Wikileaks Publishes Afghan War Logs
Excellent Cue - was just going to post this myself - too bad it likely won't make a whit of difference to Canada's continuing participation or the lack of concerted active opposition to this dirty US war - especially by our 'representatives'. Unlike the resistance of Afghans themselves as they do more than their bit to bury this empire. Let's see what the MSM media do with this.
[URL=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/task-force-373-secret-afghan... the exciting adventures of Task Force 373[/URL] as they violate international law with impunity.
There has to be some Canadian data in there.
Please, lets call them for what they are: Death squads.
NDPP[URL=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/task-force-373-secret-afghan... the exciting adventures of Task Force 373[/URL] as they violate international law with impunity.
There has to be some Canadian data in there.
JTF2 specializes in such things. Don't be surprised if they have done their share of death squadding in Afghanistan as well..
This is why Harper set up a panel to determine what PoW Papers were and were not to be released. One of the criteria was that information must not be released that "will harm foreign relations."
The Conservatives are up to their necks in the knowledge that at least some Canadian troops have been involved in JSOC (Joint Spec. Ops. Command)/CIA dirty or "black" operations in Afghanistan and don't want the Canadian public to know about it.
It's important that this information gets around. I watched a great interview with Matthew Hoh and part of what he was saying was the American public's lesser interest in the war. This leaked information is a great opportunity for both us and the American's to judge our leaders on this whole event, but it's important as a populace that we make ourselves aware of this information. It would be a shame for this event to go unnoticed. At 9+ years this involvement should frustrate us and if this information doesn't catalyze that then unlikely anything will.
Spread it around!
This is great - an interview about Wikileaks with [b][i]Daniel Ellsberg[/i][/b]!!!
Leaked Documents Expose Imperialist War in Afghanistan
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/afgh-j27.shtml
"...a turn by US imperialism to attack Pakistan carries immense dangers.."
Wikileaks Report Fictitious, says Pakistan's Ex Spy Chief Hamid Gull
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20297
"Gull however, says that the US itself has orchestrated the latest Wikileaks expose to shift attention away from its own failings in Afghanistan. Speaking in an elevated tone and at times furious, he says he believes the US may now use the expose as a way to force Pakistan's hand on policy in Afghanistan. 'They want to bash Pakistan at this time to come up with this leak..'
Democracy Now has absolutely a TRUCKLOAD of information about this revelation.
[url=www.chris-floyd.com]Chris Floyd's take [/url]on the docs:
Where then are the "revelations"? Anyone who has regularly read, well, the New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel could not remotely be surprised by any of the facts (as opposed to the oceans of spin and supposition) buried in this mountain of leakage. These are not the Pentagon Papers or the Downing Street Memos; they do almost nothing to alter the public image of the war, and tell almost nothing that we don't already know.In fact, the overall effect of the multi-part coverage of the documents is to paint a portrait of plucky, put-upon Americans trying their darnedest to get the job done despite the dastardly dealings and gooberish bumblings of the ungrateful little brown wretches we are trying to save from themselves.
So once again, and for the last time, we ask the question: How does this alter the prevailing conventional wisdom about the war?It doesn't, of course. These media "bombshells" will simply bounce off the hardened shell of American exceptionalism -- which easily countenances the slaughter of civilians and "targeted killings" and "indefinite detention" and any number of other atrocities anyway. In fact, I predict the chief "takeaway" from the story will be this:
American forces are doing their best to help the poor Afghans, but the ungrateful natives are too weak and corrupt to be trusted, while America's good intentions are also being thwarted by evil outsiders.
Getting this message out via "critical" stories in "liberal" publications is much more effective than dishing up another serving of patriotic hokum on Fox News or at a presidential press conference. In fact, it is so much more effective that one almost begins to wonder about the ultimate provenance of the leaks.
I tend to agree with Floyd's take. I didn't find anything surprising in those leaked documents.
What may be surprising is the specifics. There's a difference between a headline that reads "Afghan civilians were mistakenly injured by Nato forces at a check point" and "Nato forces machine gunned a bus load of Afghan children."
