Print 122 comment(s) - last by Master Kenobi.. on Aug 19 at 5:46 PM

David Petraeus, who comands the U.S. forces in Afghanistan, warns that Wikileaks' upcoming document dump will reveal the names of U.S. collaborators in Iraq. The U.S. Military says that it is working to protect its allies from being killed as a result of the potential leak.  (Source: The Huffington Post)

Convicted computer criminal and Wikileaks chief Julian Assange says that the U.S. government cannot intimidate him not to release the info.  (Source: AP Photo / Bertil Ericson / SCANPIX)

The Taliban vows to "punish" those found in the new documents, and has already killed one tribal elder it claims to have found to be a U.S. collaborator.  (Source: AP)
Site also posts interview with soldier involved in 2007 Apache helicopter attack

It was a episode of high drama and tragedy, one which put the site Wikileaks on the map.  The video of the 2007 Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad, which now appears to have been leaked by arrested U.S. Military intelligence specialist Bradley Manning, stirred strong sentiments among many worldwide.

Today, the site is once again the center of attention.  Just over two weeks ago it leaked over 76,000 classified documents on the Afghan war. 

The hostile insurgency in Afghanistan known as the Taliban lauded the leak, saying that they would use it to identify and "punish" locals who cooperated with the U.S.  Soon after they murdered a tribal elder and threatened many other local leaders.  While it is unclear whether they actually identified the individual via references in the documents, or are merely trying to get under the U.S. Armed Forces leadership's skin, the leak seems to be giving the insurgency much needed ammo against their U.S. foes.

Unfazed, Wikileaks is pressing ahead.  This week it aired an interview with Ethan McCord, a solider involved with the 2007 Apache helicopter attack, which Wikileaks dubbed "Collateral Murder".  McCord was the soldier who reported finding an AK-47 and RPG launcher among the killed civilians -- which some used argued showed the soldiers involved followed procedure. 

McCord, in the video counters this argument, saying civilians regularly carry and proudly show off such weapons in Baghdad.  He said they did not appear hostile when the attack was initiated and he emotionally recalls pick glass from the eyes of a 4-year-old girl after the attack.

That's just the warmup -- Wikileaks plans to soon air 15,000 additional classified documents on the Afghan conflict.  The site previously had indicated that it was withholding these documents as they might endanger U.S. allies.  Apparently it has since abandoned such concerns, and is planning on releasing the documents, according to an Aug. 8 interview with a man who goes by the name Daniel Schmitt and claims to be among Wikileaks' five full-time employees.

Convicted computer criminal and site founder Assange commented in subsequent Associated Press interview, "We have a duty to the people most directly affected by this material, the people of Afghanistan and the course of this war which is killing hundreds every week. We have a duty to the broader historical record and its accuracy and its integrity. And we have a duty to our sources to try and protect them where we can."

On Sunday the top US military commander in Afghanistan, General David Petraeus, blasted the leak, stating, "As we have looked through it more and more, there are source names and in some cases there are actual names of individuals with whom we have partnered in difficult missions in difficult places.  And obviously, that is very reprehensible."

Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff confirmed earlier this month that the U.S. was taking steps to protect its allies in Afghanistan who might be endangered by the leak.

As the new leak approaches, it appears public sentiment within the U.S. is shifting against Wikileaks.  A FoxNews poll showed 66 percent of Americans thought the site should be condemned for the leak, while only 21 percent said it should be praised.  In total 76 percent of those who identified themselves as independent voters, 73 percent of those who identified themselves as Republicans, and 57 percent of those who identified themselves as Democrats condemned the leak of classified military documents.  Also 61 percent indicated that they believe the individual who leaked the documents committed treason, while only 29 percent disagreed.

Some individuals do support the site's actions, though.  Posting on the video of McCord's interview, a user "illrated213" writes:
how about instead of punishing someone with bravery for leaking this video out, does the u.s. or the soldiers responsible get punished???? no.... thats right, usa never does ahamed (sic) to be an american.....p.s. FUCK OUR GOVERNMENT!!!!
In related news, Assange told Swedish news agency TT that he was seeking a publishing license in Sweden in order to receive protection under local whistleblower laws.  Wikileaks has a number of servers in Sweden, which host much of is content.  Assange states, "We're dealing with organizations that don't obey the law.  We're dealing with intelligence agencies."

Comments     Threshold

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

Stop posting
By DigitalFreak on 8/15/2010 8:06:22 PM , Rating: 5
Everyone should stop posting comments on these articles. Maybe Mick would finally get the hint.

RE: Stop posting
By JasonMick on 8/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: Stop posting
By jonnies on 8/15/2010 9:12:15 PM , Rating: 5
The leaks themselves are VERY newsworthy. What isn't newsworthy are your largely unsubstantiated beliefs that the leaks are providing the insurgency "much needed ammo against their U.S. foes."

Surely any journalist worth their must applaud Assange and Wikileaks for releasing the hard data necessary to compile a TRUE history of the Afghanistan War (i.e. as opposed to a government-controlled version of history that attempts to hide the many injustices and atrocities they are responsible for in the conflict)...

Yet instead you seem to side with the petty cowards in the White House who want to intimidate people of an organisation that actually have the balls to put their butts on the line in the name of justice and freedom of information.

And the fact that you're quoting Fox News polls just consolidates my currently dismal opinion of your 'journalism'. If I really cared what other people think (let alone the kind of idiots who watch Fox News) I'd be out on the street asking them myself.

RE: Stop posting
By Reclaimer77 on 8/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Stop posting
By adiposity on 8/16/2010 2:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
Every journalist uses polls. I have a feeling if he used an MSNBC poll, you never would have typed this.

Yeah, but if Jason uses a Fox News poll, somethings up. Come on, you know it's true. Think back on your disagreements with Jason...

RE: Stop posting
By JasonMick on 8/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: Stop posting
By R3T4rd on 8/16/2010 3:53:27 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly as you stated in your last paragraph. Its just Assange's way of retaliating aginst the U.S. And for most of others who supports Wikileaks, its the same as well.

Why is it 99% of the leaks by Wikileaks, about the U.S. Oh wait, if Assange ever gets questioned about the leaks, he would just say, "No I am not biased" or "Its not just about the U.S."...."because look, There are leaks about other countries too!!" - cover up.

Some classified information should remain classified. Wikileaks goes beyond that. And that is where if your are a U.S. Citizen or Ally who has loved ones in Afghan, you should be rightfully upset.

RE: Stop posting
By tastyratz on 8/16/2010 1:39:44 PM , Rating: 2
oh how fast the tune changes, it seems there are politics in us all?
The fact of the matter is wikiliks was founded as a safe haven for whistleblowers. Until this fiasco I was actually pretty in support of it, and so were many dailytech readers. The issue here isn't a fat ceo sleeping with the paperboy or taking a pay off... its much bigger. The leak from assange REGARDLESS OF SOURCE was in poor judgement and that of greed and arrogance. Assange is taking the "no such thing as bad publicity" avenue here and doesn't care if his lavash lifestyle costs the lives of others.

Do I believe the government should not get away with covering up mistakes as well as historical accuracy regardless of the victors? absolutely.
Do I think this was a reckless endangerment to leak which will cost vast quantities of lives in the end for no good reason? I think that too.

Had selective documents been released when there was no conflict, no identifiable information, and no risk of life - he may have been branded a hero in other countries (and probably here in the usa too). It would have still been treason, made us look bad, and been illegal... but it would have been morally the right thing to do.
Now to me he is no better than those who carry out the deed.

