't quite the good guy it thinks it is.
Ever been to war? Thought not. It's not a police action, it's not nice or friendly, and never has been pretty. Go watch the BBC's World at War to get a clue; you need one when it comes to war.

RE: Good job
By inperfectdarkness on 8/1/2010 9:23:14 PM , Rating: 2
wow. in the 2 days since i last visited dailytech, liberals have hijacked the site and down-rated every darn post on here that was actually worth $.02

i'll try to remember that as i'm out defending your freedoms. i'll remember that secrecy is illegal and that we should hand our sensitive information over to our enemies with gusto.

then, when i return from defending your freedom, you can brazenly behead me in the same grizzly manner nick berg was executed--simply for daring to "disagree" with takfiri apologists.

please continue with the desecration of western civilization.

RE: Good job
By Smilin on 8/2/2010 10:23:52 AM , Rating: 1
Easy pal. Your definition of liberal is pretty liberal.

My "liberal" views on this:
We sent a bull into a china shop. Shit will get broken. You don't blame the bull. Shit happens in war and while there may be civilian deaths we do more than anyone to prevent them.

This "expose the injustice" is crap. Sure the docs show civilian deaths. Do the docs also show pardons being granted to those responsible? No. Clearly the deaths didn't go unreported because know... there's a fucking report on it .

Wikileaks is serving it's own interestests, has a grudge against the US, and is behaving utterly irresponsibly.

Assange didn't even READ all the documents before he released them so how does he know he's whistleblowing or just being a Taliban accomplice?

While we should respect the sovereignty of our allies if this Assange guy steps foot on any other soil we should guantanamo his ass.

As for liberals... dude don't let the TV get you riled up about people you have never met. Some liberals think gun control is using both hands you know.

RE: Good job
By MrWho on 7/30/2010 9:47:26 PM , Rating: 2
Although I agree with the main idea you're exposing, I think it was done wrong. The least the guy could do would be to edit out the names of the afghan informers in order to protect them. But, hey! That would be a lot of work, right? The man said he didn't even read it all!
He was sloppy. I agree with the publishing of said documents, but he shouldn't just copy and paste it - he should've done his job properly.

RE: Good job
By PrinceGaz on 7/31/2010 9:49:46 AM , Rating: 1
The least the guy could do would be to edit out the names of the afghan informers in order to protect them.

You may call them informers, others would call them collaborators.

RE: Good job
By LeftFootRed on 7/31/2010 5:08:53 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, others would. Never mind that the "others" you speak of are pursuing a return to totalitarianism (in the guise of religious theocracy), versus a democratically elected government, warts and all. Only one of those paths has any real hope of providing a future of freedom and prosperity for Afghanistan, and wikileaks just kicked the real heroes of that country in the nuts.

Your moral relativism is a de-facto argument for the Taliban and their stone-age brutality. They would be back in power without the Coalition.

RE: Good job
By PrinceGaz on 8/1/2010 7:59:05 AM , Rating: 2
They will probably be back in power anyway within a year of the coalition forces leaving, as despite their totalitarian rule, the Taliban have considerable support amongst much of the population.

We can train as many Afghan soldiers and police as we like, but that will count for nothing once the coalition forces leave and the Afghan government (which at best only really controls Kabul anyway) collapses as the Taliban take back control of most of the country. We may as well bring the troops home now as they are dying for a futile cause.

RE: Good job
By theapparition on 7/31/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good job
By Reclaimer77 on 7/31/2010 9:16:58 AM , Rating: 4
Same here. Day one I called him a traitor and a bunch of libtards rated me down for it. I even had to fight Mick about it, claiming some "right to know" crap.

This is why, in a time of war, you can't have 100% transparency. You just can't. But if you think a war is unjust, fine, that's your right to say. Protesting is fine.

Stealing a bunch of secrets and exposing them to the world is NOT. Manning should hang for this, period. He has no excuse. No defense.

RE: Good job
By hughlle on 7/31/2010 11:05:08 AM , Rating: 2
Is the treason necessarily so bad if it is treason against a corrupt government? Such as Stauffenberg

Outside of the USA we see this as a very good thing, it's about time the world saw what you are doing and a huge number would like you to stop kinda pronto..