I think that most important aspect of this story is the fact that it is possible to breach the US security aparatus and undermine its integrity so. Indeed, a major aspect of the power of the National Security State is the myth of its impervious and omniscient nature, which makes it seem impossible to defeat. As Assange pointed out, the release of the Collateral Murder video, encouraged other whistle blowers to come forward, and so in total my view is that it is more the act itself, rather than the information uncovered that is blowing the lid of security apparatus.
Specifics of this information may also raise a number of questions about previously reported incidents, and more fully flesh out previously reported incident, which may unravel the whole puzzle further, for example:
Nothing in the documents made public on Sunday offers as vivid a miniature of the Afghan war so far - from hope to heartbreak - as the field reports from one lonely base: Combat Outpost Keating.
The sum total of the impact has yet to be determined. Also, of note is the fact that Wikileaks only released 71,000 of the 91,000 documents, after a fairly quick review of the material, and they promise to release another 15,000 that appear to be more sensitive, as they are saying they need to be vetted for information that may cause harm to innocents.
Assange says they have only read 2000 of the reports, and released them by categories, which they deemed would be unlikely to harm "innocents". They say they are going to go over the rest and redact them.
One has to ask, if it is the case that there is no damaging information here as the Whitehouse suggests, and that everything is "known", why is it not the case that such reports are not regularly released?
My guess is that they don't have those. However, I think these reports may encourage someone to produce that information so that the manner in which the final reports were written can be assessed.
Initial reports also usually include outright lies, and as such give us excelent material from which to determine if and when the lower levels of command were covering up abuse. For example, there are a few cases here where the casualty ratios simply are not credible water. 90% "insurgent" (?) kills, hardly any wounded and few detainees indicate serious cause for concern. The initial reports, even if inaccurate, give us good clues into what occurred. They are also the basis of the final report in all cases.
This level or reporting is also the least likely to be the result of well developed cover ups, and will naturally reveal inconsistencies in basic story.
We know for a fact that numerous reports from investigations by the upper echelons of the US command turned out to be patently false, when investigated by outside sources.
There are various interviews on the web with Assange where he explains that why they are holding onto these other reports. He has stated that they only properly vetted 2000 of the reports they have released already, and did so because they were in a category that would be unlikely to impugn the safety of any innocent persons mentioned in the reports.
The others are of a different category. I supposed they are more complex "intelligence reports" involving civilian Afghan nationals.
Because Assange said so. So far, Assange has been completely accurate about all the information that he has disseminated. On what grounds can you assert otherwise? Has he ever falsely represented the material he has published?
As for accuracy, Assange himself agrees with you that is it likely that the information in the reports is not accurate. On this you and he agree. However, he does say these are what they are, the intitial contact reports from front line personnel on the field. He in no way guaranteed that they were accurate. In interview he stressed the point that there was considerable prima facie reason to believe they were inaccurate, several times.
All the Youtube versions of the press conference are gone: http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&tbs=vid%3A1&q=assange+July+26th+conference&a...
You can find it here, however: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/8526049 and here http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/the-war-logs/?ref=world
I have not seen the videos of what Mr. Assange has said, only what MSN has been poorly reporting in written format. I can not say if he has not falsely represented the material he has published, I do not know enough about him or press releases.
Because the U.S. government and Pentagon are legally after Mr. Assange's ass, Mr. Assange is very mindful of his legal ease when it comes to releasing and discussing the information that has been leaked to wikileaks.
My thoughts on the subject are, releasing the files in small groups does nothing. As I mentioned some of the reports are initial incident reports of various types, these reports are from soldiers under fire, they may not understand everything going on around them as they made the report.
They should release all the reports at once so the reader can understand the complete story from start to finish.
The amount of confusion on the battlefield can be very large, and complex.
The best source of information are logs of radio comms. They occur in 'real time' and data written down in logs cannot be removed or altered. If later information differs or contradicts the earlier information, the later information is also recorded. Readers can see what the original info/intel was and how that intel later changed, grew, developed or transformed over time.