RE: Stop posting
By notquite1yet on 8/17/2010 2:42:58 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, your bias on this subject (on which you have posted several articles now) is both obvious and disturbing. It's readily apparent in your writing style, your choice of images, and your lazy attempt at showcasing the opposing point of view. Pulling in some random inflammatory quote from "illrated213" does not make your article fair and balanced, it just shows that you are unwilling to take the time and effort to really examine and report upon the other side's arguments.

You assert that the leaks provide a benefit to the enemy, you do everything you can to imply a link between the leaks and recent Taliban activity. But do you show any actual proof to back it up? No. Do you quote sections from the leaked documents that provide an example of the kind of information that you claim is valuable? No (either out of journalistic laziness, or because no such information actually exists). Yet you still somehow manage to conclude that Assange is an evil traitor with blood on his hands because of this leak. That's quite an accusation to make while offering no proof whatsoever that it's true .

Look, the Internet has enough "journalists" on it who report their personal opinions as if they are fact. If that is all you are able to do on this topic, then please do us all a favor and find some other topic to write about. The level of bias you show on this topic is absurd, and that combined with your repeated posting of articles on this topic and the number of former and current military service members around here makes me wonder if it's part of an intentional propaganda/smear campaign. It seems like either that is the case, or you're just a poor journalist who has not learned how to keep their personal feelings on an issue in check. Either way are publishing on this topic, and should be ashamed.

RE: Stop posting
By clovell on 8/17/2010 2:53:29 PM , Rating: 1
No dude - there are quite obviously names in the leaked docs. The Taliban has issued legitimate threats of violence against informants and their families. Considering how two people were stoned to death without a trial just this week, I'd say they're fully capable of making good on those threats. Which, in itself, is enough to cause informants to go silent and compromise ongoing operations.

You're a naive fool if you think that the Taliban can't or won't use this.

RE: Stop posting
By notquite1yet on 8/17/2010 3:30:47 PM , Rating: 2
If there are "quite obviously names" of informants in the linked documents, then here's a novel idea; why don't you cite/link to them? If they exist, prove it by exposing them in the source documents. So far, I've seen about 100 people who claim that the documents name informants, one person who cited an instance where the documents name some enemy combatants , and zero people who could cite an instance of an informant being named in the documents. I've also seen one person who was able to verify that the leaked documents contain no reference to the Taliban's latest victims, or even their home town/province.

Also, you contradict yourself in your other post, where you say that nobody is citing the leaked documents because the leaked documents are "not newsworthy". Now I don't know about you, but I think the name of an informant is pretty newsworthy, so if the documents are truly not newsworthy, then it follows that they must not contain any such information.

And yes, I'm sure the Taliban has issued plenty of threats and is capable of following through on them. I'm sure they did it long before this, I'm sure they're doing it now, and I'm sure that with or without this leak they would continue to do so in the future. That's just how organizations like the Taliban operate. But saying that they threaten and murder does nothing to prove that content in the leaked documents is responsible. Without a more concrete link between the people involved in these incidents and the content in the leaked documents, all the threats and violence show is that the Taliban is still acting like the Taliban.

As for name-calling, whatever. The Taliban can't use information that doesn't exist. And until someone proves that the documents contain valuable, actionable information about informants or other probable targets by citing it in the source material, such information does not exist.

RE: Stop posting
By clovell on 8/18/2010 1:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
And until you cite your 'atrocities' that the docs reveal, I'll assume likewise.

RE: Stop posting
By clovell on 8/17/2010 2:49:05 PM , Rating: 1
No, they're not very newsworthy - that's why they're not being cited directly. I don't understand your logic (or, lack thereof) - how do you reach the conclusion that the Taliban is NOT going to use actionable intelligence?

Oh, that's right - because you're a f*cking moron, and you think that a TRUE (according to you) history of the Afghan is necessary NOW (a couple decades before declassification) - even if it costs the lives of allied forces and informants and undermines operations.

You have no idea how the real world works. Oh yeah - and a poll is a poll is a poll. I know you hate Fox News, and you curse them daily at 3pm and 8pm, but grow the f*ck and come up with a factual arguement.

Last - the people putting their butts on the line are the allied soldiers still in Afghanistan - the ones you so openly seek to compromise. You're an 4sshole, dude.

RE: Stop posting
By whoisnader on 8/15/2010 9:47:52 PM , Rating: 4
It would be best, if you intend to continue to post about political concerns rather than technological concerns, that you at least state the facts as they are reported and not try to skew everyone's opinion. Let people make their own mind up and research the topic.

It is clear from your reporting, that you have an opinion on this topic (justified or not), but that is yours alone and should not be reflected in your report unless you clearly state it. That is how journalism is suppose to work.

RE: Stop posting
By Gul Westfale on 8/15/2010 9:52:26 PM , Rating: 2
it isn't public sentiment that is turning against the truth, it is merely the sentiment of would-be journalist/propagandist mick.

and let us never forget that when it comes to the truth
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
- attributed to Voltaire

RE: Stop posting
By JasonMick on 8/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: Stop posting
By dark matter on 8/15/10, Rating: 0
RE: Stop posting
By JasonMick on 8/15/2010 11:11:45 PM , Rating: 1
Ah, forgot your factual arguments at home I see. That's okay, I stand behind my post and feel it covers the recent developments well.

If you didn't want to read about Wikileaks, why did you click?

In this piece I try to cover both sides of the debate, but the sad truth is that such an approach is sure to offend biased observers, such as yourself.

If you have additional items/directions you think I should cover in my future pieces on this topic, by all means, do share. If not, happy trails!

RE: Stop posting
By hosps on 8/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: Stop posting
By weskurtz0081 on 8/16/2010 11:17:32 AM , Rating: 4
Yeah, I am sure the Taliban had NO CLUE that this stuff was leaked until they came to DailyTech and saw this article.... tool.

RE: Stop posting
By Dark Legion on 8/15/2010 11:08:38 PM , Rating: 1
Oh? So the poll was just invented? Or are you inferring my column somehow personally influenced *all* those polled? Wow... I never knew my own power.

1. It was a non-scientific poll, done by a news agency.
2. It's FOX!

Obviously he really meant that you should only have the right to speak freely if you're telling the /truth/. How did we miss that? And you are obviously a great authority on said /truth/! Thank you for helping me see the error of my ways.</sarcasm>

Is it not your job, as well as the basics of journalism, to report the truth, and keep your opinion out of it?

RE: Stop posting
By JasonMick on 8/15/2010 11:16:28 PM , Rating: 3
2. It's FOX!

Gee. I sure hope you were defending me when I wrote all those alternative energy/global warming articles. Because I mean if you're going to be so biased in one direction, I have to win /sometime/ right?

Is it not your job, as well as the basics of journalism, to report the truth, and keep your opinion out of it?

You do realize the "truth" is a subjective perspective, based on one's own personal sentiments, right?

I use facts and sources to back all of my statements within this article.

As far as personal sentiments -- I feel the majority of what I reported in this article is absolutely the truth and the rest is likely true, within reasonable doubt (e.g. the poll, which you aptly point out -- like any poll -- has statistical uncertainty). Of course, it sounds like you would disagree

RE: Stop posting
By Dark Legion on 8/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Stop posting
By Diogenes1001 on 8/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Stop posting
By Zoridon on 8/16/2010 10:30:04 AM , Rating: 2
Your right we should put accused war criminal in front of Petraeus name. While were at it I accuse you of being a child molestor. There now we can put that in front of your name, since based on your logic an accusation is the truth even if laughed out of court. So how does it feel to be a child molestor?
Do you look in the mirror and see the hypocracy of your own words? How does it feel to be a God since you alone know the truth of everything.
Another point, I can take any information from any source out of context and paint a picture to make anyone seem like a dirtbag. You choose to take the information provided out of context to support your hatred of the United States. Apparently you believe American mothers and fathers raise cold blooded murderers. They have lost their humanity in your eyes, they are the devil they must die. I bet you would gladly cut the throat of a American Soldier and think your doing justice. Have a great day "Accused" child molestor Diogenes1001.