RE: Good job
By cmdrdredd on 7/31/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good job
By SunTzu on 7/31/2010 1:19:00 PM , Rating: 3
How does corruption have anything to do with being socialists? Only right wing nutjobs, or american schooled retards, think socialism is per definition a bad thing. Theres a reason we have less crime, less poor people, less wars and less disease then you people. Oh, and also more sex and less STDs and less unwanted pregnancies. Its because we're not american idiots. You really should travel outside the US, so you might realize what a shithole you live in.

You wont find widespread corruption in most countries in the EU. You will however in most states of the US.

RE: Good job
By Bookcase14 on 7/31/2010 2:44:30 PM , Rating: 1
You sit there and call us "schooled retards," yet you go on to use improper wordage multiple times in a row: "less poor people" "less wars" and "less STDs". Last time I checked, "fewer" would be the proper word you dipsh*t. You can quantify all of the following words you wrote, so you would use "Fewer"; Not less.
On a side note, you have fewer instances of those subjects you wrote about because the countries in the EU have much smaller populations. So, just statistically speaking, you would HAVE to have fewer occurrences.
I would much rather be an "American idiot" any day of the week than be a spineless, socialist, backstabbing p*ssy like you and your fellow country mates. F-Off.

RE: Good job
By mugiebahar on 7/31/2010 5:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
I won't into the political issue part. But as a human being you must beheld accountable for actions that effect others. The principle I was brought up on was "Just because you can do something, DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD". Politics aside more people will die now at his hands. He could have found another way. The military is guilty of people dieing but now he is also.

RE: Good job
By knutjb on 8/1/2010 1:34:46 AM , Rating: 2
The military is guilty of people dieing but now he is also.
Ever been to war? It's ugly and people die, even those who are innocent. A tragedy. You don't have to agree with the war but it is what it is. Wishful thinking doesn't bring back two towers of civilians but neither does forgetting that it happened.

When people shoot at you every day and some twit sitting in front of their computer thinking they know how to fix all of the problems in the world but does nothing to do so, other than bitch, refusing to stick their neck out is a bit of a hypocrite.

Humanity is full of those trying take others humanity from them. Rwanda comes to mind. So which way do you want it, no war, but what? It is never simple to solve and it never works out like the plan had anticipated because humans act irrationally in spite of themselves. The world has its ugly side and it will never get better without action against it.

RE: Good job
By SunTzu on 7/31/2010 5:49:43 PM , Rating: 2, are you serious? Would you rather we do this in one of the other 3 languages i speak, so that i could feel superior because your not writing in your native tounge?

And you cant seriously think im not talking about per capita here, can you? We have less instances of all the things i listed, per capita. Is that clearer?

My country is in Afghanistan atm. We actually have more soldiers per capita in A-stan then you do. People like you keep saying "socialist" like anyone except you considers it an insult, we dont. Not being a warmongering idiot isnt the same as being a "backstabbing pussy".

RE: Good job
By Bookcase14 on 8/1/2010 12:20:44 AM , Rating: 1
Actually, you should take a look back at your previous post, because the inflammatory manner in which you labeled all Americans in the blanket statement of "american idiots" would imply that you are the one who indeed has the superiority complex. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I think that idiom should translate well into your other "three languages" you know (which by the way, I don't give a shit if you know three or fifteen).
Speaking of Europeans, I love when they act as if they are vastly more intelligent than their counterparts who speak fewer languages. Let me tell you something, it's pretty easy to learn other languages when other countries are in closer proximity than some of our states are around here.
I would love to see the figures that back up your claims; since most assholes like you will list something similar to how you have vastly better health care because one stat that is weighted more in the assessment is lower in our country than yours.
And yes, "per definition" socialism is inherently bad. It naturally stunts development and invention because the fundamental payoffs and individualistic opportunities are gone. If I have to share profits and the government runs my business, you're goddamn right I'm not going to put a lot of effort into it, 'cause at the end of the day EVERYONE is have to be in the world because natural selection exists; even in society.

RE: Good job
By SunTzu on 8/1/2010 2:12:17 AM , Rating: 3
I was responding to this: "There's a reason I refuse to travel outside the US. You are all 100x more corrupt than this country ever has been, even today. Socialist retards the lot of you." so i think you can probably excuse my irritation ;) The truth is, if you stumble upon a right wing nutjob online, odds are its gonna be an american. If you stumble upon someone who loudly proclaims how his country is a thousand times better then the rest of the world, odds are its an american.

