backtop


Print 154 comment(s) - last by p4ndiamond.. on Aug 10 at 11:14 AM


The leaked documents reveal that U.S. soldiers have mistakenly killed 195 civilians over 6 years.  (Source: War News Updates)

The leak is the masterpiece of ex-computer criminal Julian Assange who runs Wikileaks and who has engaged in a crusade against the U.S., which he believes in acting with malice on a global scale.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Classified materials reveal 195 civilian casualties on U.S. hands, serious allegations against Pakistan

After nearly five months of silence and only 12 leaked documents this year, Wikileaks bellowed to life, releasing 90,000 classified U.S. government documents detailing the U.S. military and aid campaigns to combat terrorism in Afghanistan.

With the release, Wikileaks continues to gun hard for the U.S. government, playing the role of hostile foreign espionage organization-cum-whistleblower.  Funded by shadowy anonymous donors, two-thirds of the site's previous leaked documents targeted the U.S. or close ally Iraq -- and that total has now soared to well over 90 percent.  While Wikileaks has released some important documents from other regions from Africa to Asia, the quantity of those leaks pales in comparison to the site's targeted efforts against the U.S.

The recent leak is the masterwork of site leader Julian Assange, an ex-computer criminal who today lives in Iceland, a nation whose specially designed freedom of speech laws shelter him from prosecution.  Assange was first elevated into the public eye with the release of gun cam footage of a July 2007 U.S. airstrike in Baghdad, which killed civilians, including two Reuters employees.  That video was dubbed "collateral murder" by Assange and required days of supercomputer time to crack the advance encryption protections by the U.S. gov't.

The new documents offer what Assange claims is damning evidence of U.S. wrongdoing and meddling in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Among the highest profile claims is that the U.S. "murdered" innocent civilians.

In reality, the documents reveal a surprisingly low number of tragic incidents.  Over a six-year military operation plagued with tense situations and suicide bombings, the U.S. Military reports being aware of only 144 incidents in which civilians appear to be killed.  Most of these involve drivers or motorcyclists who were mistaken for suicide bombers and shot.  In total 195 civilians died and 174 were wounded.  The highest profile incident involved 15 passengers being killed or wounded when a U.S. patrol unleashed machine gun fire on a bus.

It's hard to make premature judgements on these incidents.  And any loss of life is certainly tragic and unsavory.  That said, considering that close to 10,000 civilians are estimated to have died from local secular violence and over 1,000 U.S. soldiers are estimated to have been killed in Afghanistan, that total appears remarkably low.

The site is fulfilling its role as a whistleblower at least to some respect, in so much as many of these incidents were previously undisclosed.

The documents also reveal that roadside bombs killed 2,000 civilians in Afghanistan alone – this was over 10 times the total killed by the U.S. in both Afghanistan and Iraq.  The documents also revealed a classified anti-Taliban commando unit dubbed the "black unit".  That unit's objective was apparently to "kill or capture" Taliban leaders without bringing them first to trial in the U.S. or Afghanistan.

Other leaked documents reveal that the U.S. suspects several of its key allies are facing pro-terrorist sentiments from within their own ranks.  Pakistan, which currently receives $1B USD a year to fight terrorism reportedly has high ranking government officials which the U.S. Military claims were supporting the Taliban and seeking to undermine U.S. operations.  

One official in the nation's security services, the ISI, even reportedly plotted to kill pro-U.S. Afghani President Hamid Karzai in 2008.  The report also reveals other ISI operative to be engaged in training and employing a network of suicide bombers, starting in 2006.

There's much to say about the new report.  First and foremost, it comes at a time when the U.S. government is seeking to prosecute Pvt. 1st Class Bradley Manning, the U.S. solider station in Iraq who likely leaked these documents.  Amid that backdrop they appear clearly geared at exposing perceived U.S. wrongdoing and represent a continuation of the site's targeting of the U.S.

There's no real smoking gun in the reports.  Many wouldn't even constitute whistleblowing as they deal with logistics aspects like troop numbers or weaponry -- these releases can clearly be perceived as hostile foreign intelligence engaged by Wikileaks.  That said there is a great deal of compelling material here.  Most of the material -- a relatively small number of civilian casualties and Pakistani government involvement with terrorism -- was already widely known, if some specific details were lacking.  The docs certainly clarify the picture of these issues, as seen through the eyes of the U.S. Military.

The question now becomes what to do.  The leak is likely the largest in U.S. Military history.  It has been condemned by the Obama administration.  But the administration must tread cautiously or it risks being viewed at home or abroad as callous about civilian deaths or unsupportive of its allies.

The Obama administration did blame the previous Bush administration, which masterminded most of the Iraq and Afghanistan military operations as engaging in "under-resourcing", which resulted in many of the tragic loss-of-life incidents.  However, the harder question is what to do about Assange and Wikileaks.  If the Obama administration tolerates the site, it's likely to continue its targeted attack of the U.S -- but if it moves against it, it will likely be accused of conspiracy to undermine journalism and be validated Assange's claims of international hostility towards him, which to this point appeared paranoia.

For Wikileaks, the leak represents both problems an opportunity.  After being down for some time, the site's secure submissions server is now back alive and the site has drawn its most attention grabbing leak yet.  Yet, its biggest source of leaked info about the U.S. is currently sitting in prison and it faces the potential of covert or open action from the U.S. government.  

The biggest opportunity for the site, though, is for it to target wrongdoing worldwide -- not just in the U.S.  China, Russia, and North Korea are just a few of the nations that could benefit from the scrutiny.  However, Wikileaks has to date offered no indication it's interesting in becoming an equal-opportunity whistleblower.  In total it has released only 215 Chinese leaks, versus close to 100,000 U.S. leaks.  Empowered by its new publicity, will the site turn from a crusade against the U.S. towards a crusade against injustice?  It remains to be seen if it will be given that opportunity, and if given, whether it will take it.

The full archive of the new leaked documents is available here.



Comments     Threshold


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

Wow Jason, just wow...
By cdwilliams1 on 7/26/2010 9:57:48 AM , Rating: 3
Wow Jason, do you just copy and paste government press releases or what? These articles show serious and troubling issues with this way the USA is handling the war. We finally get some facts - not from the goverment of course - but through Wikileaks and you declare them anti-US??? These are docs generated by the USA itself. If bringing them to light paints the USA in a bad light, somehow that's not the USA's fault according to you.... it's wikileaks being anti-us. Are you crazy? Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.... is that what you really believe?




RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By CyberHawk on 7/26/2010 9:59:44 AM , Rating: 4
I must say I agree.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Gul Westfale on 7/26/2010 10:05:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wikileaks' Anti-U.S. Crusade


has it become unpatriotic in your country to tell the truth? careful, armbands and solutions of a final nature may be closer than they appear.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By MPE on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/2010 11:13:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pretend journalist having a pretend intellectual argument.

It is nice you can play in your sand box.


Wow derogatory speech/insults. Creative. Obviously you did not listen to my above request for logic-based arguments.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By MPE on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By kyleb2112 on 7/26/2010 5:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
I've seen Stewart chop tape to make people say the exact opposite of what they really said. He'll cut out the one sentence where someone is denouncing something to make it look like they support it. I enjoy watching The Daily Show--Stewart's a funny guy, but not an honest one.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By NanoTube1 on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By tank171 on 7/27/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Flunk on 7/27/2010 8:51:35 AM , Rating: 1
The spirit of what? Xenophobic paranoia?


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By jamesjwb on 7/27/2010 9:38:23 AM , Rating: 5
The traditional western viewpoint of what goes on in the world is so self-deluded. In this case, we suggest and make a deal about 195 civilian losses in Afghanistan attributed to direct mistakes, yet fail to even question that due to this war an infinitely larger number of civilians have been killed and justifiably so in the eyes of US frame work. Yet for may Americans it's actually hard to understand it this way.

It's as if when the west does something wrong it's pictured as something OK, fighting for "freedom", fighting for "democracy", fighting the "terrorists" -- most of this is double speak.

But when the "bad guys" do it (anyone that opposes the USAs dominant imperialist position), it's all-of-a-sudden easily identified as terrorism, imperialism, fascism, nuts, and so on.

Jason, this is a shameful article, but then this isn't a serious political website, it's a pro American blog that doesn't think for itself. I'm expecting far too much here. Plus you clearly hate wikileaks for some reason, its powerfully noticeable.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By clovell on 7/28/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Triple Omega on 7/29/2010 4:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Self-deluded, eh? I take it you weren't in NYC on 11-SEP-2001. Let's recap: Thousands of innocent civilians were murdered on American soil.