RE: Stop posting
By Suntan on 8/17/2010 2:24:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, no. He’s right. Of course Americans are the bad guys here...


RE: Stop posting
By Suntan on 8/17/2010 2:41:11 PM , Rating: 2

A few choice paragraphs for anyone not inclined to click the link:

The couple eloped to Kunar Province, in eastern Afghanistan, staying with distant relatives, but family members persuaded them to return to their village, promising to allow them to marry. (Afghan men are legally allowed to marry up to four wives). Once back in Kunduz, however, they were seized by the Taliban, who convened local mullahs from surrounding villages for a religious court.
After the Taliban proclaimed the sentence, Siddiqa, dressed in the head-to-toe Afghan burqa, and Khayyam, who had a wife and two young children, were encircled by the male-only crowd in the bazaar. Taliban activists began stoning them first, then villagers joined in until they killed first Siddiqa and then Khayyam, Mr. Khan said. No women were allowed to attend, he said.
Mr. Khan estimated that about 200 villagers participated in the executions, including Khayyam’s father and brother, and Siddiqa’s brother, as well as other relatives, with a larger crowd of onlookers who did not take part.
“People were very happy seeing this,” Mr. Khan maintained, saying the crowd was festive and cheered during the stoning. The couple, he said, “did a bad thing.”
A spokesman for the Taliban, Zabiullah Mujahid, praised the action. “We have heard about this report,” he said, interviewed by cellphone. “But let me tell you that according to Shariah law, if someone commits a crime like that, we have our courts and we deal with such crimes based on Islamic law.”



Mr. Nadery, from the human rights commission, pointed to a string of recent such cases of summary justice by the Taliban. In northwestern Badghis Province on Aug. 8, a 41-year-old widow, who was made pregnant by a man she said promised to marry her, was convicted of fornication by a Taliban court. She was given 200 lashes with a whip and then shot to death, according to Col. Abdul Jabar, a provincial police official, who said the killing was ordered by the local Taliban commander, Mullah Yousef, in Qadis district.



Time magazine focused widespread indignation on Afghanistan recently by putting on its cover a picture of an 18-year-old woman from Oruzgan Province whose nose and ears were cut off by her Taliban husband after she had fled her child marriage to him.

Call me a bad person if you like for thinking this, but I don’t lose too much sleep with the notion that people like this (a man that would cut the face of a child, or stone his own son to death) are being wiped off the face of the earth, even at the cost of innocent people being caught in the middle of it. Some people may like to think of American solders as “bad men” because they get caught in a terrible situation while being asked to do terrible things, but the fact remains, if the Taliban were not in Afghanistan, American soldiers wouldn’t be there causing collateral damage. Could anyone argue the opposite? That if the American soldiers weren’t there, the Taliban wouldn’t be cutting girl's faces off?


RE: Stop posting
By Zoridon on 8/18/2010 4:43:22 AM , Rating: 3
You hit the nail on the head. But don't worry the liberals are even now pulling the jedi mind trick on themselves. "These are not the war criminals you are looking for". Hand wave yet again "America and american soldiers are the war criminals you are looking for". Then back to taking their drugs and getting a good night sleep.

RE: Stop posting
By Diogenes1001 on 8/17/2010 2:44:45 AM , Rating: 1
Hey mick, you really should leave the quote business to the experts. Voltaire got it right! As you pointed out, determining the truth is not always easy.

And since you won't let me post a direct reply to Zoridon let me add it here:

All right already, I suppose I did come on a little strong. Too much redneck exposure tends to do that. I probably would feel a sense of satisfaction executing the torturers and drone jockeys. Actually, in spite of the relatively few bad apples, I tend to regard most US troops as poor unfortunates being used for cannon fodder by the rich and greedy. Tremendous profits to be made during wartime, especially if there are resources to be stolen. Halliburton makes billions and the poor American taxpayer pays full price on top of paying for the war. A war that the US can not afford to win and will only ensure more 9/11s. In a few years, when the taxpayers have been sufficiently drained, the troops will be pulled out and the Afghans and Iranians will be left with the mess. No wonder they hate us!

Of course, in general, allegations do not compare with convictions but surely this is a special case. We all know that American politicians and military will not face justice in court as long as the country is the bully boy of the world. However I expect that to change in about 20 years when China and India become dominant and start treating the US the way Americans have been dealing with the rest of the world. Might even decide to further enrich their rich and powerful by invading the US if the country has anything left worth taking! The point is, the US is no different as far as behavior goes than the rest of the world. Human nature is the same everywhere. A big tendency to put patriotism ahead of common sense!

Say, where is your input on my argument that Wikileaks is saving lives, not costing them? Perhaps you feel that American lives are the only ones that count? Or maybe you can not put the rah rah patriotism down long enough to examine the case on its merits? It really is a tragedy that the country can not manage to become an actual democracy and bring the rich and powerful under control.

But you stick with the kick ass propaganda slogans. Nuanced thinking is so hard. Just messes you up, doesn't it?

RE: Stop posting
By Zoridon on 8/17/2010 3:27:18 AM , Rating: 3
You play the class envy card like a true communist. "Do you have "Workers of the world unite" tatooed on your butt? The only propaganda being spewed is from your mouth straight out of the communist manifesto. You are right about one thing. If the U.S. continues to practice communist wealth re-distrobution principles there may not be anything worth taking left in the U.S. by China or India. Who are right now laughing all the way to the bank as we hamstring ourselves with guilt at being successful. When a poor man gives me a job making enough to support my family I may change my mind but wait.... a poor man can't hire anyone... doh. How about getting rid of the Al Gore fuzzy math of 1 + 1 equals 3 and learn reality and economics. There is waste fraud and abuse in government I've seen it first hand and it disgusts me. I work every day to help clean it up btw. What do you do? As bad as the corruption is it pales in comparison to the corruption found in the middle east. No one is perfect you just choose to attack the big dog on the block because its an easy target.

RE: Stop posting
By Diogenes1001 on 8/17/2010 9:48:11 AM , Rating: 1
Oh dear, caught out again. If I call for more democracy I must be a communist. Naturally the last thing any freedom loving American wants is for citizens to have a say in how their country is run! Naturally since poor men can't hire we should all become the rich man's dog. Wasn't it an American who said,"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"? Guess he must have been a communist too! Of course American mortality statistics for children are too low. Just because they are already at third world levels is no reason not to drive them even higher. Don't the rich deserve their yachts? Never mind that as such hard workers (That's how they got rich right) they must not have time to use them. The Calvinists justified their excessive wealth by claiming they were God's chosen. The (specious) argument that you and Bill Gates deserve all your wealth because you work harder than any poor man is such an improvement. Less hubris I suppose. So, tell me, why are you opposed to democracy?

RE: Stop posting
By Suntan on 8/17/2010 11:35:26 AM , Rating: 3
Soooo... What you’re really saying is that you are poor, and bitter about it...


RE: Stop posting
By Diogenes1001 on 8/17/2010 3:19:56 PM , Rating: 1
Noooo... not quite... But I can see where someone sufficiently self-centered, greedy and mean might only be able to see those qualities in others. Have you ever heard of someone called the Buddha? Crazy old guy who actually claimed to believe that we would all be better off if we did stuff for the common good. Who wanted a world where people did not have to become soldiers and die in a foreign land so a bunch of obscenely rich men could add to their fortunes. Got to be a bunch of malarkey right? No way anybody is going to get you to do anything for anyone but yourself? Didn't really think so...