The reason i stated that im multilingual was to point out that insulting my grasp of the english language was fairly retarded, lingustically speaking i can most likely kick his ass. I dont count my neighbouring countries languages in the ones i speak (They're so closely related that it would be pointless. They talk like i do except they talk like they have speech impediments)

Lets use HDI for an easy comparison (Flawed though it might be). My nation, and my 2 neighbouring nations, are all ranked higher then the US. (1, 7, 12, vs the USs 13) Murder rates? You've got 5.4 murders per 100k inhabitants. Sweden? 0.92. Bit of a difference aye?

There are degrees of socialism. A state that isnt even slightly socialistic would be a horrible place to live in, and so would a state that was completly socialist. I prefer to have a slightly stunted development, and a better life for the most people, then to measure success in GDP. However, i too think that socialism in the vein of marxism/communism is a horrible, horrible idea, for the same reasons you stated.

RE: Good job
By Lerianis on 7/31/2010 9:01:09 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed totally. The fact is that other countries who have gone more socialist leaning are doing BETTER than the United States when it comes down to it.

RE: Good job
By Reclaimer77 on 7/31/2010 9:53:36 PM , Rating: 1
Less wars??

The two worst wars on the planet have been started by you people. What the hell are you talking about?

And please provide links to back up all of those statements. But leave out the "less poor". Giving someone money taken from those who have striven to make themselves better isn't enriching a life, it's just bringing down others.

Socialism is corrupt by it's very nature. Arguing that it isn't only makes you look dumber. But you wouldn't understand the difference because you aren't American.

RE: Good job
By SunTzu on 7/31/2010 10:40:08 PM , Rating: 1
You people? Are you saying all europeans now, cus there's a shitload of us. My country hasnt started a war since... the 18th century i think, and we were hardly socialist then. Was Germany a socialist state, do you think? Id call it a facist state myself.

Its 4:30 AM over here, so im not gonna go look up statistics for you. Google it. Your poor are far poorer then anyone your gonna find in western europe, and you have more of them then we do. Yes, you have richer people too, but i prefer to live in a society with less poor, and less unbelievably rich people, then to live in a society where a tiny % of the population holds all of the money, and the rest scrape by.

The rest of the statistics are easy to find, i bet you can even find em on Wikipedia if u feel like being lazy.

RE: Good job
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/2010 10:36:46 AM , Rating: 1
You people? Are you saying all europeans now, cus there's a shitload of us.

There were two kinds of Europeans; those who agreed with what was happening, and those who sat and did nothing while it happened.

And, again, your country was never brought up. You said "Europe". You don't get to, at the last minute, bring up Sweden now as a Red Herrings for your arguments.

Again, your country is tiny. And what works there would NOT work anywhere else with a large population.

Yes, you have richer people too, but i prefer to live in a society with less poor, and less unbelievably rich people, then to live in a society where a tiny % of the population holds all of the money, and the rest scrape by.

You just don't get it. Here someone can go from stinking poor to filthy rich overnight, because we have unlimited opportunity. You haven't made someone less poor just by giving them money taken from the rich. How have you enriched his life? A government provided living is your idea of "saving" the rich?

You leftists have GOT to get over this love affair with the "poor". Most poor people, not all, but most are poor because they made bad decisions with their life. There is nobody to blame but themselves. It's not societies problem.

So you "prefer" to live in a society where someone who HAS made good decisions and worked hard for what they have, have it taken from them to give to someone who hasn't. And you wonder why we talk so much trash about Socialism.

a society where a tiny % of the population holds all of the money, and the rest scrape by.

Here you demonstrate a clear lack of understanding, again, about how the world works. Despite what leftists have brainwashed you with, Economics are NOT zero sum. There isn't a static amount of money so that if one group gets most of it, the rest are "scraping by". That's not how it works here. Socialists inherently believe that when someone gets rich, you have "taken" from others to achieve that wealth. Nothing could be further than the truth.

Again, your society is Sweden, not all of Europe. And what works in Sweden simply can't work everywhere. You keep bouncing between arguments about all of Europe or all of Sweden.

RE: Good job
By knutjb on 8/1/2010 1:22:12 AM , Rating: 1
How does corruption have anything to do with being socialists? Only right wing nutjobs, or american schooled retards, think socialism is per definition a bad thing. Theres a reason we have less crime, less poor people, less wars and less disease then you people. Oh, and also more sex and less STDs and less unwanted pregnancies. Its because we're not american idiots. You really should travel outside the US, so you might realize what a shithole you live in.