Yes, but by who? The US government said it was the guys in the planes and that was that. No official investigation was started until many months had passed. That while even on the day itself it was clear that there were other factors in play.(Reports of bombs and explosions.)

Now there is so much evidence that contradicts the official story, that it is ridiculous to view that as the truth. Everything from (near) free fall collapses to the discovery of nano-thermite(extremely rare high-tech explosive and incendiary) and it's leftovers(huge molten pools of iron below the three WTC buildings) disagrees with the official story.

Especially when you look at the collapse of WTC-7 it is blatantly obvious that the official story doesn't add up. The final version of the official NIST report states that for 2,25 seconds the upper part of the building was in free fall. This means that somehow there was no resistance at all for 2,25 seconds. This is only possible if all the supporting columns below suddenly gave way within 0,1 seconds. Now I think we all can see that is going to be a bit difficult to achieve with three small fires that had already died out by that time.

If any of you want to know the details, just check a few of these video's here: http://www.youtube.com/user/ae911truth


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By jamesjwb on 8/2/2010 10:27:56 AM , Rating: 2
Well, that's your view as an American who believes that what the US does is justified, yet when others do it, simply isn’t. You are a good test case to use to prove my post above, in fact.

9/11, I'm sorry to say, was used by the US government -- not its people -- to create a frenzy and justify invading various countries in the middle east and to send a clear message to the world about US power.

Remember, Iraq was in fact blamed by the US government as linked to the 9/11 attacks, have you forgotten this? And “WMDs” quickly changed (when they found no such weapons) to “toppling a dictatorial regime and bringing democracy”. It’s interesting to note that N. America, and various other countries, but mainly N. America, had no such moral conscious to save Iraq when they sold chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in 1983 to help brutalise the Kurdish region, successfully. May I also remind you that Donald Rumsfeld is linked to these deals.

And referring to Pearl Harbour -- You appear to be revelling in the idea of your country fucking up another country, which is nice... Forgetting the back history to Pearl Harbour, and the likely hood that the US knew it was coming -- and that they had good reason to let it happen as Roosevelt desperately wanted to enter the second world war but had the problem of the people not wanting to (do you see how democracy really works?) – No, let’s put that aside for a moment and ask the question of what would you like countries to do when they, as you stated “get attacked on their own soil”. Well, I think you’ve made it very clear that “fucking up their world” is your preferred reaction. So perhaps it’s time you went and checked the truth about US history and what they have done around the world, because you’ll quickly come to realise that applying your preferred method of dealing with an attack on your own soil actually turns out to be 9/11, the very thing that made you believe America’s actions over the last 9 years are justified.

And briefly, I said above in my original post that the true loss of civilian life in the Afghanistan war is infinitely higher than 40 per year and that these figures are just a highly limited definition of something decidedly called “accidental losses”. Re-read it if you wish.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By jamesjwb on 8/2/2010 10:44:27 AM , Rating: 2
how do i get down ranked to a 1 immeditally on posting this? No one could have possibly read it in the 2 seconds it was up, and yet it's already a 1? And I do mean 2 seconds. After refreshing the page and checking it, it was a 1...

Hmmmm that is odd indeed.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By p4ndiamond on 8/10/2010 11:04:43 AM , Rating: 2
Prove it


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By nafhan on 7/26/2010 11:28:01 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
A journalist collects and disseminates information about current events, people, trends, and issues. His or her work is acknowledged as journalism
And since Jason likely gets paid for this, he's technically a professional journalist. Whether or not you agree with what he says doesn't actually change this. Also, name calling doesn't add much to an "intellectual argument" last time I checked...


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By TechIsGr8 on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Gul Westfale on 7/26/2010 12:12:37 PM , Rating: 4
a key definition of what it means to be a journalist is lack of bias. on dailytech, as on many other media outlets, the most sensationalist headlines get the most views, so mick (others too, but mostly mick) increase the drama factor on purpose to start flame wars and to draw in the pretend patriots and their supposed antagonists.

you can call this by many names, journalism isn't one of them.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By nafhan on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By bandstand124 on 7/30/2010 8:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
Actually no, you are wrong.

Unless you are a very young child you will have now realized that there is always more than one side to any story.

A journalist is someone who seeks out the information and disseminates that information to the public.

There is very little information here whatsoever.

Even a novice journalist would approach the United States government, the US military, Wikileaks, the Afghan and Iraqi governments for their take on the situation and report their opinions and viewpoints in an unemotional unbiased manner, so you the reader know all the angles and can then form their own opinion as free as possible from leading by the author.

Instead this guy mick reports his own opinion, an opinion that isn't really useful. "Oh something really important happened, what does Mick think about it" isn't really what I expect from News. I want to know what the hell wikileaks think they are doing, and what the governments response is, as much as possible in fact.

This is called journalism. All viewpoints and as much information as possible about the situation should be represented. Anything else is opinion, opinion is worthless.

My criticism is not that Mick is biased it is that he is woefully incompetent in his position and useless "wanna be" journalists like him are forcing intelligent people like me to wade through crap every day to get to the facts.

And frankly, I find it sickening that this fool thinks he can determine what is an "acceptable" amount of civilian deaths. It is not for him to decide it us the readers.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By NullSubroutine on 7/26/2010 1:17:26 PM , Rating: 2
What does Glenn Beck have to do with your article or Nazi's? There are plenty of brain washing political societies that use lies to gain power and maintain authority.

Referencing the Nazi's (if that was what he was alluding to) is not because someone else (apparently by your accusation Glenn Beck) draws a comparison, but because this is in fact something the Nazi's (among others) did and is easily identifiable.

I also and kind of deplored that you, as a journalist (maybe you aren't, I don't know your qualifications), is against illumination of the truth. It is my understanding that the purpose of the free press is not to sell advertising or capitulate to government agendas, but to find, discover, and share the truth with the public because without the truth we no longer live in a free society with a government of the people, by the people, for the people - simply secretive powerful officials (or in case with the Nazi's very public) who control every facet of our lives.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By cliffa3 on 7/26/2010 2:13:49 PM , Rating: 5
You are not helping your case by only responding to the inflammatory posts, and responding in kind. Please respond to the first post that did present a logical argument.

By not responding to the logical arguments and only responding to the inflammatory posts, you are really reverse-trolling to generate more comments on your articles. I realize I am now one of those posts, but hopefully this will bring to light what you seem to be doing. Please reconsider the posts you respond to if you wish to be taken seriously.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By knutjb on 7/26/2010 3:21:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nice... way to bring out the Nazi comparisons. You'd make Glenn Beck proud. Seriously, if you want to debate great, but use well structured arguments.
Do you get your "Glenn Beck" reference from watching Glenn Beck or just from hearsay?


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By knutjb on 7/26/2010 5:03:46 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, knocked down for simply trying to understand Jason Mick's perspective in adding Glenn Beck to the argument when neither Nazis nor Glenn Beck were really pertinent to the story.

Usually when these methods are used it's because someone runs out of rational points and has to distract from the subject at hand.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Gul Westfale on 7/26/2010 10:37:56 AM , Rating: 2
because telling the truth is anti-US, blatantly. also, spelling and grammar.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By martinrichards23 on 7/26/2010 11:08:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Would it be fair for the IRS to audit you just because they had a problem with you and let your neighbor fly free?


You saying the IRS should audit nobody because they don't have the resources to audit everybody.

The USA is the worlds only superpower, shock horror people scrutinize it more.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Solandri on 7/26/2010 1:24:36 PM , Rating: 2
Just for the record, the IRS does statistical analysis of its audits to try to make sure one person or a group of tax filers are not being audited too frequently. It's allowed them to catch several IRS employees ordering audits as part of a personal vendetta.

I think Wikileaks can provide a public service. But I'm very concerned about how closed and secretive they are. What makes their decisions on what secrets do/do not get published any better than those of elected officials? I think too many people are forgetting that the whole reason we have elections and transparency is so that political power ultimately lies with the people, not with some group doing stuff behind closed doors.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By rcc on 7/26/2010 2:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think China would disagree


Probably.

The bias shown does highlight one thing. Wikileaks knows that releasing info on the US may get them sued, perhaps even encarcerated; while releasing info on China, N. Korea, etc., could get them dead.

Go after the easy and the safe. It's a society trend. The world's right to know is in reverse proportion to the threat to their skins. Perhaps we should petion them for some front line reporters? Those guys I have a fair bit of respect for.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By foolsgambit11 on 7/27/2010 7:43:16 AM , Rating: 2
Or, equally likely, Wikileaks knows that releasing information about China will get them banned in China, which means the Chinese citizenry won't learn about whatever is being leaked, and so can't force their government to change policies based on that information. Whereas, if you let the American People know what their government knows, you at least give them an opportunity to make well-informed decisions and allow a consensus policy to be developed from the public will. (Granted, though, that most Americans probably won't bother to inform themselves).