RE: Stop posting
By Suntan on 8/17/2010 4:24:49 PM , Rating: 3
Somehow I don’t think Buddha taught people to go around being a sarcastic prick to everyone they disagreed with... So maybe you should re-examine yourself if you think you are following some enlightened path.

In any case, you may be poor, you may not be. However, you’re certainly bitter, that much is self evident.


RE: Stop posting
By Zoridon on 8/18/2010 4:54:17 AM , Rating: 2
So basically it is a crime in your mind have a work ethic that is superior to your neighbor and benefit from the fruits of your labor? If for some reason I make more money than you it is because I cheated someone? Problem is only in a utopian society do socialist / communist policies work. They do not take into account human nature. Why should I work hard if someone else will feed me? I'll just vote to have their wealth tranfered to me. Isn't democracy great? Eventually all socieity breaks down because the bloodsuckers outnumber the producers and everyone is poor and starving. Especially when the producers throw up their hands and say screw it I'm tired of paying and paying with nothing to show for it because some pansy down the street wont get off his butt and work. The policies you would advocate lead to more poverty and death and starvation. See that tree in front of you? it's blocking the forest you cannot see.

RE: Stop posting
By clovell on 8/17/2010 3:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
If you think coalition forces are only American, then you should reconcile your idealistic worldview with reality.

RE: Stop posting
By Azure Sky on 8/19/2010 11:12:04 AM , Rating: 1
mick, depending on HOW the questions asked you can get any result you want out of any poll.

watch penn and tellers "bullshit" the episode on polling, I have worked polling jobs, and honestly it all depends on how you ask the question what response you will get

watch that, then understand that polling is "bullsh!t"

RE: Stop posting
By twhittet on 8/15/2010 10:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
Lol - so I assume you never watch Fox News.

RE: Stop posting
By majBUZZ on 8/16/10, Rating: 0
RE: Stop posting
By Azure Sky on 8/19/2010 11:20:21 AM , Rating: 1
proper spelling would be faux news

RE: Stop posting
By R3T4rd on 8/16/2010 3:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
Jason, I'd have to say sometimes I don't understand why you write some articles and disagree with you on them, but then again, sometimes your articles make sense.

Onto the topic at hand: This is news worthy to me. As someone who works and has a busy day, I do not have time nor do I watch and see the value in news brodcasts anymore when I get home. I also agree on your point of view you were taking with this article.

Hate it or love it, just keep it going.

RE: Stop posting
By asuffield on 8/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Stop posting
By Aikouka on 8/16/2010 10:01:07 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think the complaint is about the article being newsworthy... it's about the article being newsworthy on DailyTech. Assuming the point of the site is to present news in the Technology and Science sector, there really isn't anything technological or science-related about this article or even the other one about Assange joining the tabloid. Just because it deals with a website does not necessarily make it tech news.

You could even argue that the original article about Manning was not really tech related (and you could argue that it was too :P).

RE: Stop posting
By hughlle on 8/16/2010 3:58:32 AM , Rating: 2
I don't really follow and keep up with the anti-Mick crowd, but just the extent to which he is trying to defend criticism of his article, well it clearly shows that it's personal opinion that is fuelling his replies, not the integrity of the article. It is a bit of a sad display on Mick's part.

RE: Stop posting
By whoisnader on 8/16/2010 6:50:24 PM , Rating: 2
It is blatantly obvious and what is worse is that I don't think he sees it.

He is on the verge of being a reporter but still lacks the nuances of reporting (or perhaps doesn't get it).

Quick note about our point of view
By zlamaj on 8/16/2010 10:45:17 AM , Rating: 4
Regarding the notion that "Public Sentiment Shifts Against Site" I must say it must be a U.S. only reaction. Here is NZ we're doing everything to get the few last soldiers of ours out of the country, as we believe it's a brutal and an unjust invasion carried out by a barbaric army. This belief thankfully is reinforced with every new piece of evidence from wikileaks.

And just to shut those up who will no doubt say that there are Americans who feel their army is unjustly occupying another country and killing its population, I'll say, how come there are so few of you? How come your government is ignoring you?

Perhaps in the future, the writer can specify the target audience for this biased article by adding something to the title. Maybe a small "for U.S. viewers only!" graphic?

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By inperfectdarkness on 8/16/10, Rating: -1
RE: Quick note about our point of view
By corduroygt on 8/16/2010 3:36:16 PM , Rating: 5
I live in the US and I've never felt like a I was in danger and being targeted by Saddam and his regime. Iraq has more terrorism now than before the illegal, immoral, and unethical invasion.

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By Reclaimer77 on 8/16/10, Rating: -1
By Nacho on 8/16/2010 8:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
Stop lying to yourselves.

The USA went in with the pretext of WMDs. How many WMDs were found?
Only after the USA couldn't find any weapons they turned it into a "free Irak from the madman".
Let me remind you again: the reason the USA invaded Irak was to find WMDs.

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By zlamaj on 8/16/2010 8:56:02 PM , Rating: 1
You are part of the International community, therefore, your decision to go to war must be approved by the U.N. Granted they're a bunch of toss pots, but this is not the wild wild west where everything goes. That what he meant by illegal and immoral. Unethical doesn't exist anymore due to the modern warfare.

By TheBaker on 8/16/2010 11:10:58 PM , Rating: 2
There were multiple resolutions requiring Saddam to allow weapons inspectors full access, which he summarily ignored. Those resolutions gave any UN member nation (and especially full time security council nations) full authority to remove him from power at any time without any further resolutions. The US did exactly that and was even nice enough to go to the UN and explain exactly what they were going to do and when they were going to do it so he could still decide to comply and NOT be removed from power. He didn't. Your argument is not only misleading, it is factually inaccurate.

And oh, BTW, "You are part of the International community, therefore, your decision to go to war must be approved by the U.N." is 100% BULLSHIT.

The U.S. is a sovereign nation. We can go to war for any reason we choose. If you don't like it, you can drum up an international force to oppose us. The same can be said of any nation on this earth, including Iraq. When they invaded Kuwait, we didn't like it, and sent an international force to oppose them. If you don't like what we are doing, you always have that option, or your sovereign nation can come at us by itself. Sovereign nations can do whatever they want as long as they are willing to face the consequences. We decided the consequences of inaction were worse than the consequences of action.

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By IvanAndreevich on 8/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Quick note about our point of view
By NubWobble on 8/17/10, Rating: 0
By Suntan on 8/17/2010 10:38:11 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, well. Which country do you hail from? Please let us know so we can quickly dredge up all the dirt in its past and make it out to be a sh|thole too...

What, just want to armchair quarterback other countries actions without acknowledging that *all* countries do unsavory things?


By NanoTube1 on 8/17/2010 12:59:02 PM , Rating: 2
Me (an Israeli zionist) and 300 million angry Americans will be waiting for you.
Just say when.

By corduroygt on 8/17/2010 9:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot Haiti and Grenada...
But please don't think all of us are like him, because we are not happy with being the world's bully, and definitely not happy about paying for it!

By DougF on 8/17/2010 10:32:13 AM , Rating: 1
Oh well done! I've not seen an argument that lame in oh, decades now. Congratulations on taking actions of one nation during the second half of the last century completely out of context. I could do the same for every other nation on Earth and it would look just as brutal. Perhaps not on the same scale, as the U.S. was the keystone for one half of a bi-polar world for 40 years and then cat-herder of a multi-polar world for the last 20 or so, but just as, how did you phrase it..oh, yes: "absolute shit face brain dead crusader redneck retardation".
Again, congratulations on a such a wonderfully mal-formed argument!

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By filipenko on 8/17/2010 9:18:52 AM , Rating: 1
Sweet mother mercy!