You wont find widespread corruption in most countries in the EU. You will however in most states of the US.
First Socialism: it is a system not so different than Fascism or Communism in where some unnamed, compartmentalized bureaucrat, created by the Prussians I believe, determines what you can do and how you have to live your life. They think for you, make sure you don't do anything for yourself, you might make a mistake and that could cause you pain or discomfort.

As to Eu being so free of corruption...where is Silvio Berlisconi from, or maybe Gordon Brown, or perhaps Jacques Chiracs... Do I need to go on. Corruption exists in all countries in varying degrees. The bigger the government the bigger the problem.

Your euro elitism is getting tiresome. BTW I have been to 26 countries. If you make it to 65 in the US you are more likely to live longer than in any other country. My water doesn't leak through lead wrapped logs like in the UK where 40-50% of the public drinking water is lost to bad plumbing. My power only goes out from extreme weather conditions. I go the the market and have the widest selection of foods. I could go on but why, it's so easy to trash. Is the US perfect, of course not, but neither is anywhere else on the planet. I just have more opportunities here than anywhere else.

RE: Good job
By SunTzu on 8/1/2010 2:18:02 AM , Rating: 2
Im not talking communism/marxism. Im talking about the lowgrade socialism that is inherent in pretty much every state in the world.

Ive never said the EU was free of corruption, i said that we're not "100x" more corrupted then the US as the previous poster claimed. Silvio is pretty much a joke (tbh, italy as a whole is) and of course there are corrupted people in every country, but its not an issue in the vast majority of western european countries (Atleast not in the governmental sector. The military industrial complex tends to bribe alot of people, and get caught, regularly).I live in Sweden, we havent had a corruption case of any size in... well my lifetime at the least.

The UK is pretty much the worst country in western europe, the only country thats rivaling US crime rates. The country is falling apart, and has been for some time. Take a look at Germany, Finland, Sweden or Norway for a better example.

I dont claim that the EU is perfect, far from it. Alot of places are true shitholes, and not likely to improve. I was only responding to comments made, by an american, about how crap Europe was.

RE: Good job
By Reclaimer77 on 8/1/2010 10:11:19 AM , Rating: 1
lol Ok so now you've backpedaled entirely into meaning that Sweden is great, but over half of Europe IS shit. That's sure a different tune then you told that other poster. And yes, you DID imply by your very statements that the EU was free of corruption. What are we doing now, comparing varying levels of corruption? That's a straw man.

I've honestly had enough of you Sweedes. You don't, or refuse to, understand that a country of 340+ million citizens simply CAN'T be run like Sweden. It's impossible. And yet you constantly trash the US for it and compare it to your tiny eutopia. Calling the US a "shithole"? Where do you get off!?

Take a look at Germany, Finland, Sweden or Norway for a better example.

Take a look at UK, France, Spain, and Greece for a better example, too. I'm sure there are other European countries that are on the verge of collapse as well, but honestly, who can keep track of it all.

So basically to make your argument hold any weight, you have removed the "worst" countries in Europe from being counted. HUH? How is that honest debating? You don't get to pick and choose that way. That's the same as me picking only the best 10 states to show you how great the U.S is. You wouldn't go for that, and neither should we go for your biased selective comparisons.

RE: Good job
By knutjb on 8/1/2010 1:00:42 AM , Rating: 2
Is the treason necessarily so bad if it is treason against a corrupt government? Such as Stauffenberg Outside of the USA we see this as a very good thing, it's about time the world saw what you are doing and a huge number would like you to stop kinda pronto..
Go on, keep drinking the kool aid. Manning, the most likely source, is nothing of the kind. Show what government you believe has no corruption... I'm waiting... I think you make the world out in too simple of manner. It is not nor has ever been a wonderful place if all you want to do is focus on the bad parts. OK, we, the US, leave all of our bases world wide and take our tech with us, now what are you going to do, sing cumbayah? Be careful what you ask for...

RE: Good job
By cruisin3style on 8/1/2010 3:21:47 AM , Rating: 2
That you call them libtards, and that you are implying that only libtards would rate you down for it, shows that you have been coerced and influenced by the divisive political strategies of people like Karl Rove and Rupert Murdoch. People who, it would seem, have succeeded in being less American by painting people who are just like, but think slightly different than, you less American.

Iraq and Afghanistan should be wars, not politics. The country has not been changed for the better in that regard. See also: Republicans saying "no" even to ideas they previously supported only because they were not in the majority to get their way. They did the same thing with the 01 and 03 tax cuts that Democrats did with obamacare to pass it, and democrats didn't say "yes" to being worthless bags of hot air for a year and a half...