Remember the two times Harper prorogued parliament?
You propably do, but the media has forgotten.
Same thing will happen with these leaked papers.
Remember the two times Harper prorogued parliament?
You propably do, but the media has forgotten.
Same thing will happen with these leaked papers.
I don't think so.
Reason:
The prorogues were limited in time and duration.
As long as the Afghan war continues, so too will it continue to be of long term interest to the media.
The longer the war continues and the more information comes out that shows how badly we are doing and how much our government, military and mainstream media are lying to us, the greater the opportunity/likelihood for antiwar sentiment to grow.
[url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20309]WikiLeaks Data Seem to Show Pakistan Helped Attack American Troops[/url]
Documents Accuse ISI, Pakistan's Intelligence Service, Of Aiding Insurgency; Senior ISI Official Dismisses Leaks
The documents detail specific allegations against the ISI: that it sent sent 1,000 motorbikes an insurgent group in Pakistan to launch suicide attacks in Afghanistan; that it launched plans to attack Indian facilities and workers in Afghanistan; that it worked with members of al Qaeda to map out attacks; and that it helped organize Taliban attacks in eastern Afghanistan, where some of the single worst attacks on American troops occurred.
Sounds like they need another US-backed military dictatorship in Pakistan. Or did it ever come to an end?
New Leaks Flood Canada with old Afghan Fears - Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/840415--new-lea...
"earlier this year a source familiar with JTF2 told the Star the unit works side by side with American counterparts to "pick up or pick off" high value Taliban..
Given the new Canadian Army Chief, Peter Devlin was Deputy Commanding General of the US Army Third Corps 'The Hammer', Canada is more than used to our junior partner role in these dirty US war crimes. Devlin was in Afghanistan and Iraq - remember Iraq? That war we supposedly didn't fight in..?
http://www.rabble.ca/comment/1137604/US-Command-Group-Third
Travers is right about the implications of the wikileaks release on the Detainee document file as well I think.
Wikileaks, Resistance, Genuine Heroes and Breaking the Goddamned Rules
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikileaks-resistance-genuin...
"For me, the most critical questions concern the nature of the personal source of resistance to power, what I sometimes refer to as 'the power of "NO"."
Frmrsldr:
I"ll let you be the hopeful one.
There alread exist a mountain of evidence against this war. We are still in it though.
Why? Because Western Capitalism needs to be in it. So it doesn't matter what leaks are leaked.
The media will drop this story before to long.
Let me add. These leaks must continue. Not because I have hope in the Government changing, but because the working class needs to understand that it is under constant attack from the bourgeoisie and the rest of the Capitalists Class.
These documents should be used to educate the working class, by the working class.
There needs to be a working class organization that will look into these reports and then use the findings to change grade school and high school curriculum.
Monuments need to be errected by the working class to honour our own. Not to be used by the Bourgeoisie and the state to propagate their Capitalist agenda.
War kills....the working class.
Let me add. These leaks must continue. Not because I have hope in the Government changing, but because the working class needs to understand that it is under constant attack from the bourgeoisie and the rest of the Capitalists Class.
These documents should be used to educate the working class, by the working class.
There needs to be a working class organization that will look into these reports and then use the findings to change grade school and high school curriculum.
Monuments need to be errected by the working class to honour our own. Not to be used by the Bourgeoisie and the state to propagate their Capitalist agenda.
War kills....the working class.
Yeah trippie, now you're getting into it!
They should release all the reports, let the public decide.
I completely agree ... in theory ... BUT ...
The one incontrovertible FACT that we know as being confirmed by these leaks, is that no information "the military" openly provides can seriously be taken at face value. If "The military" where a person, you would have to describe them as a pathological fucking liar ... a pathological fucking liar with big fucking weapons.
The military releasing the reports would automatically, and justifiably, make them of questionable value in determining actual "fact".
They should release all the reports, let the public decide.
I completely agree ... in theory ... BUT ...