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By xyxer on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By ironargonaut on 7/26/2010 6:03:37 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Is china meddling in other countries affairs ?

Yes. Mongolia, Tibet, Taiwan, and US are just the ones I know of.
quote:
Toppling other countries gov'ts in the name of ... ?

Communism is the word you are looking for here. Answer is yes. North Korea, Vietnam, Tibet, Mongolia. Chininese are just more subtle at it then the US most of the time.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By croc on 7/26/2010 6:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think that these files were discussed in the media months ago. Wikileaks secure pipe was down, for unexplained reasons... Did the US meddle here? Now the secure pipes have been restored, for how long is anyone's guess, and the files were sent in a batch - which effectively makes them one file, one leak if you will. Wikileaks has targetedissues in Aus much more than China or the US. Some have even called Mr. Assange paranoid, but given some of the rhetoric coming out of Washington over this leak, is he paranoid, or just being overly-cautious?

Jason, the USA is NOT the rest of the world. Just because the USA happens to be the 800 lb. gorilla, does not give them carte blanche to do anything the want to, to anyone they deem to be an enemy of 'their' state, and international borders and international laws can just be brushed aside.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By ironargonaut on 7/26/2010 6:14:29 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing like taking his words and twisting them into something he did not say. No where did he even suggest carte blanche. He simply pointed out the bias of the source.
Remember this is the same source that only released some videos of the reporters deaths. The videos that showed RPGs they did not release. Instead they choose to claim all the "civilians" were unarmed.
If I created a site that only showed Taliban/Al-queda civilian victims would I be biased? Would you defend me?
I do appreciate the fact that he did something most media does not do. He placed the numbers in perspective.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Gul Westfale on 7/26/2010 12:15:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You lack knowledge of foreign politics

the politics of foreign countries have nothing to do with this... don't you mean foreign policy? like saying that there are no civilian deaths when there have been many... almost the same, yes?


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Gul Westfale on 7/26/2010 12:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
here are excerpts posted by the BBC, and strangely enough... there doesn't seem to be any bias against any there. because the BBC are journalists? the docs simply appear to be reports of things that seem to happen often in a warzone, and a lot of these incidents don't even involve the US at all. so just stirring up trouble to get more pageviews again, huh?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-10760780


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Gul Westfale on 7/26/2010 12:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
task force 373 seems to be somewhat less than competent:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/task-f...


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By clovell on 7/26/2010 2:38:50 PM , Rating: 2
Okay, but - incompetent isn't the same as maliciously committing war crimes like a lot of folks are bandying about. Did we seriously need to have 90,000 classified documents leaked worldwide so that you guys could wag a finger at TF-373?

Forgive me if I'm missing the vast, underlying importance here, but nobody seems to have put it into perspective yet...


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Gul Westfale on 7/26/2010 3:07:10 PM , Rating: 3
which is exactly why people are saying that this is not 'biased' against the US- these are simply reports from teh frontlines. of course they are ugly, people die in war, but most of what i have read so far ranges from accidents to stupidity, and a lot of it points the finger at pakistan and the afghans. teh only embarrassing thing in there seems to be for US politicians 9and their PR flacks, like a certain writer here), as it exposes their claims of "afghanistan is not in a civil war" and "we are making progress" and "pakistan is an ally" as lies.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By clovell on 7/26/2010 3:34:26 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I understand that you're getting at the fact that the content of these docs is not damning enough of the US to be considered anti-Us, but you don't think that the act of exposing 90k+ classified docs dealing with this stuff, however docile, while the conflict remains ongoing, is, by its very nature, somewhat anti-US?


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Gul Westfale on 7/26/2010 3:48:22 PM , Rating: 2
the US's own docs are anti-US?
exposing them is anti-government, certainly, as the government classified them in the first place. but what if that government was hiding crimes? should watergate and the pentagon papers not have been exposed because they are anti-government? aren't they really just anti-criminal?


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By clovell on 7/26/2010 4:16:04 PM , Rating: 2
Have you found anything in the docs that's criminal? There are almost certainly detailed accounts of force deployment, munitions, strategies - all things which are secret, and all things which would be considered treasonous if an American citizen leaked them.

The docs aren't anti-US, but exposing them seems so. The civilian losses seem very minimal by the standards of conventional warfare. If certain units committed war crimes, then I'm glad we got those docs out, but I do wish more discretion would be exercised, as there's no way all 90k classified docs pertain to TF-373. Discretion that I'd expect the guy who runs Wikileaks would posses.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Gul Westfale on 7/26/2010 7:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
well, nobody knows what's in there. wikileak's founder says that his team only sifted through 1-2k documents. the german speigel magazine says that they and teh new york times/the guardian have all agreed not to release data they deem too sensitive, and wikileak's founder has said that all data that could identify individuals have been removed.

i guess we will have to wait a week or so to find out all that's in there.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By clovell on 7/27/2010 11:03:35 AM , Rating: 2
We will, but it still seems sloppy (at the least), negligent (in the middle), and possibly malicious (at the most) to release this kind of stuff when you haven't reviewed it.

I means - you're Wikileaks, for chrissakes - act like you've been here.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By dreddly on 7/26/2010 10:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
The US military budget dwarfs the rest of the world's combined.

The US military is waging wars in two areas with the majority of the troops on the ground.

The 'fact' that the US is the primary target of these leaks says nothing unless it is proportionally disproportionate.

By that logic should wikileaks only release data if it will provide a equal amount of coverage to each nation.

Should it wait for data on Mauritius before it does anything else?


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/2010 11:08:30 AM , Rating: 1
quote:

The US military budget dwarfs the rest of the world's combined.


True, but it's in line with other countries' expenditures as a percentage of GDP. We do have to protect ourselves...

quote:
By that logic should wikileaks only release data if it will provide a equal amount of coverage to each nation.


NO. I'm merely stating that the U.S.:rest of the world ratio of GDP and military expenditures is significantly different than Wikileaks' leak ratio. Even given the U.S.'s large size. Look at the numbers yourself, if you don't believe me.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By ninus3d on 7/26/2010 11:36:29 AM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry, I haven't read much about these leaks itself from other sources then the news reporting on them; though the impression I've been left with is that calling this is a pile of anti-us packet is a bit wrong, since it apparantly covers a wide action of all NATO participants as well as a collection of inntelligenceinformation gathered by said participants as well?
There are a LOT of articles about our (Norway) operations extracted from this for example...

Do you say that the site is anti-us for not actively searching for leaks regarding other contries?
I could understand this to a certain degree but I would guess it comes down to a lot of possible factors other than a bias such as;

1. US citizens morals higher than say, china's, thus citizens more prone to leak unjustice they uncover.
2. US citizens less scared of reporcussion, where in many contries they'd be facing deathsentence.
3. US operations and policies make out a LARGE portions of world news, could be another factor that plays into people making decissions to leak classified..

Regardless, what's your comment on instead at least considering THIS particular leak for more targeted against NATO as an organization rather than USA as a participants?

Sorry about the english, it's not my first language :\


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/2010 12:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think you raise some good points about possible accounting *some* of the bias. Remember though, that there should be NO bias as Wikileaks is holding itself up as/operating as a journalism site, not as a public forum for whistleblowing.

There's a clear difference in so much that the site does not allow public edits/comments on leaks.

As long as the site operates as a privately-controlled journalistic entity *it* IS responsible for ensuring unbiased release of information.

If it does not want this responsibility, it should return to being a community forum like Wikipedia or like its ORIGINAL format.

As it stands right now, its clearly an independent organization targeting the U.S. It is, in effect, calling for the U.S. to be held to a higher degree of transparency than the rest of the world, while at the same time failing to follow its own standard and be transparent about its own operations and funding.

That seems clearly WRONG, but you can form your own opinions about it.

As an aside -- no worries about the English, your English was quite good and you represented your ideas well. :)


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By clovell on 7/26/2010 2:08:50 PM , Rating: 2
^ All that plus the fact that these were classified US documents. If you're going to say that their only US docs because the US spearheaded the NATO operation in Afghanistan, then maybe you can call it anti-NATO - but then we come full-circle in that the US is the principal power behind NATO.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Motley on 7/26/2010 11:12:55 AM , Rating: 1
Apparently you can't read. The majority of the documents don't paint much of anything other than to give military intelligence to other countries. To some, information like troop movements within a war zone may be "liberating", but when that information can (and likely will) be used to then hit soft(er) spots and kill US soldiers, then yes, it's anti-US.

How about wikileaks "libnerate" documents describing the names and location of all high and middle ranked taliban leaders, and let's see what happens.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2010 11:33:36 AM , Rating: 4
Actually this is THE most balanced, fair, and level headed thing I have ever seen Jason write. And I'm one of the MOST critical of him here. But because this article doesn't support your opinions of the US being an evil conquest-driven military empire, he's being attacked. You guys can't have it both ways.

Mick has gone 180 degrees on this story, and it's for the better. The more facts he's learned, the more rational and level headed the conclusions. And you guys have a problem with that?

quote:
These are docs generated by the USA itself. If bringing them to light paints the USA in a bad light


What you call "bringing to light" is illegal and ethically wrong. It's not up to Manning or anyone else to abuse their position and "bring to light" these things by leaking them on the internet. Peoples lives are put at risk, entire operations compromised. Stop being so naive! Of course the goal here is anti-US. The general population does not, and never has, had a "right" to state secrets and military operational details. Not in ANY country. EVER.

160 something civilian casualties over a six year period. That isn't a travesty, it's a badge of honor! Those are well withing ANYONE'S definition of acceptable losses, by a factor of 10. What did you expect? ZERO?

Mick, it looks like you just can't win man. I applaud you for this balanced and sensible piece. In fact, this is causing me to view you in an entirely new light.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By clovell on 7/26/2010 12:42:05 PM , Rating: 3
Since can't vote you to a 6, I just wanna say that you said exactly everything that I was thinking.

Nice job, Jason.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By clovell on 7/27/2010 11:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
And then back to 3, lol - too weird. Mine hasn't moved the entire time... I thought for sure I'd get beaten into the red through the entire comments section.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By clovell on 7/27/2010 11:19:35 AM , Rating: 2
Nobody seems to be listening to what you, me, or Jason has to say anyway. We've got the people who don't like Obama against us, because Obama's pissed about this. And we've got the anti-war guys against us because they're finding it hard to justify their existence without Bush in office.

People - these were classified military documents. Assange didn't read but 2% of the ninety thousand documents he released - which seem quite far from damning at this point. The complete lack of discretion in divulging classified material to the entire world (including the enemy) is uncharacteristic of Assange, and so it's not too hard to imagine he has malice towards the United States.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Reclaimer77 on 7/27/2010 12:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well stuff like this brings the leftist retards out of the woodwork. There's just no reasoning with them. They believe the war is wrong, for whatever reasons, so any measures taken to enforce their opinion is right. Even if it means being a traitor, breaking laws, engaging in espionage against your own country etc etc.

Some of these morons sound like they missed the Vietnam protests so they want to just get on board with this.

The guy I really feel bad for in this is Mick. He was cheered when he first posted about this by the same people who now are hating on him. It's such a zoo.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By clovell on 7/28/2010 9:55:59 AM , Rating: 2
You ever think about the possibility that countries like Iran or organizations like Al Qaeda pay folks to post anti-American comments on Western websites?

I don't mind a healthy debate with differing ideas and challenging arguments, but sometimes it feels like folks aren't even listening, or never even meant to...


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By sgw2n5 on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Drag0nFire on 7/26/2010 1:12:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In fact, this is causing me to view you in an entirely new light.


+1...

I really appreciated this article. Writing a balanced article on such a charged issue is very difficult, but I think Jason has done an excellent job.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By LRonaldHubbs on 7/26/2010 7:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
Solid points you make. I have to agree. I think Jason did a fine job on this article.


RE: Wow Jason, just wow...
By Lerianis on 7/27/10, Rating: 0
By inperfectdarkness on 7/26/2010 7:58:08 PM , Rating: 2
um, 195 civilians killed is far, far less than the number of our servicemembers killed.

too bad they didn't have the courtesy to post the number of bad guys we killed.


"Anti-US crusade"
By Handy Fuse on 7/26/2010 10:56:17 AM , Rating: 5
It is interesting that a couple of weeks ago Jason posted "EU, U.S. Fight to Keep Public From Hearing About ACTA Treaty," bemoaning that only a redacted version of the treaty was available to the public.

Let's see. Keeping secrets about an anti-pirating treaty is tantamount to the end of the republic--

quote:
In the process the governments are willing to sacrifice the very principles they are founded upon, abandoning democracy, freedom of information, free speech, due process, and public participation in government.


On the other hand, making information available to the public on the conduct of what some consider to be an illegal war is, well, "espionage."

Here we have a mind with several well-furnished compartments. I wonder if they ever communicate.




RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/2010 11:02:39 AM , Rating: 2
I see what you're trying to say, but I would argue that this just isn't the same.

In the case of ACTA you're talking about a specific multi-national treaty that multiple nations INCLUDING the U.S. are cooperating to keep secret versus this incident which involves a clear targeting of the U.S. alone.

That said, I think the actually TERMS of the treaty are far more alarming than the secrecy.

Look, I support government transparency. As you point out, I've supported it in past articles.

That said, I do think we should see the forest for the trees and if there's a clear bias in disclosures, that should be looked at. If it wasn't for its bias, I would consider Wikileaks' actions positive.

I think you need to be an equal opportunity offender, though, if you're going to engage in such matters. And herein Wikileaks falls short.


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By LyricalGenius on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2010 12:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
Jason has typically been very biased AGAINST the US. The military, and so forth. Suddenly he's biased FOR the war because he's stated the obvious here? Come on, you guys can't have it both ways.

90 thousand documents all released , via a lawbreaker, specifically because they make the US look bad. With no other context behind them given. And you people honestly don't see that as being anti-US?? Amazing. Talk about biased lol.


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By LyricalGenius on 7/26/2010 12:07:46 PM , Rating: 1
Reclaimer... there's a difference between being biased against the U.S.'s actions AS A WHOLE and just the actions of our president OBAMA....I'm sorry to say, Jason is only AGAINST the current administration and that is entirely due to his political views.


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/2010 12:14:05 PM , Rating: 4
AHAHAH, you haven't been around here much have you? I call Jason a liberal all the time, and have for years.

The Obama administration is causing a LOT of people, even Liberal Democrats, to do a double take. Mick might be no different in this regard, but it certainly doesn't mean he's suddenly gotten biased or changed sides.

I don't know any rational person at this point that isn't "against" the current administration. Key word, rational.


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By adiposity on 7/26/2010 12:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know any rational person at this point that isn't "against" the current administration. Key word, rational.


Key word, "know."

That said, I am against the current administration.


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By rmclean816 on 7/27/2010 12:41:52 AM , Rating: 2
Is it just me or is Reclaimer always seem to be full of crap.
I'd swear he couldn't be as stupid as he seems and must be a troll.


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By NubWobble on 7/26/2010 1:28:14 PM , Rating: 4
What's funny is that he actually believes these two parties are different, they're all one and the same warcriminals but I assume that's just too much for the blind and ignorant to see.

Keep up the struggle Reclaimer, maybe one day you'll realise you're pretty screwed. Fortunately it'll be too late by then and the world will be laughing.

Mick, you're a fool and you've made a mockery of yourself.


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By Reclaimer77 on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By clovell on 7/26/2010 2:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
> Keep up the struggle Reclaimer, maybe one day you'll realise you're pretty screwed. Fortunately it'll be too late by then and the world will be laughing...
Mick, you're a fool and you've made a mockery of yourself.


Classy. What - did you run out of logical arguments?


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By LRonaldHubbs on 7/26/2010 8:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm sorry to say, Jason is only AGAINST the current administration and that is entirely due to his political views.

Ha! That's a good one. Thanks for the good laugh just before bedtime, I needed that. LMAO.


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By clovell on 7/26/2010 2:12:45 PM , Rating: 1
Ummm.... because Jason doesn't publish classified documents pertaining to strategies and deployments in the middle of an ongoing war?

Wow, aren't you little college-aged-rebels just hankering for a chance to call someone a hypocrite on a Monday... Get a clue about magnitude and proportion.


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By clovell on 7/26/2010 2:34:57 PM , Rating: 1
Wait... just how many people around here really think that the war in Afghanistan is illegal?

Because I thought it was pretty straightforward - ya know - Taliban, jihad, OBL, 9/11... What have I missed for the last nine years???


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By AEvangel on 7/26/2010 3:28:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Wait... just how many people around here really think that the war in Afghanistan is illegal?


I do...cause last I checked the whole point of the war was Al Qaeda, not replacing the Taliban as a Govt nor Nation building, which is what were doing. If you want to wage war then do it if you want to build nations then use diplomacy not weapons.

This is the longest war in US history for reasons no one can understand since it doesn't fit the original mission. Al Qaeda is not longer in the country, the Taliban whom we are now fighting was the legitimately elected Govt of the country whether you like them or not. So we can either occupy and take the country over and start making everyone their US citizens or we can leave it to it own accords and start hunting the real supposed threat of Al Qaeda.


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By clovell on 7/26/2010 3:41:19 PM , Rating: 2
First off - the Korean War is ongoing, and we still have troops on the ground, so Afghanistan isn't exactly unprecedented. Second - last I remembered, the Taliban fully supported Al Qaeda, and AQ/OBL is still operating cells within Afghanistan. Now, I won't speak to the necessity for ongoing operations, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it illegal at this point, either.


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By knutjb on 7/26/2010 4:07:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I do...cause last I checked the whole point of the war was Al Qaeda, not replacing the Taliban as a Govt nor Nation building, which is what were doing. If you want to wage war then do it if you want to build nations then use diplomacy not weapons.
Ummm... war and nation building are two different things. The war was executed legally. The Taliban gladly hosted Al Qeada making them complicit, so to overthrow them was legal. As to "diplomacy" with Mullah Omar, get real.

The war being the longest in history is a problem but politicians are the ones who set the mission objectives.

quote:
the Taliban whom we are now fighting was the legitimately elected Govt of the country whether you like them or not.
You don't know much about Afghan history do you. They were in chaos from the Soviets and the Taliban became the biggest bully imposing their rule on many areas, not all. Warlords who were strong took over their local regions preventing a total Taliban takeover. Its a fractured tribal land. We failed to make our presence known and help rebuild after providing massive resources to destroy the Soviets and now we are paying dearly for failing to take that opportunity. For giggles look up what the Taliban used the old soccer fields for.

Just because I believe you're wrong doesn't mean I agree with current or previous political objectives. I think we should have rebuilt the country back then but to leave it after another half assed political screw up will only push it down the road only to return and bite us again.

Don't fall into that easy Vietnam trap, they do share some similarities but they are not comparable. If we fail here Afghanistan is not likely to turnout like Vietnam where millions of southerners were killed off wholesale and the murder, oops re-education, remained domestic.


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By ironargonaut on 7/26/2010 6:33:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
the Taliban whom we are now fighting was the legitimately elected Govt of the country whether you like them or not.


That explains everything you think. You are seriously lacking in the knowledge base to create an intelligent opinion on the matter. Please, study up.
A) the Taliban did not control the entire country
B) Shortly after they took Kabul by force of arms, the locals rebeled. Sounds like they did not think them legitimate.
C) The Taliban never held nor even faked holding a single election.


RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: "Anti-US crusade"
By Quadrillity on 7/27/2010 7:45:07 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
...NOT TO BE RELEASED to the public, as the public doesn't have a clue how the world really works and what exactly is out there ready to kill them.


You are exactly right about that. Anyone who thinks that our nation can survive without it's confidential processing is stupid and naive. No-one misunderstand me, there is a fine line between a atrocity cover-ups and plain out sensitive material; but any one person that believes that the public should know about any secret activity is stupid. We would have not one single ounce of national security without it.

You said it correctly, the general population does not have the first iota of how the rest of the world works.


No politics, only tech please
By sandhuatdt on 7/26/2010 2:10:23 PM , Rating: 5
Jason,

Please stick to tech and leave politics out of this site. If I want to read about politics I can go to a hundred other sites. Last Warning before I switch back to Engadget which is more noisy but doesn't have these pseudo-political slants to it's posts. You may not care for a single user like me but I am sure there are others who are tired of this site's tabloid like coverage of issues.




RE: No politics, only tech please
By sandhuatdt on 7/26/2010 2:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, I take that back. Going over what dailytech reports these days, I am switching back to Engadget. I initially switched to dailytech because I did not like Engadget's fanboyism towards Apple and liked dailytech's tech coverage. But now that this site has turned into a pseudo-political-cum-tabloid, I am going back to Engadget. I prefer Apple noise to your tabloid-type reporting. Bye Bye! Good luck attracting trolls.


RE: No politics, only tech please
By TomZ on 7/26/2010 2:48:05 PM , Rating: 3
You might find the following link helpful:

http://www.engadget.com/exclude/apple

DT has long since devolved from the straight-up tech reporting and thoughtful debate that I am looking for. I visit the site now only time-to-time just for a few laughs.


RE: No politics, only tech please
By BruceLeet on 7/27/2010 8:55:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, damn that Obama for shaking politics in the younger people.

Dailytech is a nice place for stuffs, it's simplistic layout is what keeps me around, that and adblock. It's amusing the many arguments and debates that start because of political stuffs that pop up every now and again, but I do remember a time when 'smart' people were in abundance who never cited wikipedia for infos, mainly posting in the science related articles. But such articles are rare these days.

Anyway, amusing views shown in amusing posts fellow readers.


Now, why is that
By CyberHawk on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: Now, why is that
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/2010 9:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

because US is far more incompetent to secure their data.


I'm well aware of the U.S.'s cybersecurity issues, however, in this case I'd say you're out of line. Given enough scrutiny by a savvy hostile espionage organization operating under the guise of "justice for all" any nation would lose some secrets.

China may be slightly more savvy when it comes to cybersecurity, but it's also a much larger nation and has a more loosely organized government (just look at all the local corruption). You honestly expect us to believe that given equal scrutiny, there wouldn't be plenty of leaked docs from China or Russia??

quote:
And; this data shows why they need never ending war - its pure business.


Er... what??? Please explain, how do they show that?

On the contrary, I'd say that from a numbers perspective regardless of whether we *should* be intervening over there, the docs confirms we're doing more good than harm over there by trying to stamp out secular violence which claims far more casualties than our occasional bungles.


RE: Now, why is that
By CyberHawk on 7/26/2010 9:58:17 AM , Rating: 1
I talk in general, not specific cases.

More good then bad?
You mean things like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0


RE: Now, why is that
By nafhan on 7/26/2010 10:05:36 AM , Rating: 3
I will say the possibility for leaks via humint is higher with the US military than with countries such as China and probably Russia for at least one reason: easy access to computers both on and off the job. Many of the soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have their own personal laptops with them. So, I could see a disgruntled US soldier having a much easier time passing this info to wikileaks than someone from China, at least.
Also, there's also the question of how much is actually a surprise to the US and how much they either deliberately released or don't care about.
Either way, I'm not on wikileaks side with this. It seems like they took what could be a very useful service and turned it into an anti-US propaganda tool.


RE: Now, why is that
By tastyratz on 7/26/2010 10:31:04 AM , Rating: 2
The documents which were leaked involved in house internal infiltration, one of our own. International espionage or digital attacks can yield a large amount of data but none of what is air gapped.

China rules its citizens in fear and a strong handed government, while citizens are more oppressed and therefor inclined to want to rebel - many are stifled by the fact that at any time their own country might just kill them.

Do we have this in America? I am sure. Are consequences of treason unpleasant in any country? yea... but you are going to encounter a lot more people in China who are afraid of what might happen to them.

China is a nation of mass not total overall economic development. Everyone doesn't have a computer therefor making them a potential source to lose data like citizens of the usa. I am willing to bet they still have a lot of sensitive information behind lock key and guard on physical media in less developed areas.

There are several contributing factors. I would love to see many documents leaked of from China or North Korea... but I think those will by nature always be harder to come by.

The latest movements gaining steam however could lead to some potential leaks.

I wouldn't be surprised if China didn't care about jurisdiction on wikileaks and just "took them out" if a large amount of intel was lost too.


RE: Now, why is that
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/2010 10:55:16 AM , Rating: 2
I do believe some of your statements about the atmosphere in the U.S. (independent mentality/mindset) may be correct. Regardless, a concentrated effort would likely turn up at least *some* more dirt. Look @ the recent independent investigations by Chinese newspapers about the Foxconn mess. Remember, I'm not just talking about government leaks, I'm talking business ones as well (Wikileaks posts both kinds).

As for this...
quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if China didn't care about jurisdiction on wikileaks and just "took them out" if a large amount of intel was lost too.


I don't see how they could do that, seeing as it's hosted in Iceland. Are they going to invade Iceland or something? :)


BIAS
By caldito on 7/26/2010 11:40:29 AM , Rating: 5
Jason, you should be ashamed of writing, if you did, this article, it is so biased against Wikileaks and it could not be considered journalism.
Each time i see these kind of articles the more i think that these guys from Wikileaks are doing the right things....




RE: BIAS
By ironargonaut on 7/26/2010 6:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
you mean like editing and only releasing videos of "civilian deaths" that don't show the RPG? While holding the other video clearly showing the RPG and not releasing it? And, when the videos were released loudly proclaiming that none of the people killed were armed?

Yeah, wikileaks is such an unbiased journalism site.


It's down.
By Daniel8uk on 7/26/2010 9:53:26 AM , Rating: 2
Wikileaks is down for me, is anyone else having this problem?

Also, good on them, democracy calls for an open society, this clearly isn't happening. The more people wake up and realise what is happening, the more free we become as a society.




RE: It's down.
By Daniel8uk on 7/26/2010 10:03:32 AM , Rating: 2
By the way if you look nearly every major nation on earth has some kind of leaked document on that site which brings issues to the front which really should be dealt with, not hidden away.

By the way, search wikileaks mirrors since wikileaks is down, I'm not sure if it's over burdened or if something else is at play (government shut down?) but either way some of the mirrors do work.


Get the facts straight
By spunlex on 7/26/2010 10:04:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
One official in the nation's security services, the ISI, even reportedly plotted to kill pro-U.S. Pakistani President Hamid Karzai in 2008.


Hamid Karzai actually was and still is the president of Afghanistan not Pakistan.

Asif Ali Zardari has been president of Pakistan since September 2008, with Muhammad Mian Soomro serving as interim president from August to September after president Gen. Pervez Musharraf stepped in 2008 after 7 years in power.




RE: Get the facts straight
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/2010 10:57:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yep, that was a nasty typo, thank you for bringing it to my attention. I have fixed it. Sorry for any confusion it caused.


How is this Anti-US ?
By chick0n on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: How is this Anti-US ?
By ironargonaut on 7/26/2010 6:49:21 PM , Rating: 2
Is it ok for Wikileaks to withhold the video of that showed the people holding cameras were walking with men holding RPGs then claim that the videos showed everyone was unarmed?
So, which is it. Are you claiming they were carrying guns and it is ok so the US should not have shot them or are you claiming the guys carrying cameras were not with a group of armed men walking close to where an American patrol had just been attacked?

Wow I get it. It's ok for Al-queada and others to kill civilians intentionally but criminal if US military does it accidently while trying to stop the intentional killings.


RE: How is this Anti-US ?
By chick0n on 7/27/2010 9:18:27 AM , Rating: 1
I guess you totally forgot that its actually the USA who INVADED them back in 2003. so what should they do ? Stand there and let you shoot them?

and before you try to bring that 911 incident. You should look around World news and see how many years has the US been bugging the crap out of those countries. I live in NYC and I feel sorry for those 3000 ppl that died, but do you have any idea how many people were dead since the "invasion" ... oh I mean searching for "WMD" ?

So what you're saying is it is totally ok for Americans on "SOMEONE ELSE'S" soil to just start shooting people till death and cover it up with utter Bull crap afterward ?

The fact here is that, those troops shot Civilians, and they're still talking shit, with that "Oh its not my fault, too bad sucker" attitude.


RE: How is this Anti-US ?
By Quadrillity on 7/27/2010 9:38:44 AM , Rating: 1
If Al-Queda was at your front door you would be the first ass-hat to yell: "Heeellllllpp!!!"

quote:
but do you have any idea how many people were dead since the "invasion" ... oh I mean searching for "WMD" ?

You are a f****** ignorant pathetic fool!

quote:
The fact here is that, those troops shot Civilians, and they're still talking shit, with that "Oh its not my fault, too bad sucker" attitude.

Tell me please, when was your last visit over there? How do you know (media coverage of the war is a joke) what is REALLY going on over there? You don't, so shut your F****** mouth.

I really want to para-drop you in the middle of the war zone dressed with an M4 and see just what you do when you walk 10 feet in any direction. I CAN'T STAND IGNORANT ASSHOLES LIKE YOU.


Ridiculous..
By NellyFromMA on 7/26/2010 11:36:15 AM , Rating: 2
I am somewhat of a newcomer to the site. I have been viewing for less than a year.

That said, I think it's clear that there are certain individuals who troll here waiting to 'voice' their disagreement with a perspective Jason takes simply for the sake of it.

People have opinions. Some are intelligently drawn; some are not. Even still, we are entitled to our own.

When these fools come on here and bash the writer, it only portrays their ignorance. A debate based on intellect is great, but the aproach these people have taken is pathetic at best. Clearly, they have picked a side and won't listen to anything else.

Who cares? I don't think Jason wishes to persuade you he is right. Or even his perspective at all necessarily. If you see a bias in the article, sure maybe there is one slight or otherwise. Again, who cares?

Only people who can't stand that an ideal other than the one they want is spreading. Unaccepting people. Get over it...

Thanks for the articles, Jason.




Good Article
By tng on 7/26/2010 12:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
Well after reading the article and the comments, all I can say is that there are allot of people here who don't think or can't see the forest for the trees.

If the leaks result in the casualty count in the next 6 month tripling, due to a increased awareness of how US forces do things, is that a good thing? I think that some of you would say yes (judging by the comments). Funny how some of you will justify your anti US rants.




Wow...
By killerclick on 7/26/2010 2:58:03 PM , Rating: 2
The truth will set you free. You know what you authoritarian types like to say, "If you're innocent you have nothing to fear". Well, the US military is no exception, it's just another organization of uniformed thugs and should be held to account.




Mick, really...
By knutjb on 7/26/2010 3:12:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With the release, Wikileaks continues to gun hard for the U.S. government, playing the role of hostile foreign espionage organization-cum-whistleblower.
Which is it espionage or whistle blower? It IS espionage by whoever took the data. All personnel who failed in protecting the data must be courts martialed too for gross negligence.

The worst part is all the clueless ones who believe this is the act of a whistle blower, its not. A whistle blower is one who has exhausted all internal systemic processes before going public as the absolute last resort. There is absolutely no proof of any such action, so please stop confusing the two.

These documents were released without context, the rules of engagement to be specific, and without such they can be very misleading. War does have rules and no it's not the same as the police, please don't confuse the two. Yes, legal experts DO inspect the ROEs to ensure they are legal before being implemented. Conspiracy theorist now would be a good time to come up for air, tinfoil hat optional.
quote:
That video was dubbed "collateral murder" by Assange
Yes, Assange, that legal genius he is who so humbly determines what is and is not a crime. Without substantial education and training on the subject he is no expert. He is allowed to his opinion, though he does not have the expertise to make legal declarations on the information.
quote:
The recent leak is the masterwork of site leader Julian Assange, an ex-computer criminal who today lives in Iceland, a nation whose specially designed freedom of speech laws shelter him from prosecution.
As a member of the press he would receive the same protection here in the US, just because he is in Iceland you implied that is the only place where free speech is allowed. The crime was committed by someone else and Assange is only the media component and so was the Washington Post or the New York Times who recently released some classified materials. Were they thrown in jail, no. So Jason please be accurate in what you imply in your statements.

For me I want to see very public punishment of the source of the leak and the entire chain of command whose incompetence enabled the leakers actions, including those with stars.




Classified info
By ZachDontScare on 7/26/2010 3:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
If this info is indeed classified, I think its high time we return to the tried and true practice of putting traitors up against a wall. They need to find out who released the docs (or stole them), and make it a very public punishment. Its one thing to go after the government, to blow the whistle on stupid spending projects and corrupt politicians. But its another to purposely put our troops at more risk. That classifies a person quite squarely as an enemy in my books, and they need to be treated as such.




Taking bets...
By IcePickFreak on 7/26/2010 5:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
So how long before Julian Assange goes "missing" or has a horrible "accident"?

Does this guy really think he's a hero for letting the world know that *gasp* people, including civilians, die in a war zone? That's got to be a historical low, and then figure in the fact that the current enemy tried to hide among the civilian population, I'd say it's pretty damn impressive it is that low.




By Archibald Gates on 7/26/2010 5:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
90k of leaked documents, impressive. But all in all nobody will give a damn. I don't see this as something anti-US. The people that could use this info against the US already know, because it's their job to know, and they have the resources to get that information.

I just wished it would change something for the better of all of us. But I don't think it will change anything.

People should at least have the choice if they want, or don't want "To Know". Wikileaks is giving us that choice, and that is something we should be thankful for. Because in my opinion real freedom comes from free choice, and not what the government thinks is best for you "to know".




I call murder on that!
By stm1185 on 7/26/2010 6:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
Too much leftist eurotrash makes reading the comments section pointless.

In the words of Fishy Joe, "Ill admit that its murder, but whose going to stop me."