RE: Good job
By nandasore on 7/31/2010 10:52:14 PM , Rating: 3
"While it's true that WikiLeaks should have been much more careful in redacting the names of Afghan sources, watching Endless War Supporters prance around with righteous concern for Afghan lives being endangered by the leak is really too absurd to bear. You know what endangers innocent Afghan lives? Ten years of bombings, checkpoint shootings, due-process-free hit squads, air attacks, drones, night raids on homes, etc. etc."

RE: Good job
By arjunp2085 on 7/31/10, Rating: 0
RE: Good job
By v9s on 7/31/2010 4:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
Woah...lay off the caps lock!!

Much of the information — raw intelligence and threat assessments gathered from the field in Afghanistan— cannot be verified and likely comes from sources aligned with Afghan intelligence, which considers Pakistan an enemy, and paid informants. Some describe plots for attacks that do not appear to have taken place.

Experts cautioned that although Pakistan’s militant groups and Al Qaeda work together, directly linking the Pakistani spy agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, with Al Qaeda is difficult.

American officials have rarely uncovered definitive evidence of direct ISI involvement in a major attack.

But for all their eye-popping details, the intelligence files, which are mostly collated by junior officers relying on informants and Afghan officials, fail to provide a convincing smoking gun for ISI complicity. Most of the reports are vague, filled with incongruent detail, or crudely fabricated. The same characters – famous Taliban commanders, well-known ISI officials – and scenarios repeatedly pop up. And few of the events predicted in the reports subsequently occurred.

A retired senior American officer said ground-level reports were considered to be a mixture of "rumours, bull**** and second-hand information" and were weeded out as they passed up the chain of command. "As someone who had to sift through thousands of these reports, I can say that the chances of finding any real information are pretty slim," said the officer, who has years of experience in the region.

If anything, the jumble of allegations highlights the perils of collecting accurate intelligence in a complex arena where all sides have an interest in distorting the truth.

"The fog of war is particularly dense in Afghanistan," said Michael Semple, a former deputy head of the EU mission there. "A barrage of false information is being passed off as intelligence and anyone who wants to operate there needs to be able to sift through it. The opportunities to be misled are innumerable."

But many of the 180 reports appear to betray as much about the motivation of the sources than those of the alleged foreign puppet-masters. Some US officers were aware of this. One report from 2006 notes that an informant "divulges information for monetary remuneration and likely fabricated or exaggerated the above report for just that reason".

Some of the most striking claims come from the National Directorate of Security, Afghanistan's foremost spy agency and a bitter rival to the ISI.

But many such reports appear highly implausible. In February 2007 the ISI and insurgents planned "to buy alcoholic drinks from markets in Miranshah [in Pakistan's tribal belt] and Peshawar [in order to] mix them with poison and use them for poisoning ANSF and ISAF troops" according to a C3 report. The Karzai plot is assessed to be "probably true".

Apparently more credible reports of ISI skulduggery are marked SEWOC, or Signals Intelligence Electronic Warfare Operations Centre, signifying they come from intercepted communications. One SEWOC report, in December 2007, accused the ISI of deploying children as suicide bombers. But the military source said that such intelligence was also prone to distortion, and that its value depended on whose conversation was being eavesdropped. "If we ever found out anything that the ISI or Pakistani military were somehow complicit in the insurgency, it never came from these sources. Never," he said.

But while Gul, 73, is a well-known fundamentalist ideologue in Pakistan, experts say he is unlikely to play a frontline role in the fighting. Afghan informers may have used his name – he is notorious in Afghanistan – to spice up their stories, said Semple.

"There's a pattern of using a dramatis personae of famous ISI officers and Afghan commanders, and recurring reports of dramatic developments such as the delivery of surface-to-air missiles, to give these reports credibility," he said. "But most of them are simply fabricated."

The retired US officer said some NDS officials "wanted to create the impression that Pakistani complicity was a threat to the US". And more broadly speaking, "there's an Afghan prejudice that wants to see an ISI agent under every rock".

RE: Good job
By arjunp2085 on 8/1/2010 7:51:49 AM , Rating: 3
Do you know which was the only country that recognized the "state of taliban"


Do you know from where the attacks on Mumbai India occurred.( during the attack a search was stated for those who had American passports)


Do you know where was Taliban Resurgence spotted after Taliban was Kicked from Afghanistan.

