NCO Club: Off Topic Discussions => The Chambers: Political Discussion Board => Topic started by: Rattler on 2 December 2010, 09:25:33



Title: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Rattler on 2 December 2010, 09:25:33
Wow, the T-word found a new (of course more ample) interpretation yesterday:

After Julian Assange's international media organization, WikiLeaks, stirred up controversy once again on Sunday by making public nearly a quarter-million previously confidential American diplomatic documents, the Republican member of the US Homeland Security Committee, Peter King, said that the administration should designate WikiLeaks a "Foreign Terrorist Organization" (on Fox News, where Wayne Simmons had done the same before (http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201007310003)...).

Quote
They (WikiLeaks, R.) are engaged in terrorist activity. What they're doing is clearly aiding and abetting terrorist groups, either we're serious about this or we're not.


Along the same line, Sarah Palin wants Julian Assange to be handled (http://www.facebook.com/notes/sarah-palin/serious-questions-about-the-obama-administrations-incompetence-in-the-wikileaks-/465212788434) (read: killed) in the same manner as a Taliban or al-Qaeda leader

Quote
Assange is not a “journalist,” any more than the “editor” of al Qaeda’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a “journalist.” He is an anti-American operative... -snip- ...Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders?


This shows once more what is wrong with all our national politics on a wide scale, as it pictures the "idea" those politicians have of us, the electorate (we are kind of the spike in the wheel that does not allow them to do their work as they see fit) and of the democratic system as a whole: Since when is helping the electorate to control its government anything even close to Terrorism?

I have made my stance on making "secrets" public (http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/the-military-newsflash!/wikileaks-to-unveil-pentagon-murder-coverup/) very clear before, but I also must say I suspect Mr. Assange, the Wikileaks founder and motor" wont be with us on this planet for a much longer time, establishment cannot have such rouge cannons out there (dubbing him "Terrorist" will kind of allow to take him out, wont it?).

If the truth about a governmets actions is a threat, then this government is doing something wrong. Seems that it is less interesting to prosecute the distribution blatant lies (Fox News - A Terrorist Organization?) then to demonize revealing the truth about how your actios behind curtains differ from your public presentation. Telling the truth never can be a mistake.

Had we known the truth, we would not have gone to Iraq. Had we known the truth, we would not have allowed the Spanish government to secretly torpedo the investigation into Jose Cousos death (http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/spanish-prosecutor-appeals-arrests-iraq-t15400.html) folding to US pressure, etc.

As "The Guardians" Simon Jenkins argues:
Quote
If American spies are breaking United Nations rules by seeking the DNA biometrics of the U.N. director general, he is entitled to hear of it. British voters should know what Afghan leaders thought of British troops. American (and British) taxpayers might question, too, how most of the billions of dollars going in aid to Afghanistan simply exits the country at Kabul airport. No harm is done by high-class chatter about President Nicolas Sarkozy's vulgarity and lack of house-training, or about the British royal family. What the American embassy in London thinks about the coalition suggests not an alliance at risk but an embassy with a talent problem.


That is it, in a nutshell: We do live (in theory) in a democracy where the electorate should through its representative control its government. We cannot do so if we do not know what is going on (in our name!).

From my POV, the publication of the cables can never consitute a terrorist act by the definition the US themselves use: As defined in section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, terrorism is primarily physical and violent. Physical violence. Destruction. Things like "The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle)." Or "An assassination." However, the letter of the law does further define a terrorist group as any that "endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization."

Does exposing the secret cables qualify as "espousing"?

WikiLeaks published the cables along with an explanation ow why and how they did it, the relevant part of it is this one:

Quote
The cables show the extent of US spying on its allies and the UN; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in "client states"; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries; lobbying for US corporations; and the measures US diplomats take to advance those who have access to them.

This document release reveals the contradictions between the US's public persona and what it says behind closed doors – and shows that if citizens in a democracy want their governments to reflect their wishes, they should ask to see what's going on behind the scenes.

Every American schoolchild is taught that George Washington – the country's first President – could not tell a lie. If the administrations of his successors lived up to the same principle, today's document flood would be a mere embarrassment. Instead, the US Government has been warning governments — even the most corrupt — around the world about the coming leaks and is bracing itself for the exposures.

One more important reason from my POV to publish these articles is that the cables make to us, the electorate, transparent how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money. They show the motivations - and, in some cases, duplicity - of allies on the receiving end of American courtship and foreign aid. They illuminate the diplomacy surrounding two current wars and several countries, like Pakistan and Yemen, where American military involvement is growing. I find it absurd to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name, and that also goes for us other citizens in the worlds democracies.

OK, so leaking the cables is considered an attack by the US administration. But a figurative, ideological attack - one of solidarc criticism - isn't the same as a physical attack, or efforts to either prompt or plan such an assault. Any citizen in a democracy can (and often does!) accuse his government of being filled with cheats and liars. And some of these same citizens go on to win political office, and rightly so, it is the way demcoracy is *thought* to function. As far as the US is concerned, AFAIK the Founding fathers did not like the idea of government keeps secrets from the people. Thomas Jefferson even said that doing so is an act of treason against the people. In not any democratic Constitution I know does it state that the government has a right to keep secrets from its electorate, even if we accept that they have to sometimes (and for this have - like in Germany - complicated control mechanisms or committees installed that try to ensure that only the stuff truly need kept to be secret is kept secret from the electorate).