...quietly going...
By UnauthorisedAccess on 7/26/2010 9:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
Aussie aussie aussie, oi oi oi!

I do hope that this skip isn't seen as a galah by the septics and ends up doing a stint.




This is not anti-United States
By Lerianis on 7/27/2010 3:05:53 AM , Rating: 2
This is anti-government secrecy, which should be disallowed in almost all circumstances. Simply put, by allowing our government to have 'secrecy' on matters it is damned easy for them to ABUSE that in order to cover stuff up, which we are now finding out that they do on a regular basis!

WikiLeaks is doing the right thing in this case by blowing out of the water government secrecy. Personally, I would like a law that says that NOTHING the government does can be secret, period.

It would go a long way towards making our government more open and getting the people out of office who abuse secrecy to cover up the killings of civilians and other things.




You're reading it wrong
By Strunf on 7/27/2010 8:23:04 AM , Rating: 2
"In reality, the documents reveal a surprisingly low number of tragic incidents."
These documents don't say there weren't any other tragic incidents, you should read it has been AT LEAST these tragic incidents.

"That said, considering that close to 10,000 civilians are estimated to have died from local secular violence and over 1,000 U.S. soldiers are estimated to have been killed in Afghanistan, that total appears remarkably low."
Indeed there SHOULD have been a few more civilians killed to make it look better on YOUR eyes.

"In total it has released only 215 Chinese leaks, versus close to 100,000 U.S. leaks."
The US is pretty much everywhere on this planet and one of the few countries that has been actively in war the last years, if you're the hottest girl on the party chances are people will speak more of you than of any other!




omg
By SSDMaster on 7/27/2010 8:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The highest profile incident involved 15 passengers being killed or wounded when a U.S. patrol unleashed machine gun fire on a bus.




Neither this nor that...
By dashrendar on 7/27/2010 12:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
In general, I don't trust the government nor the leaked documents. The leaked documents could be nothing more than simple government disinformation. People will think "Oh, now we'll know the truth of what's going on" when it could very well be much farther from it.

Who knows if the government lies in those documents as well as it does to our faces?




disgusting
By marraco on 7/28/2010 12:45:54 AM , Rating: 2
An innocent may be killed by accident.

But those who cover the murder do not do it by accident. They are criminals.

Jason Mick, today, knowing that innocents had being murdered, spent an important amount of his time carefully writing excuses, cover ups, and attacking those who uncovered the crimes.

Jason Mick quates "pro-human rights" with "anti-US".

Disgusting.

Despicable.

Atrocious.

Congratulations to all those who in this page protected the name of his country by denouncing this attitude, and behaving like decent human beings. You are the only patriots here. The only from which a country can be proud.




By tygrus on 7/29/2010 10:39:24 AM , Rating: 2
It's interesting that so much is leaked AND published. Why not use the information to:-
A) freedom of information request;
B) Ask Politician for response; or
C) craft an editorial that summarises the information with an un-named source.
I suppose he wants total disclosure and transparency but it does seem over the top and encourages the layers or secret police to fight back.




Well, thats it.
By SunTzu on 7/26/2010 12:23:15 PM , Rating: 1
I guess this will be the last DT article im going to read. Jason is a joke of a journalist, and articles like this just proves it. Maybe its time to quit working here and go over to Fair and Balanced Fox? I think you would fit right in.




The truth wikifreakes
By p4ndiamond on 8/10/2010 11:14:12 AM , Rating: 1
Its made by hippies and faggots who don't understand a thing about Military classification and security. Eventualy this site will have :"informed American" fucking killed because you think you know it all and put this out here. Sit there, sip on your uppity coffee in a coffee shop and get blow up by terrorist when they compromise all of our securities cause of course. you have proof of everything .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFzH2pi7OwE




What a waste of talent
By YashBudini on 7/28/10, Rating: 0
Anti-US my arse!
By TechIsGr8 on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
You didn't write this
By hubbabubbagum on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: You didn't write this
By Spivonious on 7/26/2010 10:15:23 AM , Rating: 3
On the contrary, a news article should definitely NOT represent an opinion. It should give the facts and nothing more.


RE: You didn't write this
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/2010 10:36:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:

On the contrary, a news article should definitely NOT represent an opinion. It should give the facts and nothing more.


There is a difference between opinion and analysis. I am familiar with Wikileaks' history, the Manning story, and current international cybersecurity efforts.

I'm offering a statistics and knowledge-based analysis, which shows that Wikileaks appears to have a clear anti-U.S. bias. No need for opinion there, when the statistics so resoundingly support my statements.

Feel free to offer logical arguments to the contrary, but I would argue my writing to be an analysis piece through-and-through, so please don't misrepresent it.

The message here is pretty simple...


RE: You didn't write this
By DigitalFreak on 7/26/2010 11:08:41 AM , Rating: 2
Considering your multi-article rant against wikileaks a few weeks ago, you're hardly unbiased.

Did Julian piss in your Cheerios or kick you dog?


RE: You didn't write this
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/2010 11:16:30 AM , Rating: 1
quote:

Considering your multi-article rant against wikileaks a few weeks ago, you're hardly unbiased.


I disagree. I think the Manning story was an important one to cover, and I tried to stay on top of all the developments.

That said, these issues are largely separate. Because I criticize Microsoft when criticism is due, does that make me unable to criticize Apple?

quote:
Did Julian piss in your Cheerios or kick you dog?


I sure hope not. Especially since I don't have a dog that I know of. My dog died a few years back. :(


RE: You didn't write this
By clovell on 7/26/2010 2:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
So what? Should he just not write about it all? Wtf kind of solution is that? Everybody's got biases - anybody who's said the Pledge of Allegiance is arguably biased. That doesn't mean we can't be objective about things.

Sure, the language and tone in the article leans to one side, but Jason seems to back up his sentiments with some fairly solid rationale, which he's now left to defend.


RE: You didn't write this
By kaosstar on 7/27/2010 10:53:49 AM , Rating: 2
So, wikileaks has an anti-US bias because they leak more US documents? That's very one-dimensional thinking, especially for an "analysis piece". Consider the following:

The US is the world's only superpower, has been at war with 2 large countries for the last nine years, still has the world's largest economy, people are vastly more interested in US documents than any other country's, has many more government employees than any other country, and has many, many more documents in existence that can be leaked. If wikileaks didn't have vastly more US documents on that basis alone, then they would almost have to have a very pro-US bias.

Even if the above were patently false, it would be understandable for wikileaks to leak more US documents due to the US's low moral standing in the world (two unecessary wars with civilian casualties, relatively "closed" government, support of Israel, etc.). This is part of wikileaks moral stance, not anti-US stance.

It must be really hard to see the obvious when you've always got a red, white, and blue flag flapping before your eyes.


RE: You didn't write this
By JasonMick (blog) on 7/26/2010 10:32:31 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You didn't write this


Oh really? Who did?

Iraq IS America's close ally. We pretty much propped up the government and have sent it massive amounts of aid. I'd say we're pretty close allies. Not sure what confuses you about that statement.

Probably you're confusing perceived anti-U.S. *public* sentiment in Iraq with anti-U.S. sentiment by the Iraqi government as a whole. But that is not the case, if that's what you're thinking...


RE: You didn't write this
By TechIsGr8 on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: You didn't write this
By Daniel8uk on 7/26/2010 12:07:00 PM , Rating: 3
If Iraq was governed by an independent government, with the current situation, it could be classed as a close ally to America, but it isn't, simply because it's not independent, it's practically run by America, you may as well call it one of America's states.

The simple truth is that the US government, US Army, US airfoce, and countless US agencies have committed war crimes, murder, and all kinds of other things which would carry a death sentence for any normal American citizen, or any citizen of the world for that matter.

You can try and defend your beloved 'free' and 'democratic' country all you want, but there are more people aware of the real situation then you and all of the other cronies would like to believe.

People know America isn't fighting for freedom or democracy, it's trying to dominate and capture any of the few remaining oil states which aren't under western control. Although personally I don't think this is just about oil, but it's a major factor and you cannot tell me that the American government has spent $1 Trillion so far just to spread freedom and democracy, just take a look at what it's willing to sacrifice in it's own country to fuel it's war machine, education, medicine, supporting the poor, homeless, and the people who are in dire need. It's willing to sacrifice all of these things and you know that, yet you defend them and call wikileaks 'anti-us' simply because it showed you, and the rest of America an uncomfortable truth.

Rhetoric, public relations, and the almighty 'hope & change' can only go so far, after a while it's stars to wear thin and the people (Who still have the power to actually commit to real change) start to see the so called 'leaders of the free world' for what they are, nothing but a bunch of leeches and murderers.