SWAT valley Pakistan.

Do you know where was the the terrorist Mushtaq Ahmed Zargar, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh found after release during IC-814 Hijack.


Omar Saeed Sheikh was later found to be the killer of Daniel Pearl..

In the End. it is that American leaders shoot their own foot. its not the leak for tons of the documents....

Unless US takes some action. We might see Taliban controlled Pakistan.. Aka Nuclear powered Taliban.

RE: Good job
By v9s on 7/31/2010 4:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
90,000 leaked documents over the ten years of WOT and not a single revelation, despite the combined technological and financial resources of NATO analyzing all things ISI related.

All this intelligence (related to the ISI) is being provided by NDS - The Afghan Intelligence service. The US probably knows what's going on and more importantly, they know about NDS' credibility and that NDS would love to associate ISI with Taliban. NDS has not provided any evidence of ISI support either.

If Pakistan was indeed supporting extremists, I doubt the US would be giving us the latest weapons, $1.5B/year in military aid and support. If there was any truth to these reports, the US would be making much more noise about this issue and would be using it's diplomatic clout around the world to bomb Pakistan...but it's not.

So in the end, as much as you'd like to link the Taliban and the ISI out of sheer desperation by calling these reports facts, the fact remains the same that these 'intelligence reports' are unverified, likely distorted and manipulated (and informants spicing them up to get paid, as admitted by some of the analysts themselves).

By adiposity on 7/30/2010 5:32:50 PM , Rating: 5
Wikileaks chief Julian Assange, whose own organization operates in utter secrecy, criticized the U.S.'s lack of transparency

I guess this is supposed to show some sort of hypocrisy on the part of Wikileaks.

A government, which is democratically elected, might have some pressure to be transparent, so those who elect it can make informed decisions.

I'm not sure how important transparency is, though, for a small organization that simply leaks documents. In fact, transparency probably would make it much harder for them to make such leaks.

So, what are you really getting at here? Wikileaks should be held to the same standard it holds the US govt. to? Even though they are totally different types of groups with different goals and accountability?

RE: Huh
By mcnabney on 7/30/2010 6:08:49 PM , Rating: 2
I might be climbing out onto a ledge here, but I am pretty sure that no government in the history of civilization would deliberately release this kind of data while a conflict was still being waged.

I would also venture to say that the civilian casualties in Afghanistan are some of the lightest in history. The numbers of civilians documented as killed in this report would be a good DAY in Vietnam and Korea and a good afternoon in WW2. No government wants bad things that it is involved in released for global review, but there is a reason that war is really, really bad. I think the eurotrash (wikileaks) grew up with this sterile idea of war that they witnessed in Kosovo and Gulf War 1. Real ground war is a horrible, horrible thing for everybody involved.

RE: Huh
By SunTzu on 7/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Huh
By knutjb on 8/1/2010 1:52:57 AM , Rating: 1
Wait, do you seriously think that Kosovo was a "sterile" war? For the US, thats right, the only thing you did was bomb the shit out of the national infrastructure (Which still is far from recovered, the energy situation is still a joke in the region), but for everyone else it wasnt. Very, very many people died, and an appalling number of civilians included. Many european nations had boots on the ground early, and for a good long time.
I was there when Kosovo happened and Europe was wanting to keep the talks going, via the French, while innocent civilians were being slaughtered wholesale and HAD to be strong armed into stopping the insanity by the US. Get your history straight.

This was classified for the same reason that the Apache video was: Political dynamite.
Its a video without context, no explanation of the ROE or the SOP of the insurgents. Nope its one tiny little piece of a big puzzle, looks bad, but still without context.

RE: Huh
By theapparition on 7/31/2010 1:04:46 AM , Rating: 2
You're wasting your time. Even one civilian casualty would be too much for some (in a war zone no less!!!). That's what you get with ininformed internet keyboard warriors.

RE: Huh
By Lerianis on 7/31/2010 8:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, because it might... GASP!.... make people realize that we are NOT THE GOOD GUYS here (as in Vietnam) and GET THE HELL OUT OF AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ!

To be blunt, I applaud what Wikileaks and Manning, if it was him, did and I hope that more people will take a moral stand and do things like this in the future.

RE: Huh
By Solandri on 7/31/2010 7:36:42 PM , Rating: 3
So, what are you really getting at here? Wikileaks should be held to the same standard it holds the US govt. to? Even though they are totally different types of groups with different goals and accountability?