The one incontrovertible FACT that we know as being confirmed by these leaks, is that no information "the military" openly provides can seriously be taken at face value. If "The military" where a person, you would have to describe them as a pathological fucking liar ... a pathological fucking liar with big fucking weapons.
The military releasing the reports would automatically, and justifiably, make them of questionable value in determining actual "fact".
I think he meant Wikileaks should release all the reports... but then, if you think about it, from what you said if you don't trust the people (coalition/US military personnel) who wrote the reports as being honest in the first place then what good are they anyways? How can you use them as evidence when even Wilileaks says they don't know who sent or had them and there's no way to prove what's posted on the internet is what was written on the ground (by a guy you claim is a liar)... It's a conundrum if you really think about it.
They should release all the reports, let the public decide.
I completely agree ... in theory ... BUT ...
The one incontrovertible FACT that we know as being confirmed by these leaks, is that no information "the military" openly provides can seriously be taken at face value. If "The military" where a person, you would have to describe them as a pathological fucking liar ... a pathological fucking liar with big fucking weapons.
The military releasing the reports would automatically, and justifiably, make them of questionable value in determining actual "fact".
I think he meant Wikileaks should release all the reports... but then, if you think about it, from what you said if you don't trust the people (coalition/US military personnel) who wrote the reports as being honest in the first place then what good are they anyways? How can you use them as evidence when even Wilileaks says they don't know who sent or had them and there's no way to prove what's posted on the internet is what was written on the ground (by a guy you claim is a liar)... It's a conundrum if you really think about it.
The beauty with this wikileak is that the military communications were done "privately" ("What goes on in the field, stays in the field") without any expectation that it would go public.
The tragedy is that any subsequent military wikileaks are going to be self censored.
Right now the military, the DoD and the Pentagon are doing investigations to try and discover who the leaker(s) were. All military personnel are recieving briefings on the new communications and clearance policies to try and stop/reduce the potential harm of any future leaks.
The next leaks are going to be more rare and most likely of a poorer quality/use value.
I think he meant Wikileaks should release all the reports... but then, if you think about it, from what you said if you don't trust the people (coalition/US military personnel) who wrote the reports as being honest in the first place then what good are they anyways? How can you use them as evidence when even Wilileaks says they don't know who sent or had them and there's no way to prove what's posted on the internet is what was written on the ground (by a guy you claim is a liar)... It's a conundrum if you really think about it.
I take your point about what webgear meant, and his response confirms that he was talking about wikileaks ... and I do agree that it would be best to release all the leaks.
Sticking with my point though, I think that the military will continue to produce real and more or less accurate internal reports, as long as they are understood to be internal ... if we start making it understood that any report they create will eventually (in the short to medium term) be released to the public, then that will just drive the accurate and truthful reports further "underground".
The fact remains that these leaks, assuming they are accurate, and there's no reason to believe they aren't, still proves that the military are liars ... and any "facts" presented by the military must be treated as the words or a liar ... doesn't matter how far underground they push the truth, as long as we completely understand, remember, and seriously consider that what they are telling us is more likely a lie than truth.
Reports and leaks will come and go ... the lies from the military are a constant, and is a much more important "re-revelation" than any one specific "fact" that the wikileaks might expose.
Yes you can, and I certainly believe that all organizations to varying degrees lie to us, but there are many people that "don't say that", and hold organizations, especially the military, in far higher regard than I, and need to be shown their trust is misplaced.
There's also a matter of degree. In this case our "liars" are by far the most violently powerful of any other known organization, with the most experience in how to kill and destroy, and higher level of willingness than average to use their powers.
And of course, while NGOs may lie to us, it's the GOs that we have the most direct control over ... they are OUR organizations, and we need to take ownership responsibility back from the "secret keepers".
When governments lie and hide their activities from the public - even authoritarian regimes - this develops resentment, rumors that grow to be worse than what is actually happening and an angry demand to make government intel open and available to the public. Refusal to do so, in an authoritarian society, often results in a bloody revolution, coup or civil war.
Because of national security, practical military necessity and protecting the troops in theater, etc., few societies have the same standard and demand for openness from the military.