Now, both the State Department and politicians like King have said WikiLeak's actions have placed lives at risk. However, WikiLeaks makes no actual statements espousing - as far as my knowledge of the word goes - acts of violence against Americans or the US. Does access constitute espousal? If a website's reader is angered by its content and commits an act of terrorism because of it, does that make the site responsible? I find this hard to constitute legally.

The only problem I have with publishing those articles is that I fear that if an ambassador or military officer knows that his honest answers to questions from superiors will soon be in the public domain, he will begin to furnish dishonest answers or no answers at all. This might not really be in the public interest either.

From my POV this is not about freedom of the press or freedom of speech, but about something ultimateively way more profound and constitutional to the way we (want to) live: The right of an electorate to control what a government does in its name. WikiLeaks deserves a medal for helping us with this.

Rattler


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: stoffel on 2 December 2010, 16:10:26
I laughed a great deal.
Lot of the stuff is all old news.
Interesting, we have nukes in Holland...WOW!!!.

What a big surprise.
Everybody here know where they aere and who controls them :)
What a joke. hihi


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: TechAdmin on 2 December 2010, 16:15:36
They will kill Assange anyway (and all leakers):

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3992761,00.html (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3992761,00.html)

Rattler


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: stoffel on 2 December 2010, 16:35:52
At Chora one of the tribal leaders maintained connections with our forces.
He was an important figure for stability at Chora.
Wikileaks blew his cover, soon after that he was killed by a carbomb........

The line between news and getting people killed is very thin.
It would not surprise me the people in Chora would love to see Assanges head on a plate for diner.


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Rattler on 8 December 2010, 00:25:27
just bunmping (and preparing a mirror for WL, also engaging in "OP Payback" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback) for the crooks that took (a part of) my money to help themselves and dry out WL...

Mirrors:
http://savewikileaks.net/another-wikileaks-address/ (http://savewikileaks.net/another-wikileaks-address/)

I have advised PayPal that I will close the account in 48 hours if they dont take back their decision to keep the 60.000+ Euros from WL to themselves claiming that WL was "using the account to foster illegal activities". Since when is it illegal to publish facts that make my government look bad in front of my citizens watchful eyes?

While we know this will not hold in front of any court ("illegal?" In which nation? Based on what Laws? etc...) it hurts, so we will hurt back.

Stoffel, you probably cannot see it, but WL as organizatiion is fighting for what we stood as soldiers in our time (and you still), plain right of us, the citiziens, to control our politicians.

You want it the other way around? Think Nazis then, or Franco, or Putin, or any other dictator.

Would you have condemmed Wikileaks if it had had a part in WWII defeating the NS try to rule the world? Dont you think we would by now share many movies about those "great rebel heroes" if it had existed as part of the "resistance"? Of course, Hitlers hounds never thought the resistance nothing but terrorists.... Easily one can get on the wrong side of history...

THINK, mate (I know you can), dont just playbayck government (interested) statements (and double check your Chora info, I think I have bad news for you in this respect).

Rattler


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Rattler on 8 December 2010, 00:41:09
Anybody feeling he needs to set up a mirror for WL, here the instructions (Tech stuff coming up!):

http://wikileaks.ch/mass-mirror.html (http://wikileaks.ch/mass-mirror.html)

Rattler


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: MontyB on 8 December 2010, 00:49:24
just bunmping (and preparing a mirror for WL, also engaging in "OP Payback" ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Payback[/url]) for the crooks that took (a part of) my money to help themselves and dry out WL...

Mirrors:
[url]http://savewikileaks.net/another-wikileaks-address/[/url] ([url]http://savewikileaks.net/another-wikileaks-address/[/url])

I have advised PayPal that I will close the account in 48 hours if they dont take back their decision to keep the 60.000+ Euros from WL to themselves claiming that WL was "using the account to foster illegal activities". Since when is it illegal to publish facts that make my government look bad in front of my citizens watchful eyes?

While we know this will not hold in front of any court ("illegal?" In which nation? Based on what Laws? etc...) it hurts, so we will hurt back.

Stoffel, you probably cannot see it, but WL as organizatiion is fighting for what we stood as soldiers in our time (and you still), plain right of us, the citiziens, to control our politicians.

You want it the other way around? Think Nazis then, or Franco, or Putin, or any other dictator.

Would you have condemmed Wikileaks if it had had a part in WWII defeating the NS try to rule the world? Dont you think we would by now share many movies about those "great rebel heroes" if it had existed as part of the "resistance"? Of course, Hitlers hounds never thought the resistance nothing but terrorists.... Easily one can get on the wrong side of history...

THINK, mate (I know you can), dont just playbayck government (interested) statements (and double check your Chora info, I think I have bad news for you in this respect).

Rattler



I can see your argument but I do not entirely agree with you either, as individuals we have a responsibility to not "knowingly" carry out acts that may lead to injury of anyone else.

So if I was in possession of such information I would think twice about releasing it at a time when it may still have an effect on the people involved.

On the opposite side of the scale I agree with you that the ability to do such things is the justification we use to defend our lifestyle and that if governments do not want sensitive information released then perhaps they should act a little more responsibly themselves.


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Rattler on 8 December 2010, 01:26:23
I can see your argument but I do not entirely agree with you either, as individuals we have a responsibility to not "knowingly" carry out acts that may lead to injury of anyone else.


For one, I do not see this is (has been) happening. The Spanish Ministry of Defense today stated expressively: "We have no knowledge about any attack perpetuated or a single causality caused by documents WikiLeaks published" (translation by me).

2nd, would you (I know its a rhetoric and stupid argument, but just for the sake of it) hence feel that v. Stauffenbergs attack on Hitler or Operation Walküre was - fropm the POV of the individual - mislead attempt to change the course of history? Treason? Or heroic, clear sighted defense of the German state´s political integrity? Or simply stupidity?

Methinks we have reached a point (as months ago described by me on my interpretation of events along the lines of the "Shockwave Rider") where we are suddenly and unexpectedly finding us in a kind of war (http://mgx.com/blogs/2010/12/06/this-is-war-cyber-wars-history-in-the-making/) we did not even imagine to find us in, and we are not prepared for it:

This moment in time will make clear for the near future whether our governments have the right to blatantly cheat on us as citizens and electorate, or whether we have the right to question their intentions and their actions "in our name", and fully so.

The outcome of this particular battle versus WL and Assange as the personified "evil" will determine where we will be standing as citizens and as democracies for the next 1-2 generations. If we are denied the right to know what is going on, what values will be sell "democracy" on in the future? On the census of votes of uninformed "voting cattle"?

From my April 2010 discourse here on this forum:

Quote
I have been following WikiLeaks for some time now, for me (of cause all governments hate it) it is an outstanding organisation that atttacks one of the main problems in our information societey, the fact that the citizisens that are in theory to control the governments in democracy do not have the information necessary to do so effectively.

What is worse, even the information gathering arms are unequally distributed: While any government agency or any big firm can find out about you anything they want whether you intend to hide it or not, you OTOH cannot find out anything about them. Access to "privileged" information in a hierarchically leveled information society has become the ultimate power tool and the new status symbol, and the legal systems in place to keep people from spying at you in fact only keep you from spying at them, the higher you get in power or money the less those legal barriers factually exist (as probably all of you sometimes have found out, when e.g. trying to find a secret telephone number, or the name of the owner of a car from the number plate: A friend in the right place, or a little cash overcomes the legal hurdles easily; now make this a powerful friend in the right place of power, or a lot of money, and you see where we stand: You are naked informatically).

This is a topic that has had me interested for a long time, much longer than computers exist in the way we use them today. The solution to it I found 1975 in John Brunners book "The Shockwave Rider" ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider[/url] ([url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shockwave_Rider[/url]) , with "The Sheep Look Up" and "Stand on Zanzibar" those three belong into my top 10 books of all time). He proposed to make *all* information publicly accessable without barriers, as those work one-way only: Lifting the secrecy on information would give both the spied-on and the spy the same weaponry, you would be able to retrieve every bit you were interested in from top down the president to your neighbour (and they about you), the sheer mass of information and the equality in weaponry would make misuse much less a problem than todays system of privileges by level. In his book, the main character invents a "worm", a self replicating computer program (actually *this* book gave the name to todays computer worms), that releases all possible information on every computer to the public(as a result e.g. on every can you would read the *real* ingredients, etc), of cause under heavy prosectuion of the government (in the end they even allow a nuclear strike on his suspected whereabouts).  

Until today still believe this holds true and should be the way to go.


I do not plan to have my (subjectively felt) rights taken away just like that without putting up resistance. We might lose this battle for freedom of information, but if we dont even fight for it, we will have to face our childrens questions as to why we "did not do anything about it".

Rattler


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: MontyB on 8 December 2010, 01:53:49
OK but would you still feel the same way if an organisation was to broadcast the names of the Germans that were involved in July plot that were not arrested before the end of the war or perhaps gave an in depth write up on how the Allies were using ULTRA to break German codes?

The importance of peoples right to know must be tempered by possible consequences of informing the enemy of their mistakes while they have the time to rectify those mistakes.

I personally do not care whether WL publishes Hillary Clinton's opinion of the New Zealand Prime minister or any other world leaders but they day they start publishing the practices and routines of New Zealand soldiers in Afghanistan I will be mightly pissed.


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Rattler on 8 December 2010, 02:17:01
Latter has not happened AFAIK, for neither NZ nor the rest of ISAF (or do you know anything different?).

I am mighty pissed to find out only through those cables that the investigation into the deliberate assasination of my colleague J. Couso (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=es&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=es&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.josecouso.info%2F) by US tankers has been secretly stopped behind our backs in a deal between my and the US government (cancelling the order for capture and delivery vs. the soldiers in question) in order to allow my president to be received by GWB again, and all the time my governent declaring to the public that they were doing *all possible* to prosecute the perpetuators of this war crime?!

From my POV this stuff is exactly what those leaks are about, we getting cheated, and blatantly so, just so that we go vote again for the same cheaters, and now they go all haywire because such stuff comes out.

Rattler


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: MontyB on 8 December 2010, 02:32:15
But we already know our governments are liars and cheats and for the most part we also understand that this is a professional requirement to be a politician these days which means it doesn't matter who you elect you just get different coloured ties and the same BS, I don't need WL to prove something I already know.