Wikileaks also publishes documents leaked from corporations and organizations. So yes, if they're operating on the principle that fewer secrets are better, and they're not transparent in their own activities, they're being hypocrites.

RE: Huh
By Lerianis on 7/31/2010 8:56:37 PM , Rating: 1
Give me a break here. Stretching logic here big time. Wikileaks operates 'without transparency' in order to protect the people who leak information to them.

The same way that the federal Whistleblowers people operate WITHOUT TRANSPARENCY to do that!

RE: Huh
By Solandri on 8/1/2010 12:18:14 AM , Rating: 3
I'm not talking about releasing info on who submits stuff they publish. I'm talking about who donates to them, how the funds are used, and what standards they use to decide what gets published and what doesn't.

I don't think a service like what they do is necessarily a bad thing. But I feel it needs to be open and transparent as to how it's done and what standards are used to publish or withhold. The people within Wikileaks making the decisions have to somehow be accountable to the public in order for the info they publish to be trustworthy. The way Wikileaks operates right now, I trust the stuff it makes public no more than I trust self-serving corporate research studies. Bias by omission is very easy to accomplish. The whole flap over the video of Sherrod is a perfect example of that.

Bad Americans
By overlandpark4me on 7/30/10, Rating: 0
RE: Bad Americans
By Lerianis on 7/31/2010 8:50:21 PM , Rating: 4
No, it isn't. It is sad that some people think like you and don't realize that these people are the TRUE patriots, unwilling to allow our government to do something that conflicts with their morality and 'follow an oath' that they believe the United States has abrogated with their actions.

This is the SAME SHIT that was thrown at the people who exposed the Iran-Contra affair, and it don't fly anymore with the SMART people of the United States.

By monkeyman1140 on 8/1/2010 3:25:00 AM , Rating: 4
So before Wikileaks,the Taliban were honoring rules of war?


The reason we're losing Afghanistan is because we support Pakistan. We should ally with India, gang up on Pak and nuke the place until its glowing sand.

All of a sudden terrorism will drop by 50%. Then you nuke Saudi Arabia until its glass and the rest of world terrorism will stop.

Interesting that the 2 biggest supporters of international terrorism are our allies.

Lets keep a few things in mind...
By letmepicyou on 7/31/2010 6:42:34 PM , Rating: 2
A few things to keep in mind. CENTCOM has indicated in their own documentation that they employ people whose specific job is to cruise forums, chat rooms, and any place that reflects public opinion outlets and make posts designed to sway public opinion. So lets keep that HARD CORE in our minds when reading posts either for or against this thing or that.
Another thing to bare in mind is we weren't there. Try to imagine, just for a second, that you are in the Army. That you swore an oath to defend and uphold the constitution from all aggressors, both foreign AND domestic. Now try to imagine what on EARTH would make someone leak these documents. I find it highly unlikely that a person in this instance would do such a thing for the sole and specific purpose of hurting americans. To me, the most obvious reason would be that, in all honesty, this guy felt like something WRONG was going on, that the American public should know about it. I mean, talk about sticking one's neck out. You don't do things like this for the respect of your peers, for notoriety, for publicity, cause these are the types of things that get people shot. Remember Kennedy's last big speech? If not you should listen to it. This guy stuck his neck out for only one reason, to reveal truth to people who were unaware. If we're so worried about the possible repercussions of this, it seems we have an obvious solution available to us. To quote our *ack* president obama...
"I will promise you this. That if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. I will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank."
Made October 27, 2007. It would seem this "leak" is a perfect reason to make that trip to the bank finally, Mr. Obama. If that IS your real name.

By Lerianis on 7/31/2010 8:47:43 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly right. The people who do these things do not do them for 'shits and giggles', as some people have been saying he did.

They do them because they honestly think that the United States or another foreign government are doing something VERY WRONG, and cannot put their M O R A L I T Y out of their head anymore and just file orders like a good little homicidal robot!

Oh schnap!
By Archibald Gates on 7/31/2010 11:17:47 PM , Rating: 1
Another "JasonMick" in the morning?! WHERE'S MY COFFEE!

Rant, rant, rant, blah blah blah... blood on my hands, blah blah...

Get your facts right first!

U.S. invaded Afghanistan = FACT!
U.S. invaded Iraq = FACT!
People die in war = FACT!