At the end of the day Jason, you are a bad journalist, plain and simple. Not because you make spelling mistakes or the odd grammatical error, everyone does that at times, no, it's because you push your biased opinion onto a legitimate website that people trust, you don't offer the facts and leave the users to debate for themselves what the 'real' truth's are, you simply push your agenda, that's not journalism, far far from it.


RE: You didn't write this
By newsbroker99 on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: You didn't write this
By clovell on 7/26/2010 2:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
Remind me again, how much oil have we taken from Iraq? Who was it that used chemical weapons banned by the Geneva Convention on its neighboring states in what the Hague has deemed acts of genocide?

Oh wait - that's right, not us. Who's Universities do more international citizens come to than any other in the world? Who hosts more medical breakthroughs, funding, and leading corporations than any other country? That's right - the United States of America.

At the end of the day - folks who are so hung up on what they call 'an illegal war' that they don't have the BALLS to prosecute - that they grow to despise their country... well, we could do without them.

Regardless, the issue at hand is Afghanistan. A perfectly legal war, that hasn't got anything to do with oil or your soapbox. At the end of the day, even if everything you said is true, the practicality of the facts support that Iraq is still an ally of the USA. Eat your heart out.


RE: You didn't write this
By Daniel8uk on 7/26/2010 3:05:49 PM , Rating: 3
You do know that while Iraq was busy murdering hundreds of thousands of Iranians that your beloved government was funding, and also providing those chemicals weapons, or at least the know how.

What your universities or medical institutes do is irrelevant here, that isn't the issue, it's your out of control government and military. You can try and justify the killing of others all you want but that is a disgusting and inhumane view to have.

Afghanistan and Iraq are not legal wars though, you do know that, of course you won't admit that because the general impression I get from your post is that America can do no wrong and is some how the divine protector of the world.

Either way you look at it, America causes the issues, it pushes it's rhetoric and then it sends in the boys with guns to secure 'democracy' and then hands out whatever resources it can to it's financial backers. Read up on your history, you might be surprised at who causes most of the worlds problems.

By the way read something like this;

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15...

The facts are there, whether it's all completely true, we can't really be sure unless we had documents from the people involved, but it's a lot more accurate and factual than the news corporations, that, like Jason here push agendas and opinion.

Yes, this is my opinion here, but I try to just deal in facts, to the best of my knowledge at least, but then again I'm not a journalist and I'm not pretending to be.


RE: You didn't write this
By newsbroker99 on 7/26/2010 3:14:01 PM , Rating: 2
If you deal in "facts", and not just hatred of the United States, then explain how military action engaged in after a UN resolution authorizing it, and it's repeated renewals by the UN, constitute an illegal war?


RE: You didn't write this
By clovell on 7/26/2010 4:08:36 PM , Rating: 1
> You do know that while Iraq was busy murdering hundreds of thousands of Iranians that your beloved government was funding, and also providing those chemicals weapons, or at least the know how.

Mustard Gas was banned from use in the 20s, following the first World War. Since then we've developed far more efficient means of killing people than melting their skin off in their sleep. I'm certain that the Iraqi chemists were capable of opening an undergraduate chemistry book and figuring out the formulas themselves.

> What your universities or medical institutes do is irrelevant here, that isn't the issue, it's your out of control government and military. You can try and justify the killing of others all you want but that is a disgusting and inhumane view to have.

I know. But, you brought up the education system & the medical system in the states, so I just wanted to point that out.

> Afghanistan and Iraq are not legal wars though, you do know that, of course you won't admit that because the general impression I get from your post is that America can do no wrong and is some how the divine protector of the world.

The war in Afghanistan is legal. That's a pretty well-established fact - which you haven't really address or taken to task. I'm not going to debate your shadow-arguments. Iraq - maybe you've got something, but, and I get tired of saying this - nobody has had the BALLS to do anything to prove it. It's not illegal unless you bring charges forward and get a conviction.

America makes mistakes. But I was under the impression that we made it clear 69 years ago - attacking America on her own soil will not end well.

> Either way you look at it, America causes the issues, it pushes it's rhetoric and then it sends in the boys with guns to secure 'democracy' and then hands out whatever resources it can to it's financial backers. Read up on your history, you might be surprised at who causes most of the worlds problems.

I was never under the assumption that any of the last two decades of military action had much of anything to do with democracy. The cold war is over. But to stop just short of blaming all the world's problems, including (from the sounds of it) the 9/11 attacks, on America seems a pretty far stretch to me.


RE: You didn't write this
By clovell on 7/27/2010 11:12:10 AM , Rating: 1
I'm addressing arguments point-by-point. If any of you sons-of-bitches disagrees, how's about you back it up and post rather than simply downrating the facts? At least Dan up here has the nuts to do that much...


RE: You didn't write this
By adiposity on 7/26/2010 12:58:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Iraq IS America's close ally. We pretty much propped up the government and have sent it massive amounts of aid. I'd say we're pretty close allies. Not sure what confuses you about that statement.


Kind of how one of the "Coalition of the Willing" was Afghanistan?

Iraq is either a colony or an subjugated enemy. It is not really an ally. The majority of the country would not "vote" to be our allies, and the leaders of the country are essentially there with our permission.

Could Iraq technically be considered a U.S. ally, based on the virtual guarantee that such a state will always "back" our decisions? Yes, I suppose. But to just call Iraq an ally without qualification is a distortion. It is a country at war, currently controlled by us. That is not what we traditionally think of when we refer to another country as our ally.


RE: You didn't write this
By NubWobble on 7/26/2010 1:32:36 PM , Rating: 1
Iraq is the US' ally? That's interesting, let's explore this shall we? France, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Poland, Russia, Greece, Portugal, etc. were Nazi Germany's allies.

These Neocon fascists and fundamentalists should employ you Mick, you'll, singlehandedly rewrite history, the English language and the meaning of occupation and ally.


This is ridiculous
By Chaser on 7/26/10, Rating: -1
RE: This is ridiculous
By killerclick on 7/26/2010 3:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
He was a guest on the Colbert Report in New York after leaking that Apache video.

Besides, he can't be prosecuted for anything. He's not a US citizen, the worst US can (legally) do is deport him.


RE: This is ridiculous
By knutjb on 7/26/2010 3:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Besides, he can't be prosecuted for anything. He's not a US citizen, the worst US can (legally) do is deport him.
That is incorrect. IF any non-citizen commits a crime they can be punished and then they get deported, after serving their time. If he is acting in a media position then he is protected for that release. The crime was committed by whoever liberated the data.


RE: This is ridiculous
By killerclick on 7/26/2010 3:32:54 PM , Rating: 3
Yes, if he commits a crime, but what crime? They haven't charged him with any crime because he committed none. As an Australian citizen he's not required to protect the secrets of the US government nor has the US government any authority to prevent him from disclosing any information any more than they have power over Japanese, Russian or Venezuelan journalists or citizens.


RE: This is ridiculous
By knutjb on 7/26/2010 4:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't say he was charged, you implied that he couldn't be charged because he is a foreign national and that is false. He, to our knowledge, didn't steal the documents they came from another source(s). Manning? If he had stolen them or colluded to have someone steal them he would be subject to US criminal prosecution. Just because anyone is a foreign national does not preclude them criminal prosecution in any country. The US does have a right to investigate how he came into possession of the information and if it was legal.

The person(s) who stole the data are subject to prosecution, the press are excluded so long as they didn't commit a crime to obtain it.


RE: This is ridiculous
By killerclick on 7/26/2010 5:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, when I wrote he can't be prosecuted for anything, I meant Julian Assange in this specific case, not any foreign citizen by virtue of being foreign citizen.


RE: This is ridiculous
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: This is ridiculous
By killerclick on 7/26/2010 11:05:34 PM , Rating: 2
That's interesting, I didn't know about this agreement but it doesn't change anything for WikiLeaks and Assange. I'm amazed that so many people think he's breaking some law.


RE: This is ridiculous
By Lerianis on 7/27/2010 3:11:49 AM , Rating: 2
I seriously doubt that he is pissing off anyone over there, and if they try to do anything to this man, they are going to have to watch their own asses as someone else in the world blows up Australia's secrets!

It is a GOOD thing to have intelligence people concerned that their things might be made public. That way, it keeps them in check from doing things like:

1. Assassinating people with no court trial.
2. Killing the family members of people in order to send a message.
3+. Add whatever you can think of.

As I said before, I APPLAUD Wikileaks for doing this. We need more TRUE patriots like them in the world today.


RE: This is ridiculous
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/27/10, Rating: 0
"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs














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