Lets be realistic here there isn't a single politician on the planet that would not sell every principle they had and their first born for an extra 15 mins of power or step up the ladder.


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: FACman on 8 December 2010, 18:42:30
Quote
The importance of peoples right to know must be tempered by possible consequences of informing the enemy of their mistakes while they have the time to rectify those mistakes


In this you are correct of course.

I would only like to comment on one particular example of a release that was enlightening, even though it portrayed my country in a poor light. That would be the helicopter footage of the killing of the 2 Reuters newsmen. Had that footage not been leaked, the US Govt would still be standing by the false story they put out when the incident occurred.  In this case, the US was simply trying to avoid the embarrassment associated with the truth, something I do not support. As a veteran, I have seen the evils that man will do in war first hand. Letting a little fresh air (truth) into the discussion can only help.

We can undoubtedly find examples on both sides of this issue to further ones position. I for one, tend to lean toward finding out those things my country is trying to hide from me, for less reason than the legitimate case you have made.


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Koen on 8 December 2010, 19:39:05
this is a link to an article what I read in my newspaper about Task Force 373 and the lies that cover up all the civilians and children that were killed

I think that this is one of the matters that show that there is a reason WHY the documents were revealed: because the governments lie. If they would lie less these documents weren't released since they wouldn't be worth to read.
I don't take it that the reason why Wikileaks leaked the documents was because they wanted people to get killed as result of the leaks. They were released to show that what's on TV is a big scam.

Maybe FacMan can tell us better but wasn't the Vietnam war not the same in some kind of way: everything was going fine, the allies were winning the war and blablabla.... at the end it was all the opposite. But then there was no internet and every report was easier to censor/hide/destroy.

http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/26/wikileaks-shines-spotlight-on-mysterious-task-force-373/ (http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/26/wikileaks-shines-spotlight-on-mysterious-task-force-373/)

Quote
WikiLeaks shines spotlight on mysterious Task Force 373

U.S. military documents released by WikiLeaks show that a U.S. Special Forces unit in Afghanistan assigned to hunt down terrorists also was responsible for the deaths of civilians, Afghan police officers and, in one particularly bloody raid, seven children while they attended school.

The unit is called Task Force 373. It’s assigned to kill so-called “high value” targets or detain them without trial, often in night operations. The 373 follows a hit list of sorts, according to The New York Times and The Guardian newspaper in England. (WikiLeaks gave The New York Times, The Guardian and German magazine Der Spiegel early access to the documents before posting them.)

The list is referred to as Jpel, which supposedly stands for “joint prioritized effects list.”  Der Spiegel reported in January that the Task Force was active in Kunduz in northern Afghanistan.

“U.S. special forces with Task Force 373 are sent out on operations on a nightly basis,” it wrote. “In addition to taking suspected Taliban extremists prisoner, they have many times been responsible for eliminating wanted Taliban leaders.”

The documents published by WikiLeaks cover controversial operations by Task Force 373.  Among the incidents:

– Seeking Taliban commander  Qarl Ur-Rahman in a valley near Jalalabad, Task Force 373 became engaged in a firefight in June 2007 at night. According to a document linked on the New York Times and Guardian sites, “The original mission was aborted…” and the task force later filed a report which said “7 X ANP NIA, 4 X WIA” resulted. That means seven Afghan police officers had been killed. Read the document

– Later that month, the Task Force launched am operation to kill or capture  senior al Qaeda figure  Abu Laith al-Libi in Paktika province, close to the border with Afghanistan. They failed to find Libi, who was killed several months later. During the operation, a missile attack was launched on a mosque compound where several suspects were thought to be, but the action resulted in the deaths of 7 children. The follow-up report said “An elder who was at the Mosque stated that the children were held against their will and were intentionally kept inside.” Read the document, reproduced by the New York Times

U.S. Special Operations missions in Afghanistan have been criticized by human rights groups.

“You have people going in with a kill list and the public accountability simply doesn’t exist,” said Sarah Knuckey, director of the Project on Extrajudicial Executions at the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at the New York University School of Law. She went to Afghanistan in 2008 to interview dozens of civilians who had complained of indiscriminate military attacks.

“We didn’t hear specifically the name 373, but it’s clear, judging by what’s been on WikiLeaks – if [WikiLeaks’] information is correct – that what civilians told us is true,” she told CNN.

Quote
Summary Five American rockets destroyed a compound in Paktika Province in an attempt to kill a top commander of Al Qaeda. Task Force 373, a classified Special Operations unit of Army Delta Force operatives and members of the Navy Seals, was sent to finish the job. They did not find the commander. But they did find that seven children had been killed in the strike. While American military officials tried to explain that there had been no indications that women and children were in the compound, anger spread across the region.


and the Wikileaks leaked AAR:
Quote
172100Z TF 373 OBJ Lane
NOTE: The following information (TF-373 and HIMARS) is Classified Secret / NOFORN. The knowledge that TF-373 conducted a HIMARS strike must be kept protected. All other information below is classified Secret / REL ISAF.

(S) Mission: O/O SOTF conducts kinetic strike followed with HAF raid to kill/capture ABU LAYTH AL LIBI on NAI 2.

(S)Target: Abu Layth Al Libi is a senior al-Qaida military commander, Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) leader. He is based in Mir Ali, Pakistan and runs training camps throughout North Waziristan. Collection over the past week indicates a concentration of Arabs IVO objective area.

Result: 6 x EKIA; 7 x NC KIA, 7 x detainees

(S) Summary: HAF departed for Orgun-E to conduct link-up and posture to the objective immediately after pre-assault fires. On order, 5 rockets were launched and destroyed structures on the objective (NAI 2). The HAF quickly inserted the assault force into the HLZ. ISR reported multiple UIMs leaving the objective area. The assault force quickly conducted dismounted movement to the target area and established containment on the south side of the objective. During the initial assault, dedicated air assets engaged multiple MAMs squirting off the objective area. GFC assessed 3 x EKIA squirters north and 3 x EKIA squirters south of the compound were neutralized from air asset fires. The assault force quickly maneuvered with a SQD element on the remaining squirters. The squirter element detained 12 x MAMs and returned to the objective area. GFC passed initial assessment of 7 x NC KIA (children). During initial questioning, it was assessed that the children were not allowed out of the building, due to UIMs presence within the compound. The assault force was able to uncover 1 x NC child from the rubble. The MED TM immediately cleared debris form the mouth and performed CPR to revive the child for 20 minutes. Due to time restrictions, TF CDR launched QRF element to action a follow-on target (NAI 5). They quickly contained the objective and initiated the assault. The objective was secured and the assault force initially detained 6 x MAMs. The GFC recommended that 7 MAMs be detained for additional questioning. The TF CDR assessed that the assault force will continue SSE. The local governor was notified of the current situation and requests for assistance were made to cordon the AO with support from ANP and local coalition forces in search of HVI. A PRT is enroute to AO.

1) Target was an AQ Senior Leader

2) Patterns of life were conducted on — ——— from ——— ——— (strike time) with no indications of women or children on the objective

3) The Mosque was not targeted nor was it struck initial reports state there is no damage to the Mosque

4) An elder who was at the Mosque stated that the children were held against their will and were intentionally kept inside

UPDATE: 18 0850Z June 07

- Governor Khapalwak has had no success yet in reaching President Karzai (due to the Presidents busy schedule today) but expects to reach him within the hour (PoA reached later in the afternoon ~ 1400Z)

- The Governor conducted a Shura this morning, in attendance were locals from both the Yahya Yosof Khail & Khail Districts

- He pressed the Talking Points given to him and added a few of his own that followed in line with our current story

- The atmospherics of the local populous is that they are in shock, but understand it was caused ultimately by the presence of hoodlums

- the people think it is good that bad men were killed

- the people regret the loss of life among the children

- The Governor echoed the tragedy of children being killed, but stressed this couldve been prevented had the people exposed the presence of insurgents in the area

- The Governor promised another Shura in a few days and that the families would be compensated for their loss

- Tthe Governor was asked what the mood of the people was and he stated that "the operation was a good thing, and the people believe what we have told them"

- Additionally, the people accused the Yahya Khail Chief of Police and his officers of corruption and collusion with TB in the area

- The Governor and the Provincial NDS Chief relieved the CofP and his officers, disarmed them, and they are currently detained and enroute to Sharana at this time unknown as to total numbers detained (MTF on this incident)



so yes, I'm sad about the negative results in kills/murders after the release of the documents but it's not a solution NOT to publish them. Think about the families of the dead in both Afghanistan/Pakistan and back in the US or allied countries: don't they deserve the truth about the why and what?

And the hunting down of the 'face' of Wikileaks won't do anything good to the opponents of the truth. They are giving the cause a martyr. And that's NEVER a good idea!


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: MontyB on 8 December 2010, 20:04:23
Quote
The importance of peoples right to know must be tempered by possible consequences of informing the enemy of their mistakes while they have the time to rectify those mistakes


In this you are correct of course.

I would only like to comment on one particular example of a release that was enlightening, even though it portrayed my country in a poor light. That would be the helicopter footage of the killing of the 2 Reuters newsmen. Had that footage not been leaked, the US Govt would still be standing by the false story they put out when the incident occurred.  In this case, the US was simply trying to avoid the embarrassment associated with the truth, something I do not support. As a veteran, I have seen the evils that man will do in war first hand. Letting a little fresh air (truth) into the discussion can only help.

We can undoubtedly find examples on both sides of this issue to further ones position. I for one, tend to lean toward finding out those things my country is trying to hide from me, for less reason than the legitimate case you have made.


Hey I am all for transparency in government but I tend to think that the presence of Wikileaks is just as powerful as the documents they leak.

My opinion would be that once politicians/military learn that everything they do will in time make it to the public domain they will learn to be honest through fear but this should not mean that all information is released the minute we have it in our possession as I have mentioned previously had the media known about ULTRA would you be enthusiastic about them releasing it in 1942?

I think one of the problems faced by both the military and politicians is that they still have not come to terms with modern world and that everything they do is not only record-able in high quality by almost everyone with a simple cellphone but that same technology can send the data world wide in real time so instead of having 1 correspondent being led around (as we had in previous wars) you have two entire armies of correspondents broadcasting 24/7.


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Koen on 8 December 2010, 20:29:47
here on the news: Assange is accused by 2 women for sexual assault but............................... both women said they did agree havin' sex but the question is: they did agree on sex without a condom?.... sorry but when I hear this I can't do anything else but laugh about the grade of 'ridiculous'..... waa


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: stoffel on 8 December 2010, 21:13:16
Matt,

A government can use deadly force, it has the instruments to do that.
Thats a big responsibility.
Now in a normal democracy, governments are controlled by parliaments.
If they do their work all illegal activities and crimes should be punished by them.