Ask your government why they started the war first. Cause last time i checked there were no WMD's found. And don't even start the 9/11 BS, its not like afghanistan declared war on the U.S. or whatever... It's like some mofo from canada would hijack the planes and do a "911" and after that the U.S. would bomb and invade canada in retaliation. Thats just stupid.

Getting a so called "coalition" together was just a nice excuse for invading and occupying another country that has rich oil deposits. Afghanistan was just "foreplay" Iraq was the real target all the time. And it's not the first time. Remember Desert Storm? Well some idiot thought "Ok, we'll leave sadam in power, cause he will give us the oil we need" (think it was called OIL for SPAM, or Spaghetti? program...). Let him terrorize and gas his people who gives a s**t? As long as we get our oil... Flashback, russians invaded afghanistan for their own vodka-powered reasons, the CIA supported the afghans with training and weapons. Seems like it has turned against them this time.

Do i support "war on terror"? No! Because the so called war on terror will only create more terror. Both sides. It will never stop. If you invade and occupy a country, then the so called "terrorists" will never run out of "new recruits". It's all about money and power. The U.S. wants power, the taliban wants power, and everyone wants a piece of the oil cake. Why? Because oil is money = power.

Coffee's out. Bye.

RE: Oh schnap!
By Smilin on 8/2/2010 10:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
Buy a history book.

I think a black op is necessary
By carigis on 7/30/2010 11:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
Our intelligence agencies should "pick this guy up" and take him off the field of battle for the remainder of the war on terror.... those who aid the terrorist should be treated the same..posting 90,000 classified documents..just for the sake of doing it.. should get you a vacation at club fed.. regardless of where you are from...If anyone dies from any of the releases... and they are tied to manning.. he should be put in front of a firing squad.. period

US doesn't like to be embarrased...
By croc on 7/31/2010 2:57:47 AM , Rating: 2
...Therefore, they thought that the best defense was a good offense. I am sure that someone in some obscure office cubicle working for some obscure three-letter 'security' bureau, had to actually sit down and read (and report on) all 90,000 some of these short messages. No smoking gun found, so it was decided to make one up.OH, this will get our soldiers and allies killed! Us is getting frustrated with wikileaks, and various plans have made to take the site down. Maybe one or two actually succeded?

So, taking off my tinfoil hat, have any of the other posters (haters?) actually read all 90,000 megs? You know, just so you could make an informed opion? Maybe even an informed post? (met with a deafening silence...)

But, hey that copter sure sas some good flick, eh?

BTW those msgs were so boring, (this thing happened on this day, that is all...)

Let's stop kidding ourselves...
By JonnyDough on 7/31/2010 4:47:50 AM , Rating: 1
This is a power and religious struggle and either side will spread propaganda to win it. I say down with religion, down with politicians. Up with science, freedom, and truth.

By Lerianis on 7/31/2010 8:53:57 PM , Rating: 1
Any posting that doesn't agree with Jason Mick's viewpoint and the idea that these people are 'traitors'.

Some people have too much time and not enough brains, is all I have to say.

Adm Mullen
By BruceLeet on 7/30/10, Rating: 0
I'm sorry what?
By kangusmcdu on 7/31/10, Rating: 0
By CvP on 7/30/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hypocrites
By zozzlhandler on 7/30/2010 5:29:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hypocrite yourself. And add traitor. While some innocent people have been killed by our soldiers, many more (10x more) were innocents were killed over the same period by the Taliban. Now, thanks to Wikileaks, those people who dared to help us try to make their country a better place are under a death sentence. Good job, Wikileaks. May the fleas of a thousand camels infest your erogenous zones.

RE: Hypocrites
By Lerianis on 7/31/2010 9:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, what world are you living in? At this point, we have already killed MORE people than the Taliban has killed, when you count the number of people who were killed during the bombings at the beginning of the 'war' and get the REAL numbers from the Afghani people themselves, instead of the manipulated US numbers.

RE: Hypocrites
By zozzlhandler on 8/1/2010 12:59:32 AM , Rating: 1
You, sir, are an idiot and a fool if you believe those numbers over ours. Remember the "our" numbers we are talking about were leaked from confidential documents. I am not suggesting mindless belief in what is handed out to our media. But on the whole what we get is far more reliable than what our opponents say. And there is no doubt the Taliban have killed thousands in the time period we are talking about. Unfortunately, more are about to die, due to someone thinking its a good idea to leak documents containing the names of those who helped us.

I am living in the real world. Just what world are *you* living in?

"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki