Pentagon demands WikiLeaks stuff genie back in bottle The US Defense Department has formally asked WikiLeaks to delete all copies of military documents it has received and return any documents not yet published. Julian Assange has already taken to Twitter to reject the offer. The message said: "Obnoxious Pentagon spokesperson issues formal threat against WikiLeaks: Destroy …
The fiasco continues. I guess the Pentagon thinks Wikileak supporters are quaking in their boots.
All the Pentagon has done is to set themselves up to have their bluff called. Maybe the Pentagon thinks American law extends beyond the 200 mile limit?
Time to open the insurance package?
"...died a quick death because of the lack of any very solid information: except, it would appear, for names and GPS co-ordinates of US military informants, who now face the very real danger of reprisals from the Taliban or their allies"
It really is a poor show that reflects poorly on... the US defence department; Google does a better job of anonymising datasets.
The sad truth is that as far as occupying forces go (e.g, see the Russian/Chechen for a similar politically motivated war) the allies are almost civilised for murderous military trained busy-bodies, but the leaked files show that they can't face up to the death toll their troops are causing among civilians. If allied generals can't admit --- to the public at home or to the world in general --- that they are killing/torturing innocent Afghanis and destroying families then they bloody well shouldn't do it. Anonymous black hoods belong solely for executioners in historic tales.
"The story was splashed by all three papers, but has since died a quick death because of the lack of any very solid information: except, it would appear, for names and GPS co-ordinates of US military informants, who now face the very real danger of reprisals from the Taliban or their allies."
If it is true that Wikileaks did publish this information on the Internet (I haven't bothered to check) and if it leads to people in Afghanistan who helped us dying, then I want this Assange guy's head on a pike. I don't agree with why we invaded Iraq (I agree a bit more about Afghanistan, but still not), but he's just made it harder for our soldiers, and therefore killing our troops. You don't publish material that can get people killed and then mouth off at the Pentagon for wanting it removed. It just isn't done.
I take it you don't feel the same about the tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans killed since the invasion started? Or are they somehow less innocent or heroic than the soldiers of the invading army and their informants?
Because in my mind, blowing the whistle on aggressive invading armies using sickening tactics of indiscriminate killing, torture and massive escalation certainly is what should be done.
Well: if the US Destruction Department only did stuff that it was proud of: they would not feel the need to keep their actions hidden. They are winging about the informers' who's lives are endangered, what about those who's lives they have taken by slinging missiles in the wrong places?
IMHO people will die because of these documents, which would make the leaker and the publisher guilty of murder or manslaughter, for what - an ego trip? Why on earth leave peoples' names in these documents?
Wikileaks has sparked useful debate and "blown good whistle" in the past, but this is at the very least criminal neglect. Insanely stupid.
Government actions in "time of war"... disappear him already, THEN see if he'd like to cooperate. I'm all for the kind lovey touchy-feely perfect world some dream about but this is REAL, this act put many people's lives in danger. Nobody with a conscience would do such a thing and as much as I hate the idea that people should be made examples of, this is a perfect time to do so.
It doesn't matter if you're pro-US, pro-taliban, or whichever team you cheer for, you don't expose info that will probably result in death under the guise that knowing is always good.
They can't find him. No one has leaked where he is. That would be
"
a shadowy flight into the dangerous world of a man who does not exist. Julian Assange, a young loner on a crusade to champion the cause of the innocent, the helpless, the powerless, in a world of criminals who operate above the law.
"
Not so, it would seem, seeing as you're even posting a story on it :)
As for the "names and coordinates" (if I were a pedant I would point out there is no such thing as "GPS coordinates", though I know what you mean):
a) Have you seen *any* which could be of any value in the data already posted? If not, what is your source for that statement in your article? and
b) Do you for a moment believe that the opponent does not already know, to a large extent, who the informants are, and how valuable the (mis-) information they can provide is? They are in their home turf, remember.
c) Are you somehow trying to imply that the US gives a flying turd about the fate of their "informants"? Allow me to remind you that in conflict very few people become informants of their own free accord to start with: most of the time they are coerced into it. I grew up in an area of conflict, that's how I know, and although I have myself escaped the interest of the security forces at the time and so I can't provide a first hand account, less fortunate friends and acquaintances have related vividly to me the particular "persuasion" methods used.
Lastly and as a somewhat unrelated side remark, why is it that it is not OK for "certain countries" to have censorship, but if it's done by certain others it seems it's no problem at all.
Wars are where the aggressor destroys the opposing fighting force, then subjugates the remaining population through fear. In case you hadn't noticed, that's not happening in Afghanistan.
And while we're being picky about names, "US military informants" should be called what they actually are - collaborators. Collaborators of any nationality, siding with a foreign occupying military force, deserve what they get. Giving sustenance to the enemy is the definition of treason.
Seems to me that this wikileaks situation is becoming a coverup for this administrations failure to honor it's anti-war agenda.
Obama ran on the 'out of iraq etc'... however both iraq and afghan and grown since he's taken office.
No war has been declared on iraq of afghan as far as I know so im not sure why war is used to describe either of them as we are simply occupying.
The republicans like Sean Hannity are out there going after the rules of engagement when Bush had the same sets as Obama does so nothing has changed.
Any documents that would put the lives of people in danger as the dod is claiming should simply be better protected. What this all is simply is a coverup to hide the fact that the "wars" have only grown since a democrat took office and yes innocent people on both sides are getting killed.
Why isn't the left-wing up in arms about this administration taking out 70k blogs with the sweep of a pen without any trial? Perhaps because this government would start to pull the plug on the net since they've granted themselves super-power over everything.
Who'd of thought under a democratic administration that while somethings may have occured under Bush that "invaded privacy" the real invasion is here and it has a (D) after it.
@DavCrav et al : you seem upset that "our" informants or soldiers are more at risk, but you don't seem bothered about the risk "our" soldiers represent to the civilians of Afganistan.
Our media keep count of the number of "our" dead soldiers, but we don't seem to keep count of the number of dead Afghan civilians. Do those people not matter? Do they not have grieving families also?
If "our" military leaders are not prepared to be held to account, then "we" no longer live in a democracy.
Do you accept that the electorate of the West should be able to make an informed judgement about how many "enemy" civilians "we" are content to kill, for each of "our" soldiers who dies?
(Yes, some Afghan casualties will have been enemy fighters. That doesn't change the point, only the arithmetic.)
It is hard to conceive that anyone would wish to see civilians being killed by armed forces. However, that is what happens in war. You imply we should have some public debate to establish the acceptable number of civilian casualties per insurgent. That's going to happen how? Have you some way of measuring or enforcing this magic ratio?
Why not just say you're for or against the war? It is, to my mind, being fought for good reason, and I imagine that the soldiers are doing what they can to minimise civilian casualties. Sometimes you can't tell civilians from the baddies: they don't wear badges all the time.
Please recall what started this conflict - do you think Al-Quaeda debated the acceptable ratio of civilian casualties to military, before they came up with their answer?
This isn't supposed to be data anonymised by the Pentagon. It's the actual database of category "Secret" information, which is about the least secret category they have, as I'm told. If they want to visit an informant for tea, anyone with "Secret" access can look up his address.
Wikileaks claims to have filtered that information out, but they may not have done it perfectly. On the other hand, it's easy for the Pentagon to claim that Wilileaks' publication exposes vulnerable friendlies in Afghanistan whether or not that's true, just to discourage people from looking at the data or passing it on.
The rest of the secret data covers U.S. forces doing dreadful things that aren't right and that people should know about.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