Often most people tend to forget the last chapter of the Geneva convention, it simply states : all written above will be of no matter in case of military urgence.
So that means if a known terrorist hides behind women and children its his decision and his responsability if these people get hurt, not the soldier doing his job.

Civilians like Assange are in my eyes criminals too, why?
Not because my government or the US government sais that.
But because he chose to cross a thin line, the line between making news and killing people.
You have to be carefull with the things you publish.

I dont give a damn about politics, like I said above parliament should do its job.
But if a government can be published for their actions, so should Assange be punished too for his actions.
He knew what he was doing, he knew the risks.
Is he better of or more important than others?
It he so special he can escape punishment too, the answer is no.

Its the last thing I say about the subject, he had his share of fame, more than enough.





Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Koen on 8 December 2010, 21:58:59
Matt,

A government can use deadly force, it has the instruments to do that.
Thats a big responsibility.
Now in a normal democracy, governments are controlled by parliaments.
If they do their work all illegal activities and crimes should be punished by them.

Often most people tend to forget the last chapter of the Geneva convention, it simply states : all written above will be of no matter in case of military urgence.
So that means if a known terrorist hides behind women and children its his decision and his responsability if these people get hurt, not the soldier doing his job.

Civilians like Assange are in my eyes criminals too, why?
Not because my government or the US government sais that.
But because he chose to cross a thin line, the line between making news and killing people.
You have to be carefull with the things you publish.

I dont give a damn about politics, like I said above parliament should do its job.
But if a government can be published for their actions, so should Assange be punished too for his actions.
He knew what he was doing, he knew the risks.
Is he better of or more important than others?
It he so special he can escape punishment too, the answer is no.

Its the last thing I say about the subject, he had his share of fame, more than enough.



that's want they all want, that people focus on Assange so that when he's found guilty people have the possibility to think that the releasing of the documents is also negative and the wrong thing....

did you read anything about the TaskForce and the Reuters killings? did you see all the lies and cover-ups?

Quote
Now in a normal democracy, governments are controlled by parliaments.
If they do their work all illegal activities and crimes should be punished by them


and did the parlementariers know about the illegal killings and the lies? if yes, why wasn't anyone punished in the government? if not, why didn't they know?
Quote
I dont give a damn about politics, like I said above parliament should do its job.
But if a government can be published PUNISHED for their actions, so should Assange be punished too for his actions.



Henk, you say you don't give a damn about politics but you are aware that the US army is managed and controlled by politicians, not?
What I understand from what you write is that you think that both 'US government' and 'Assange' are on the same level and should be punished the same way?
Did you see anybody punished in the US government? No! So Assange shouldn't be punished either?

furthermore, we're having a normal discussion with different POV's (without censorship) so there's no need for 'Its the last thing I say about the subject, he had his share of fame, more than enough.'

Quote
But because he chose to cross a thin line, the line between making news and killing people.
You have to be carefull with the things you publish.


he didn't make the news, he released it and it wasn't HIM, it was an organization
and the news is only interesting because it shows that we're not told a couple of lies but that the complete story families and the public general get from the war-on-terror is a BIG LIE.

and again (as I'm not stupid or one-side-minded)... I am aware of the consequences but without the lies there would never have been a Wikileaks or Assange

and as expected the first Untergang movies are released

Hitler Gets The WikiLeaks US Embassy Cables (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0OYyUbuFmM#)


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Rattler on 8 December 2010, 22:26:58
Civilians like Assange are in my eyes criminals too, why?
Not because my government or the US government sais that.
But because he chose to cross a thin line, the line between making news and killing people.

You keep repeating this, but you do not back it up with facts.

The case you reported before:
Quote
At Chora one of the tribal leaders maintained connections with our forces.
He was an important figure for stability at Chora.
Wikileaks blew his cover, soon after that he was killed by a carbomb........

had nothing to do with WikiLeaks at all.

The name of the tribal leader was Rozi Khan, and I know he was famous in the Netherlands as he came to the help for a unit under fire. And yes, he was important for the stability in the region.

But, he got killed in Sptember 2008, long before Wikileaks: http://www.smh.com.au/world/how-a-folk-hero-died-in-the-fog-of-war-20090712-dhfp.html?page=-1 (http://www.smh.com.au/world/how-a-folk-hero-died-in-the-fog-of-war-20090712-dhfp.html?page=-1)

A few days ago I have been in contact with a US soldier who very recently came back from Deh Rawood and he knows nothing about any incidents in the province that could be connected to WikiLeaks.

As far as I know all the publishing outlets go great length to redact the documents (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html) so that nobody gets endangered, and Nancy A. Youssef from McClatchy Newspapers writes NOV 28th:
Quote
U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death. -snip-

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.

"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post -snip-

Read more: [url]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html#ixzz17YMwgeJ4[/url] ([url]http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html#ixzz17YMwgeJ4[/url])


As for the other part of your post, I dont really understand what you are incriminating?

But if a government can be published for their actions, so should Assange be punished too for his actions.
He knew what he was doing, he knew the risks.
-snip-
It he so special he can escape punishment too, the answer is no.