It was voted and approved by Congress. Sorry it was legal. In EVER sense of the word

So, if YOUR Congress votes and approves something, it's legal!?? Do you even realize that it's a criminal act against everything the same Congress vows to protect? You think that it's legal and OK to attack any country just because YOUR Congress says so?

Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union also voted and approved every invasion by USSR. German Reichstag voted on and approved the doings of their beloved Fuhrer, british parliament voted to approve every single small war that some viceroy or duke would start in order to gain more riches for himself, Chinese Central Comitee can also vote tomorrow and approve, say, invasion of India. That DOES NOT MAKE IT LEGAL!

There are institutions beyond your Congress and their Central Comitee, thank God.

By DougF on 8/17/2010 10:15:40 AM , Rating: 2
Ummm....yes, when a government follows it's own laws, it DOES make it legal, in that nation. Your nation may not agree and decide to fight the decision on a diplomatic, economic, and eventually military basis. There may be international agreements that regulate such decisions (Crimes against Peace is one), but they usually have escape clauses such as "self defense", or allow the nation to withdraw after a period of notification. The international community is a partnership of equals, so a nation can decide to not particpate at any time. If the actions by/in a nation are not hazardous enough to the international community, no action is taken. "Enough" is the key word here and up to the member states, which is why some atrocities are not stopped, and others not allowed to continue (Darfur and the invasion of Kuwait, respectively).

I find your idea of higher (assuming "beyond" means higher in a legal sense) institutions intriguing, what are they? Who approved them? I certainly didn't vote to transfer any sovereignty to any other institution. So far, international law doesn't recognize anything higher than the sovereignty of each nation. Those sovereign nations may agree to work with each other over broad areas or in particular instances (UN, NATO, etc), but do NOT give up their sovereignty in exchange. Which is why you can't claim "medical marijuana" is O.K. in Thailand, just because the State of California said it was legal to use, nor even if WHO (international organization, not the band) gives permission to use it. Any rights you have are those agreed upon in the particular nation you are residing in right now. That nation might agree there are "universal" rights, or it might not.

I see you thanked God, which is always a good thing.

By priusone on 8/16/2010 6:33:05 PM , Rating: 2
corduroygt has a pretty valid point. When Saddam was in power, the news agency reported on most of the negative issues taking place with in the country. </sarcasm>

The fact that the regime could do anything without the worry of public outcry, many atrocities took place. Whether or not you stand behind our troops and what they have done to BETTER the lives of Iraqi's, it would be rather helpful to knock on some Shia's doors and ask about their lives before the fall of Saddam and their lives since.

And as far as the PFC is concerned, he could have talked with the Chaplain and been moved to a different department.

By Azure Sky on 8/19/2010 10:51:21 AM , Rating: 2
+6, honestly, I know its "evil" and "wrong" to say this, but when 9/11 happened, I was not shocked, my first thought was "oh so somebody finely decided to kick us in the teeth for being the giant prigs we(America as a whole) have been in the world stage.

when bush went into iraq, My first thought was "oh so he wants to finish his daddy's war."

I dont hate my country(Im as American as you can get) but I do hate how our country and the population enlarge make us look, I mean I use to get offended at how people from outside the states treated me when they found out I was from the states, but as I got older and started to watch how Americans act and how our govt acts.....I really cant blame the rest of the world for thinking we are a bunch of loud mouth, ignorant pricks, because apparently, most Americans who go abroad are, and for sure most who make it on tv, be it shows of news are idiots.....

Please give this guy a +6 because, honestly, most people I know share the sentiment.

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By zlamaj on 8/16/2010 8:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
Typed like a true American. Luckily my post wasn't meant to convince the likes of you to change your mind about these wars. It was more to explain our point of view. I believe it's still free to think what we like to think, without being invaded by your military forces, in the name of "Americanizing" the world.

I also have to disagree with you on the point that if the U.S. ceases to exist, it will be free-for-all and terrorists will run riot killing everyone who dares to speak! What an arrogant thought! You know humanity survived much worse than these terrorists. Thousands of years passed without the mighty U.S. and humanity somehow managed to survive. I will say this though, if you think everyone is so dependent on you, try to remove yourself from the picture. Let's see this native effect it will have on the rest of humanity. I reckon everyone will love it, we will vote to move your lovely country to another planet!

It's not for you, or your countrymen to decide the fate of other peoples. Start another civil war, and leave us be!

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By TheBaker on 8/16/2010 11:15:35 PM , Rating: 1
Despite your vitriol and completely blind eye to the realities of global relations, I just want to say, on the record, on behalf of the American People:

It's okay. If anybody ever decides they want to invade your tiny speck of a nation, we'll still come save you.

By DougF on 8/17/2010 10:41:33 AM , Rating: 2
Can't we make them suffer just a little bit? You know, where they have to take back all the bad things they ever said about us. Please? Just once I'd like the President say (to whatever emergency we're needed to help out with $$, resources, food, equipment, using our big, bad military machine to do it) "We'll help when you say: "We admit the United States are our bestest friends, ever.""

I know, it won't happen, we'll continue to be the world's peacekeeper, nanny, nurse, etc, but it was a nice fantasy for a bit.

By corduroygt on 8/17/2010 7:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
It's okay. If anybody ever decides they want to invade your tiny speck of a nation, we'll still come save* you.

*If you have oil or other resources

Funny I don't remember US doing much to save the poor people of Srebrenica back in the 90s...Stop trying to make US seem the benevolent protector, it's not WW2 anymore. US only watches out for her interests, just like any other country.

By inperfectdarkness on 8/19/2010 1:38:15 PM , Rating: 2
you know, you're right. the world DID survive without the USA for thousands of years.

but just to be fair, the greeks, carthaginians, romans, bourbons, hapsburgs, nazis, soviets, etc all fell. i suppose that eluded your "almighty judgment" however. not at all surprised i was downmodded. people would rather side with popular liberal opinion than to actually use analytical though based in historical facts to actually deduce a probable course of events--instead of a fantasy. i'll leave you with this MOST BEFITTING quote:

"This unearned security during a long century had the effect upon our national habits of mind which the lazy enjoyment of unearned income so often has upon the descendants of a hard-working grandfather"

-Walter Lippmann

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By roadhog1974 on 8/16/2010 11:57:56 PM , Rating: 3
congratulations on being lucky enough to be born in the remotest region of the world--next to the south pole.

well we aren't really that xenophobic here yet so a
significant proportion of our population wasn't born here.

and i think chile is closer to the south pole than we are.

You see the mistake you make is you think that terrorism
is blind and strikes out randomly.

The US bears the brunt because historically it has been
quite happy to support regimes, those it dubs terrorists
don't like so you are correct if the US removed itself
from the totem pole those regimes would probably cease
to exist in some cases and stand on their own to feet
in other cases, either way the US would cease to be a
target, and New Zealand would still not be a target
because we never got involved in the first place.

The fact if the Maoris get pissed at the rest of us
here they will not be bombing LA becuase there is no
point doing that, Just as the IRA, basque seperatists
and Bretons never attacked the US because there was no
point in them doing that.

Stop propping up Israel and saudi arabia and you will be
amazed at how quickly the groups in those countries
stop worrying about you. Of course you won't do that,
so stop complaining about the lemons you choose to suck.