That is why the military are often the biggest liars.
In a democratic society that is not run by a military junta, the civic authorities must remember that they are the ones who are ultimately in charge, not the military.
They should keep in mind the words of Thomas Jefferson: "Do not fear 'experts'." In time of war, for the civic authority to say that the country and its government are identicle to the military, is not a form of patriotism, but is a case of the government shirking its responsibilities.
Revelations, Resistance, Genuine Heroes and Breaking the Goddamned Rules
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/07/wikileaks-resistance-genuin...
"I have sometimes described America as an 'obedience culture'..'
and Canadians surely more so..
According to this the NY Times knew the documents were going to be leaked.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/new-york-times-cover
There's also a video floating around claiming that Wikileaks contacted the Obama Administration before the documents were posted but got no response. If I can remember where I saw it I'll post the link.
abnormal, the Weekly Standard is utter neocon trash.
Although there are a couple of "facts" in that squib, they have been yanked out of their actual history and recast in an absurdly sensationalist context.
By now, everyone should know that three news organizations, the Guardian, Der Spiegel, and the NYT, worked to prepare a small proportion of the leaked documents for popular publication. That is no revelation.
Assange has also said in dozens of interviews that WikiLeaks and the three news organizations agreed that the NYT should approach the White House on behalf of all four in advance and give them a chance to respond. That produced no benefits for the group of four, although it seems likely that the NYT itself played some games with the WH for its own benefit. So that's no revelation either.
All that Standard article shows is that its editors are running on the assumption that their readers, mostly American, are too ill-informed and stupid to keep up with any news that doesn't come to them from American tabloids. Note that they don't mention the Guardian or Der Spiegel, both of them better newspapers than the NYT, although few xenophobic right-wing readers of the Standard are ever going to believe that.
The American Left and the Wikileaks Documents
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/jul2010/wiki-j31.shtml
"American liberalism and the "left" respond as an element of the establishment.."
skadl, simply stating that XYZ is a rag doesn't necessarily negate the statements they make. Even trash publications get facts right surprisingly often. Remember it was the Enquirer that nailed Edwards - people originally pooh poohed that story because of its source.
Well, yeah, sure, except they've got a non-story there that they are patently obviously trying to pump into a story.
It's not true that the NYT knew the docs were going to be "leaked" in the first place -- it's true they knew they were going to be published because they were one of the four publishers doing the publishing. That's not news, although the Standard tries to make it sound that way.
And both the NYT and WikiLeaks have been public for a week about the collective approach to the WH made through the NYT. So that's not news either.
What a shame Margolis is being let go but understandable.
Pakistan no obedient ally
WikiLeaks data shows how volatile nation is forced to act against own self interests
Release of 92,000 U.S. military field reports from Afghanistan by WikiLeaks has revealed the war's ugly underbelly and embarrassed the hell out of Washington and its NATO allies, including Canada.
They have fired back, claiming release of these old reports from 2004-2009, endangers "our boys."
Nonsense. The only thing the truth endangers are the politicians who have hung their hats on the Afghan War and some paid informers.
The facts are shocking: Wide-scale killing of civilians by U.S. and NATO forces; torture of prisoners handed over to the Communist-dominated Afghan secret police; death squads; endemic corruption and theft; double-dealing and demoralization of western occupation forces facing ever fiercer Taliban resistance.
I've been reporting on the lies and propaganda about the Afghan war since 2001.
The most interesting part of Wikigate was Pakistan's supposedly duplicitous behaviour in aiding the U.S.-led war while maintaining secret links with the Taliban and its allies.
The U.S. government and media have been blasting Pakistan while downplaying the atrocities - and, charges WikiLeaks, "war crimes" - committed by western forces.
Here's the bottom line on Pakistan's "duplicity."
After 9/11, the U.S. threatened to "bomb Pakistan back to the Stone Age" unless it turned against the Taliban, a religious, anti-Communist movement, and opened Pakistan to U.S. military forces and intelligence operations.
This was told to me by a former head of ISI, Pakistan's intelligence service whose directors I have known since 1985.