It is not illegal to publish those documents (while sending them to him yes was illegal), so what actions should he be "punished" for? What risks did he "know" to face?

Rattler


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Koen on 9 December 2010, 20:24:12
WikiLeaks FTP access to raw US Apache footage of Massacre in Baghdad and more videos !!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXUMqhz7dnI#)

no comments needed


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: MontyB on 10 December 2010, 08:20:17
Quote
It is not illegal to publish those documents (while sending them to him yes was illegal), so what actions should he be "punished" for? What risks did he "know" to face?

Rattler



I am not sure this is at all true if the files are stolen then he is receiving stolen property, essentially he is profiting from an illegal activity.

As I have said a lot of this is inane crap that carries no real consequence's on being released outside a few red faced politicians but there is some of it that I am not sure should be released "yet".


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: FACman on 10 December 2010, 14:59:53
The over classification of documents, is an ongoing problem here in the US. Many bureaucrats do not subscribe to the 'right to Know' concept, and believe the electorate is to ignorant to deal with the truth. So far, I have seen very little damage due to the leaks, other than minor discomfort to the diplomatic corps. While 'Mama Grizzly' Sarah Palin and many of her ilk, are screaming their heads off about the loss of life, I have seen no documentation of any deaths, attributable to the leaks. I agree with Monty that care must be taken with distributing the leaks, but I do not advocate shutting them down. As seen in the video Koen posted, there 'are' deaths we need to concern ourselves with, that the govt has attempted to hide. How many others are there that we haven't seen?
I do not trust my govt to be as transparent as it should.  My personal experience during my tour of duty in Vietnam taught me that, i.e; when I was given 'direct orders' not to tell my family of our incursion (illegal) into Laos (a neutral country at the time) in 1969. I would point out that we went through similar gyrations and apoplectic doom saying, when the Pentagon Papers were released by Daniel Ellsberg in the early 70's. It was the release of these truths to the American people, that helped end that horrid war. So, I for one, look for the good that will come from the American people learning what their govt has wrought in their name in Irak & Afghanistan. Alas, but I fear the war criminals from America, shall never see their day in the docket.

 at2


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: MontyB on 15 December 2010, 10:21:28
I think this is pretty much my position on it as well.

To a large degree I think Assange has over sold his information as nothing I have seen rates as earth shattering but I believe that the political over reaction to Wikileaks has helped them achieve a level of notoriety beyond the value of the information, we all know how it is nothing sells a movie faster than an organisation telling you how bad it is.


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Koen on 15 December 2010, 20:55:16
http://brusselsleaks.com/ (http://brusselsleaks.com/)

http://www.balkanleaks.eu/ (http://www.balkanleaks.eu/)

http://www.indoleaks.org/ (http://www.indoleaks.org/)

will this be start of a revolution?


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Koen on 16 December 2010, 19:08:55
Assange was bailed out and is now under house arrest until he has to return to court on January 11 2011.

He had to turn in his passport and has to wear an electronic clamp on his underleg (sry for bad English)

I have read a report on what really happened (if we ever know what really happened) with the 2 women that accused him and well.... I have my doubts on a/the women & b/the accusations

August 11 2010 Assange was invited to speak by 'The brotherhood movement' in Stockholm.
He was welcomed by Anna A., of his presumed victims, who was known for her struggle to defend women who suffered from sexual violence. She invited him in her home where he could stay for a couple of days. August 14 Anna returned to her home. They talked, went out for dinner, went back home and had sex. During the sex the condom broke and there starts the trouble. She says that she didn't wanted to continue but that Assange persisted.
The next day nothing was wrong and that evening Anna organized a party for Assange with friends. She even tweeted: "sitting outside freezing for 2 hours with the coolest and smartest people on earth" She deleted the tweet but a Swedish blogger recovered the tweet.

During the congress Assange met Sofia. She was a 'fan'. She offered herself at the organisation as volunteer but was rejected. So she came as visitor and sat on the first row taking pictures and applauding. After the speech she kept hanging around and finally got in touch with Assange. The next day Assange went with Sofia to the railroadstation where Sofia left for home at Enköping. Afterwards she contacted friends telling she met Assange and was delighted. August 17 she called Assange and invited him at her home. As soon they arrived at her place they had sex. The first act was with condom, the 2nd without. In the morning they went out for breakfast and afterwards said goodbye at the railroadstation where Assange left for Stockholm.

So until now 2 happy women and 1 happy man.

But then Sofia calls Anna, they met at the meeting where Assange spoke. Sofia is afraid for a SOA and discusses this with Anna (why IGN do you call a stranger when you are afraid of having a SOA?????)

Anna is furious and orders Assange out of her home (why? jealousy?). He refuses and only leaves after 3 days on August 20.

That night both women went to the police...together.........................
They tell their stories and the police officer concludes they were raped and sexually assaulted. The prosecutor agrees and orders that Assange must be arrested.

and the rest you know from newspapers and TV

my opinion: this stinks.... if it was a movie it would be succesful but in reality nobody with a common sense believes any of it except that both women offered themselves to Assange...


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: MontyB on 17 December 2010, 05:45:41
Yeah I am afraid that the whole affair looks like a giant set up, my guess is that it is a pretty poorly orchestrated attempt to shut him up that is in the process of backfiring.