By inperfectdarkness on 8/19/2010 1:52:37 PM , Rating: 1
the USA is bearing the brunt of terrorism attempts because the USSR is no more. i love how everyone and their brother tries to skew that from the facts; but that is the de-facto state of terrorism currently. the alpha dog is the one that gets challenged most often. why is this such an impossible concept to grasp by the apologists?

i also get a kick out of how everyone thinks israel is the reason why we're so hated. somehow, a nation of 2M is enough of an irritant to cause the an islamic population of 1B to want to wipe them off the face of the earth. never mind that israel endures terrorist attacks DAILY which are perpetratedy indirectly by both syria and iran. nevermind that israel is surrounded on all sides by countries which want to cleanse every jew from the face of the earth. somehow, it MUST be israel's fault. roflmfao!

and we don't prop up saudi-arabia. they actually help prop us up. and one of the main reasons the saudi's are hated by takfiri--is because of how westernized the country is becoming...which is a direct violation of the orthodox interpretation of sharia-based theocracy.

i'm glad you aren't xenophobic. it's unfortunate that your country never actually got to witness what a world without western military intervention would be like. for that, i do apologize. i'll try and make amends by painting you a picture of it:

germany rules all of europe. russia & japan rule all of asia. the middle-east & africa are openly disputed by all three parties over resources. the americas are openly invaded pell-mell from both the east and west by these three powers. austrailia and new-zealand are under constant attack by expansionist japanese.

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By bh192012 on 8/16/2010 7:20:40 PM , Rating: 2
"New Zealand — Two rotations of 61 military engineers, known as Task Force Rake, operated in Iraq from September 26, 2003 to September 25, 2004. They were deployed to undertake humanitarian and reconstruction tasks consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1483; they were not part of the invading force."

Yeah, most humane time to flee is during the humanitarian and reconstruction tasks. You're a real saint.

By zlamaj on 8/16/2010 8:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
The discussion is about Afghanistan. The invasion of Iraq has been established by the majority of the people on this planet as a mistake, so no matter how Americans feel about it, it's still considered a blunder. This is why the smaller countries like mine didn't sent military troops. The government was re-elected here because it promised not to send troops to Iraq back in the day. The population was opposed to the manufactured war.

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By NanoTube1 on 8/16/2010 8:10:54 PM , Rating: 1
New Zealand has 13 times as many sheep as people - approximately 47.2 million, on which their farmers pay a *FART TAX* because their insane government claims the gases released by the poor animals harm the environment and cause global warming!

I guess new zealanders do know something about fighting "terror".

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By roadhog1974 on 8/16/2010 10:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
Well it used to be 60 million sheep but some went to australia.

As for the "FART" tax it doesn't exist, and it was intended
as a compulsory research fee for ag research as opposed to
a genreal purpose tax.

The farmers didn't like in the same way they didn't like the
compulsory fee to control rabbits which they maintained
they could deal with by themselves, they couldn't.

In a nutshell most new zealand farmers are a bit short

I guess new zealanders do know something about fighting "terror".

Considering we have been in afghanistan from the beginning
and have had soldiers killed and wounded for something that
does not benefit us at all, show a bit of respect dickhead.

By NanoTube1 on 8/17/2010 6:09:23 AM , Rating: 2
Dickhead you can call the one who brought you to this world.

...something that does not benefit us at all...

This is what you fail to understand, these muslim terrorists that wikileaks are so happy to assist by releasing secret army docs, they consider every non-muslim a legit target, whether you did send troops or not. As this is the case, even back-end NZ benefits from the actions taken by the US and other allies fighting against them. The more quickly you and the rest of the sane world realize it, the shorter the war against them will be and the less blood spilled.

Last but not least, I respect all NZ military personnel that served / serve in the fight against these barbarians, let alone the ones that were wounded or lost their lives, may their soul rest in peace.

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By roadhog1974 on 8/16/2010 10:40:17 PM , Rating: 2
I must say it must be a U.S. only reaction.

pop quiz which country produced the song we are the world?

as far as the SAS leaving they will be there for the
duration of this government and probably the next, unless
the greens are a coalition partner.

By zlamaj on 8/17/2010 4:18:47 AM , Rating: 2
Agree on SAS staying there while National is in power, but I doubt it will stay the same with the next government. The next part HAS to promise to take them out before any other promise on their agenda to get my vote.

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By createcoms on 8/17/2010 1:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
If only you knew how much America does for New Zealand. I'm a kiwi and I thank God for America.

RE: Quick note about our point of view
By zlamaj on 8/17/2010 4:16:01 AM , Rating: 2
Mate, whatever good they're doing during the day, they're erasing at night. Being a the one and only superpower isn't easy, I can understand. You can't be fair all the time, but you can at least be truthful. The British Empire was so bad back in the day, but very few Britons can deny that. Fast forward to the American Empire and you get this unrelenting arrogance in their breath, it's disgusting.

I should say I talk to a lot of the American tourists who visit my shop, and they seem to be cut from a different cloth. No arrogance, humble, easy to talk to, etc... must be the air!

By Suntan on 8/17/2010 10:55:19 AM , Rating: 2
I should say I talk to a lot of the American tourists who visit my shop, and they seem to be cut from a different cloth. No arrogance, humble, easy to talk to, etc... must be the air!

Maybe it’s just your skewed view of things.

Personally, I travel the world over for work. It never fails that a person goes out of their way to tell you something their country has more of/produces more of/ has less of/requires less of, etc. etc. than America. Yet I’ve never had an instance of an American butting into a conversation to tell a visiting foreigner about how America is better than their country.

I once had a guy stop the conversation between about four or five of us, once he found out I was American, to tell me their country makes more cheese than all of America... but we’re the ones that are arrogant huh?... My own view is that many people the world over are just jealous that America (justified or not) gets so much attention from their own local media, and they just can’t take it like a grown up and move on.

Long story short, when NZ starts doing things that are truly interesting on a world scale, they will start to get some recognition. Until then, turn your TV off if you don’t want to hears stories about America. But don’t sit there and cry in your beer about how arrogant we are because your country isn’t important on a global scale, arrogance about one’s homeland is universal and not tied to any individual country.


By clovell on 8/18/2010 1:26:25 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, fuck you, dude. Where was all your reservation when the Talidan supported, funded, and harbored Al Qaeda attacks on American soil. I guess New Zealand is full of chickenshit allies who just like to talk big and then change their minds.

How about this - how about you point out some of these 'atrocities' rather than waving your hands in the air? Perhaps in the future you can add something in the title of your posts like "I'm a chickenshit who makes stuff up as I go along."

But pull your people out - we never needed NZ in the first place. Next time you guys need help, don't come bitching to the US of A.

A Real Person?
By Bruneauinfo on 8/15/2010 9:11:08 PM , Rating: 2
Some individuals do support the site's actions, though. Posting on the video of McCord's interview, a user "illrated213" writes: how about instead of punishing someone with bravery for leaking this video out, does the u.s. or the soldiers responsible get punished???? no.... thats right, usa never does ahamed (sic) to be an american.....p.s. FUCK OUR GOVERNMENT!!!!

Are people who post only with a username worth quoting? This could be any old troll.

RE: A Real Person?
By jonnies on 8/15/2010 9:17:15 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. What kind of journalist actually quotes a random from a forum? If that's his best attempt at finding an alternative view on the matter, then he leaves a lot to be desired.

By Myg on 8/16/2010 2:25:49 AM , Rating: 2
You Americans seem to think that these people only existed on paper and didn't have families/relatives.

The Afghans know about the murders, so those effected by them have already made their minds up and probably joined the Taliban already, along with countless more who listened to the stories in digust. If you want to win hearts and mind you have to fess up to mistakes on the spot and deal with them right away, hording them up to be cleaned out by tribunals afterwords just makes it worse and is completely arrogant.

Concerning the people who've leaked info to the US; unless they are clearly ignorant and havent lived in their own country for the past thirty odd years they would either be hiding or in a different country right after leaking the information. The only case someone in a country like that would decide to stay would be if they want to be a martyr for Democracy in Afghanistan, which if they decided it: Dont deny them it.