Former Pakistani president Pervez Musharraf says his nation was forced to reluctantly give in to intense U.S. pressure and abandon the Taliban, which served as Pakistan's proxy army in Afghanistan battling the still active Afghan Communist Party - Tajik Northern Alliance, also backed by Russia and Iran. Intensifying efforts by India to extend its influence into Afghanistan deeply worry Pakistan.
Pakistan was forced by the U.S. to act against its own vital strategic interests. Southern Afghanistan has long been Pakistan's sphere of influence.
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2010/07/30/14...
So, hows the upraor over these documents going? The press all over it? Governments gonna fall? The war gonna end any time soon?
So, hows the upraor over these documents going? The press all over it? Governments gonna fall? The war gonna end any time soon?
Well, don't know how big a deal you make of this, but the Dutch government has made good on its promise: Today marks the official start of Dutch soldiers disengaging from Afghanistan.
The current Dutch government is the result of the previous government falling over the Afghan war.
US Military Fears Consequences of Leaks
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=137085§ionid=3510203
"Top US military officials are deeply critical of the public dissemination of a trove of documents containing classified information about the Afghan war by WikiLeaks.."
Back in US, Bradley Manning 'On Suicide Watch'
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/07/30/back-in-us-bradley-manning-on-suicide...
Revealing Moments, Obama, WikiLeaks, the 'Good War' Myth and Silly Liberal Faith in the Emperor
http://www.zcommunications.org/revealing-moments-by-paul-street
"it is hardly surprising that Obama as president is going after an American Iraq war crime whistleblower not American war crimes in Iraq.."
On Wikileaks III: 'We'd like his cooperation' by Arthur Silber
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2010/08/on-wikileaks-iii-wed-like-h...
"I find the left's critique more incoherent and occasionally more offensive than those put forth by the right. The longer I consider the left's critique the worse it gets in my view..
I've already urged people to donate to Manning's defense fund, and I do so again. If I can manage to scrape up $35 which I did a short while agao - then many of you can too. I ernestly implore you to do so in the strongest possible terms. The donation might end up making a significant difference.."
Blood on Whose Hands in Afghanistan?
http://wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/pers-a02.shtml
"Assange and his sources must be cleared of all charges related to the leaks and indictments drawn up against the war criminals in Washtington. [and Ottawa!]
I don't mean to influence anyone else of good intention by saying this, but I decided m'self that if I had a bit of money to send, I would send it directly to WikiLeaks (you can do that from their site).
I'm still not sure myself about Manning. I know that WikiLeaks is asking people to support him at the site his family have set up, and they're doing what they can at the moment to find out about his situation, but then they kind of have to do/say those things. It's entirely possible they honestly don't know who he is; they are certainly being cautious if supportive at the same time. It's also entirely possible that this is a set-up to snare Assange/WL, just what the DoD speculated on two years ago as the best way to undermine them. Lamo is a highly suspect source; Manning's correspondence with him has not been verified; and there is a huge discrepancy in the numbers of files he and WL are talking about.
So anyway, I figure that if it turns out that Manning really does need expensive defence, WL will contribute to that, so better I contribute to WL itself directly now. Just a guess, but I'm not the only one making it.
Afghanistan: The War Logs: What Did We Learn?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/02/afghan-war-logs-wikileaks
"Did we serve as agents for WikiLeaks, a group called 'information vandals'? No we didn't. What actually happened was that my Guardian colleague Nick Davies, in an inspired moment, tracked down nomadic WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, in Brussels about a month ago. In six hours of intensive talks, Davis established 3 things that could never have happened before the internet age..."
So, hows the upraor over these documents going? The press all over it? Governments gonna fall? The war gonna end any time soon?
There seems to be more of an uproar over who done it than what's in it here in the states...
Julian Assange Responds
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/3/julian_assange_responds_to_increasi...
..."increasing US attacks on WikiLeaks"
Great interview that -- very strong pushback from Assange. Migosh but the man is smart. He must be driving the dorks in Warshington bananas.