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: FACman on 17 December 2010, 07:47:25
I read somewhere that one of the women, is connected to a CIA operative. Go figure. Can we say railroaded here?

 at2


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Koen on 17 December 2010, 08:29:01
I read somewhere that one of the women, is connected to a CIA operative. Go figure. Can we say railroaded here?

 at2


I also read about the CIA connection.


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Rattler on 19 December 2010, 00:41:51
I agree fully with Koen here, he saved me the time of commenting along the same line. For me, a NO is a NO, but this smells, and big time...

Also, one of the two now refuses to co-work with authorities:

http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/10020-news-assange-accuser-reported-no-longer-cooperating-with-police-investigation.html (http://www.ufppc.org/us-a-world-news-mainmenu-35/10020-news-assange-accuser-reported-no-longer-cooperating-with-police-investigation.html)

Quote
One source from Ardin’s old university of Uppsala reported rumours that she had stopped co-operating with the prosecution service several weeks ago, and that this was part of the reason for the long delay in proceeding with charges?—?and what still appears to be an absence of charges.

This has added to speculation that the Swedish moves, which have coincided with the release of the Cablegate stories, are politically motivated as stalling tactics, allowing Assange to be detained while the US “prepares an extradition/rendition request”, according to Assange’s UK lawyer Mark Stephens.


Last, there is a nice side to it we have not thought about yet:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/interpol-the-worlds-datin_b_793033.html)

Quote
Dear Interpol:

As a longtime feminist activist, I have been overjoyed to discover your new commitment to engaging in global manhunts to arrest and prosecute men who behave like narcissistic jerks to women they are dating.

I see that Julian Assange is accused of having consensual sex with two women, in one case using a condom that broke. I understand, from the alleged victims' complaints to the media, that Assange is also accused of texting and tweeting in the taxi on the way to one of the women's apartments while on a date, and, disgustingly enough, 'reading stories about himself online' in the cab.

Both alleged victims are also upset that he began dating a second woman while still being in a relationship with the first. (Of course, as a feminist, I am also pleased that the alleged victims are using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings. That's what our brave suffragette foremothers intended!).

Thank you again, Interpol. I know you will now prioritize the global manhunt for 1.3 million guys I have heard similar complaints about personally in the US alone -- there is an entire fraternity at the University of Texas you need to arrest immediately. I also have firsthand information that John Smith in Providence, Rhode Island, went to a stag party -- with strippers! -- that his girlfriend wanted him to skip, and that Mark Levinson in Corvallis, Oregon, did not notice that his girlfriend got a really cute new haircut -- even though it was THREE INCHES SHORTER.

Terrorists. Go get 'em, Interpol!

Yours gratefully,

Naomi Wolf


Still, the Lesson Learned learned long ago (or not?) holds valid: Men keep falling over their wieners... Incredible that this should happen to a guy at his age... But then, I have seen so many personally, professors, musicians, politicians, you name them. I am now retreating from a bet I made 20 yrs ago that this would "*never* ever happen to me...!?

Rattler


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: MontyB on 19 December 2010, 06:11:45
You have to remember that this is essentially not a winnable case for Assange as it is more about morality and perception than law.

As much as I don't want to sound "anti-female" here it is the reason we see divorces and child custody cases riddled with molestation and battery claims, once you move the focus away from fact and into the realms of perception it becomes a lost case as we all know that men beat woman and molest children, you do not need evidence as by the time these things reach court any physical evidence is long gone so it becomes one persons word against another's and most people will always believe the sobbing one over the stoic one.



Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Koen on 19 December 2010, 11:56:08
Quote
I am now retreating from a bet I made 20 yrs ago that this would "*never* ever happen to me...!?

don't you ever think that you're 100% in control of your little buddy and shouldn't be aware of the tempting sweets...


Title: Re: WikiLeaks = Terrorists?
Post by: Rattler on 26 December 2010, 01:09:47
Just heard from a friend that PayPal, Visa and Mastercard (who without leagal base cut relations with Wikileaks) still have no problem at all with serving the Klu Klux Klan.

As I dont trust even my friends went to confirm: Bought a membership vs paypal and I just "donated" 1 $ via each, all was processed and transferred no prob.

Go figure... After all, those are just Good Old American boys, and their government ebs the ways in the Wild East (sorry, google refuses to translate this plain newspaper article, claiming "Your request conflicts with US  National Security, so just in Spanish. Feel free to try translating for yourself): http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/EE/UU/presiono/Rusia/beneficio/Visa/MasterCard/elpepuint/20101208elpepuint_14/Tes (http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/EE/UU/presiono/Rusia/beneficio/Visa/MasterCard/elpepuint/20101208elpepuint_14/Tes)

Go figure, again...

Now, I am not so angry instantly, so I asked my paypal administrator -very friendly - where my money I donated to WikiLeaks went after they closed their account. I swear I received an answer, but I cannot find it in my 500 emails daily now, seems they didnt say paypal in "From" nor "subject", I will keep applying other search mechanisms to find it as I am sure I did not delete nor "spam" it.

Baiscally it said: "We are sorry to hear you dont know where the money you transferred by us went, but for reasons of privacy we can only ask you to contact the receipient o find out what happened"...

Go figure third

Doooh.!

"Anonymous", give it to them and keep going, you got my placet.

Rattler