Same with someone who wants to leak the truth, let it be done; and let him suffer the consequences of the order he wished to reveal the true nature of: Nothing you say can undo or change what was done and now that the truth is out. Nothing can or will stop it.

Its best to accept it and not try to lay blame, because unfortunatly its the circomstances, and not anyone in particular that could create a situation like this.

RE: ....
By inperfectdarkness on 8/16/2010 1:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
just as with the justice system, circulating the events of a military incident in the public realm creates bias when attempting to render a verdict on the guilt or innocence of the perpetrating parties. worse, since the rules of engagement are classified (and continually changing to match the environment) any supposed "evidince" of wrongdoing cannot be accurately judged by civilians not privy to all the factors on hand at the time of the act.

not seeking out and amputating the cause of said security leaks is akin to welcoming future incursions. this incident must be delt with swiftly, harshly, and without mercy. to do otherwise is only to encourage further breeches.

Free Press?
By Sazabi19 on 8/16/2010 10:34:01 AM , Rating: 2
Look, I'm all for free press and all but this is rediculous. This is literally going to get people killed. The government has many secrets that we don't like yes, but in a time of conflict that crap doesn't need to be strewn for all to see. These documents can be de-classified once we are out of conflict, that's what usually happens. War (though we aren't officially in one) is messy and full of mistakes and things we just wouldn't normally want to do, but every now and then there is a need for it.I don't think we are out there wasting munitions for the hell of it, I'm sure a lot of the soldiers would like to be back at home. The idiots posting these documents should be shot by anyone who can get a clean 1 off, it would be doing many people justice. I hope someone hacks the hell out of wikileaks and publishes the guy's address so we can send him a few presents... via mail or a more personal touch.

RE: Free Press?
By Lerianis on 8/18/2010 4:53:04 AM , Rating: 2
Like My Lai shouldn't have been made public because it could get people killed?

Get real, Sazabi19..... there comes a time where you have to realize that secrecy is being used to hide VERY BAD THINGS going on, and that there shouldn't be any secrecy.

This guy didn't release troop movements or anything else that would DIRECTLY get soldiers killed. He released intelligence data that said who was working with us (in obfuscated ways).
Those people were ALREADY in danger of being killed by the Taliban, and they are in no more danger now because the Taliban knew who they were..... they just have to watch who is TALKING WITH AMERICANS to know that.

Wow at the restraint
By createcoms on 8/16/2010 5:22:04 AM , Rating: 1
I would have expected wikileaks admin to start having accidents involving buses and prescription medication you know, random stuff, that just happens......

Because God knows the CIA could put all these guys down if someone gave the order.

Give the order.

Support the troops.

RE: Wow at the restraint
By marvdmartian on 8/16/2010 10:02:53 AM , Rating: 2
I loved this line:
Convicted computer criminal and Wikileaks chief Julian Assange says that the U.S. government cannot intimidate him not to release the info.

Yeah, okay. What happens when you're declared to be aiding and abetting the enemy, and end up in Gitmo? Bet you'd feel intimidated then, wouldn't you??

Screw using the CIA. Give me one Delta or SEAL sniper team. One bullet, one kill.

the truth?
By xkrakenx on 8/16/2010 9:28:41 AM , Rating: 2
is anybody naive enough to actually think that war isn't nasty foggy business and people don't get screwed over regularly? Anybody honestly see anything surprising in the leaks? Pursuit of the truth during wartime is comparable to winning an argument with your wife. Maybe you win, but you still lose. Enjoy your smug sense of being right hippies. War is ugly. Surprise!

RE: the truth?
By gixser on 8/16/2010 2:59:51 PM , Rating: 1
War is ugly. Surprise!

Yes, it is and I fully support the full horror of war being made available to the public so we know exactly what the cost is and whether or not it's worth it. That cost includes the impact it has on our soldiers, our national and international interests, the enemy and the civilian casualties. Let us know what it is we are paying for and what it is costing us.

Julian Assange
By deltaend on 8/16/2010 1:22:18 AM , Rating: 2
People like Julian Assange spread the religion that the truth is always right no matter what it is... unless if course you are talking about them. Guys like him always live a very secret life because they are terrified that their secrets will be exposed just as much as they expose others.

I think people who commit war crimes should be punished, but not at the expense of committing war crimes yourself and getting people killed. Julian, there is indeed blood on your hands sir.

Also, I guarantee that Julian didn't tell his wife she looked fat in that dress.

By Vespasian on 8/16/2010 4:02:41 AM , Rating: 2
Your article is very biast agains wikileaks and mostly without reason , your trowing shit at people that have a place(and a good role to play) in any good democracy
I dont agree in naming sources and they did not so far , as long as no afgan allies arent put in danger(aka censorship of there name/location etc)i totaly suport wikileaks.I dont agree with the wikileaks founder on the need for the afganistan war but to get on hand , your article is crap and you are not a credible author imo.

Suggestive title
By aston12 on 8/16/2010 7:51:36 AM , Rating: 2
For once i find the article not so much biased or showing the authors opinion.

But as usual you post an article title that imo does not reflect what you wrote.

"That's just the warmup -- Wikileaks plans to soon air 15,000 additional classified documents on the Afghan conflict. The site previously had indicated that it was withholding these documents as they might endanger U.S. allies. Apparently it has since abandoned such concerns, and is planning on releasing the documents, according to an Aug. 8 interview with a man who goes by the name Daniel Schmitt and claims to be among Wikileaks' five full-time employees."

where exactly is the causality between releasing the extra documents and the fact that wikileaks got some disapproval? One may assume, but that is still not a fact. If i misread please show me where the link is... .

By NanoTube1 on 8/16/2010 7:14:48 PM , Rating: 2

By Bigtuna00 on 8/17/2010 7:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
I've sat on the sidelines long enough watching this hack's attempts at "journalism". Mick has single-handedly made me hate DailyTech and largely stop reading it. It's time for him to go. I'll admit I'm taking the lazy way out and starting with a hashtag on Twitter. Use #firejasonmick if you care to show your support.

By Lerianis on 8/18/2010 4:49:59 AM , Rating: 2
The only people who are speaking out against Wikileaks are a very few neo-conservative idiots who think that the United States always does the right thing and Mr. Jason Mick..... that is all.

Personally, everyone who I have talked with who is connected with the internet and had read these papers or some of them LAUDS Wikileaks for what they did, in taking the 'dark shadows' away from the war in Afghanistan and giving us a clear picture of it.... even though that clear picture isn't what the neo-cons like to think is happening in Afghanistan.

Wikeleaks and pirate party
By aston12 on 8/18/2010 7:12:08 AM , Rating: 2
You are a bit slow on the news with your favourite topic:

The LAW was not upheld
By seraphim1982 on 8/18/2010 10:08:59 AM , Rating: 2
There is something called the LAW.

2 "wrongs" don't make a "right"
The US was wrong by not airing this "accidental" murder of civilians. Wikileaks was wrong in releasing the classified files, IMO. ALTHOUGH,IT DOES NOT EXCUSE MURDER BEHIND THE US FLAG. The army broke the LAW and no one was punished.

I believe that is why Wikileaks is pursuing this crusade against the US army. The US, didn't publish these reports of civilian death, because they need public support, they it need to maintain an agenda. I really hope Wikileaks exposes the US for the modern Imperial State it really is...

The LAW was not upheld
By seraphim1982 on 8/18/2010 10:09:05 AM , Rating: 2
There is something called the LAW.

2 "wrongs" don't make a "right"
The US was wrong by not airing this "accidental" murder of civilians. Wikileaks was wrong in releasing the classified files, IMO. ALTHOUGH,IT DOES NOT EXCUSE MURDER BEHIND THE US FLAG. The army broke the LAW and no one was punished.

I believe that is why Wikileaks is pursuing this crusade against the US army. The US, didn't publish these reports of civilian death, because they need public support, they it need to maintain an agenda. I really hope Wikileaks exposes the US for the modern Imperial State it really is...

Covert Op's team
By overlandpark4me on 8/18/2010 11:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
,some night vision, adjust for the wind, and take him out.
Next guy who grabs the doc's and wants to release them. Covert Op's, take him to a warehouse, blindfold him, and scare the crap out of him. Check results, rinse, repeat.................Doesn't work? See first option.

The principle
By Danger D on 8/19/2010 11:12:33 AM , Rating: 2
It's not Wikileaks job to decide who is right and who is wrong in a conflict and then filter information/documents to harm one side or help another. To say they're "aiding terrorists" is just wrong. They're giving the world information.

If governments weren't so shrouded in secrecy all the time, maybe we wouldn't need Wikileaks and would trust them a little better to keep some things classified. As it is, this service is necessary.

Mick, you did a fine job.
By Pedrom666 on 8/16/10, Rating: 0
By B3an on 8/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: Video
By Pedrom666 on 8/16/2010 9:39:28 AM , Rating: 2
Those "no threat" people with AKs and RPGs right? Bash the U.S. all you want . . . doesn't make it true. The Taliban murder Afgan citizens all they want (mainly women and children) but it's the U.S. that's the war criminal. I just can't understand the logic behind that.

RE: Video
By Zoridon on 8/16/2010 10:50:11 AM , Rating: 2
Thats the problem logic is not a factor in the mind of a liberal. Its alien to them and would force them to look in the mirror and see themselves for what they are. Its far easier to pull a Jedi mind trick on yourself "Hand wave" (These are not the war criminals you are looking for) "Hand wave" (The U.S. are the ware criminals you are looking for.) See how it works? They can even sleep at night.

RE: Video
By Zaranthos on 8/16/2010 10:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
Our military has so many rules and regulations it's amazing they can even kill anyone. Strange considering their main job is to KILL the enemy. But the enemy knows all the rules and uses them against us. The enemy hides behind women and children, blows up civilians and blames us for it, and much, much more.

Most of the so called civilized world has become a bunch of pansy ass sissies when it comes to what war really is. It's an ugly, terrible thing where people die and very bad things happen. The United States tries too hard to prevent a lot of these very bad things and then still gets blamed when they do happen. Give a bunch of people guns, separate them from their families, teach them to kill, and act all shocked when a very small percentage of them do something they shouldn't. It could be a whole lot worse and looking back in history it usually was.

Fear and control
By jonnies on 8/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: Fear and control
By Bruneauinfo on 8/15/2010 9:13:36 PM , Rating: 2
We're America, NOT a world order. Our enemies and allies would be wise to remember that.

RE: Fear and control
By CowKing on 8/15/2010 9:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
Guess the US Government fear campaign is working nicely.

I'm not going to lie that the US government has and will continue to skew and hide things, but I would call myself a political person and I like Obama and listen to his speeches whenever I can. Now whatever "Fear campaigns" that are being done are most likely the media.

Here's a thought - whenever a democratically elected government hides such vast amounts of information from its people, you can bet any sum that its not to protect its people, but to protect itself from democratic accountability

This has been done by every president since probably James Monroe. I would like to believe that Obama tries to be as transparent as possible, but there are things that need to be hidden to help the war in Afghanistan. After the war yes they should release information and trial soldiers for the things they have done.

RE: Fear and control
By inperfectdarkness on 8/16/2010 1:30:35 PM , Rating: 2
i'm going out on a limb and guessing that you probably feel that the military should broadcast its intentions to the enemy forces before engaging them.

By AliShawkat on 8/15/10, Rating: -1
By NanoTube1 on 8/16/2010 7:26:39 PM , Rating: 1
Here, a nice video you will relate to:

Hope Assange is happy.
By Master Kenobi on 8/15/10, Rating: -1
RE: Hope Assange is happy.
By torpor on 8/16/2010 2:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
"The PFC" has committed an act of high treason.

He should be put to death, not given a life sentence. There are very few instances where I support the ability of a government to take a citizen's life, but this is one.

I can't bring myself to condemn Assange. Everyone already knew what he was - and so did PFC Bradley Manning. He's doing what anyone with half an ounce of brains knew he'd do.

Manning, on the other hand, was supposed to be capable of responsible handling/use of classified information. Total fail on his part. And he should pay the ultimate price for it.

RE: Hope Assange is happy.
By inperfectdarkness on 8/16/2010 2:07:54 PM , Rating: 2
100% agree. i don't think we should invoke the death sentence lightly. this certainly is one instance where i feel that it is not only warranted; in the interests of deterrance, it is imperative.

RE: Hope Assange is happy.
By adiposity on 8/16/2010 2:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Death penalty is not a very good deterrent. In general those that get the death penalty get better treatment than general population prisoners, and most do not actually get executed for a very long time.

Generally speaking, life in prison is a worse punishment than death. If you want a real deterrent, how about a lifetime of torture?

RE: Hope Assange is happy.
By NubWobble on 8/17/2010 7:47:43 AM , Rating: 1
The man is a hero for releasing the same documents, documenting crimes for which Nazi's were hung. He may carried out an act of high treason by the standards of one country but considering it's a fundamentalist war criminal one it's standards are meaningless.

The moment the US embraces democracy, stops invading countries for natural resources, stops installing dictators as it sees fit, will its standards matter. Until then it can STFU and go die a slow and horrible death, as it nicely bankrupts itself to oblivion.

I have a lot of friends from the USA and they're disgusted by you brainwashed fools.

By inperfectdarkness on 8/19/2010 1:59:51 PM , Rating: 2
and i am disgusted by your deft ability to project the very same succeptabilities you possess onto those who are patriots.

your arbitrary, superficial judgment for what makes a "suitable dictator" is flawed and laughable. in fact, we haven't installed a dictator in either iraq or afghanistan. our actions against lybia weren't triggered by resource concerns. our actions against somalia weren't triggered by resource concerns. i'm sure that's all that you can see though. it's all that your takfiri masters will allow you to see.

your friends may live in the USA, but if that's truly how they feel, they aren't american.


thank you for your best wishes on "dying a slow horrible death". i will rembember those words clearly as the takfiri slowly saw your neck in two after we stop providing you security which you were so totally blind and unwilling to percieve as existing.

RE: Hope Assange is happy.
By roadhog1974 on 8/16/2010 10:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
it's only a matter of time at this point before one of the global intel agencies decides to knock the site down permanently.

history of the internet knowledge fail.

wikileaks will exist for as long as it is funded.

RE: Hope Assange is happy.
By Master Kenobi on 8/19/2010 5:46:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think you greatly underestimate the capabilities of most major global intelligence agencies. If they wanted a website to die, it will die, and "national borders" won't stop them. Take China as a fine example of exactly what you can do if you put it to the test.

quoting FoxNews??!! no good Mick!
By desertpenguin85 on 8/16/10, Rating: -1
By Zoridon on 8/16/2010 10:41:25 AM , Rating: 5
Whats wrong with Fox news? Do you know the truth and they don't? CNN, and ABC, CBS, MSNBC etc... they are all sooooooooooo truthfull and pure? The only reason Fox news looks biased is because the mainstream media is so far left it looks like an episode from Sasame street where one does not look like the other. But I guess you want goostepping media in lock step all agreeing on the same point of view? So much for freedom of the press, in your world Fox news can't be different from ABC or CNN ect.. they must conform or be called names. Funny no facts to back up your Fox news comments only more drivel I long for some facts and not opinions based on your and everyone elses hatred of Fox. But that would require you to actually think wouln't it? I guess I won't hold my breath waiting for facts.

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

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