Obama Wants Allies To Go After WikiLeaks

krou writes "Coming on the back of human rights groups criticizing WikiLeaks, American officials are saying that the Obama administration is pressuring allies such as Australia, Britain, and Germany to open criminal investigations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and to try limit his ability to travel. 'It's not just our troops that are put in jeopardy by this leaking. It's UK troops, it's German troops, it's Australian troops — all of the NATO troops and foreign forces working together in Afghanistan,' said one American diplomatic official, who added that other governments should 'review whether the actions of WikiLeaks could constitute crimes under their own national-security laws.'"

Comments

Stenographic reporting of anonymous sources

[CedarPlank]

I'll do the Glenn Greenwald thing and point out the pathetic "stenographic reporting". When you anonymously quote a political body supporting itself as news, you are a tool of that political body. Here are the sources cited in the article:

American officials say
Officials tell The Daily Beast
American officials confirmed last month
Now, the officials say,
an American diplomatic official
a Defense Department official marveled.
American officials say.
An American military official tells The Daily Beast

What Crime?

[profplump]

For the sake of argument, let's assume that releasing these documents was morally and/or pragmatically wrong/harmful. I'm not entirely convinced of that, but I'll cede the point for this discussion.

What actual *crime* was committed in releasing these documents, that would justify a criminal investigation, limited travel, and general harassment by the government? Certainly the person with original access to the documents committed a crime in releasing them to unauthorized persons, but once that happened, what further crimes have occurred that would justify governmental interference?

Names of Afghan civilians

[oreaq]

From TFA: "The initial document dump by WikiLeaks last month is reported to have disclosed the names of hundreds of Afghan civilians who have cooperated with NATO forces". Has anyone checked if this is true? Are the names of Afghan civilians in the disclosed documents?

Re:How does

[Space cowboy]

Well, since you ask, here's some off the top of my head - there are lots more...:

Obama vs Bush:

• Can string a sentence together without making up words or stumbling over words with more than one syllable.
• Has not prematurely announced 'mission accomplished' when the mission is barely started.
• Actually seems to give a shit about health-care for other-than-the-rich.

Obama vs Cheny:

• Thus far at least, he hasn't shot anyone in the face, and then had the victim apologise (!)
• Doesn't, to my knowledge, keep a man-sized safe in his office. Always been curious about the 'man-sized' thing...
• Doesn't support the indefinite holding of suspects without charge in internment camps. One measure of a society is how you treat undesirables, and Guantanamo bay is an indelible stain on the Bush/Cheney years.

Simon.

Re:How does

[bigpat]

As George Bush and Hillary Clinton both so eloquently pointed out "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." and "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. " respectively.

As Orwell put it: "If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other."

The logic is inescapable. When people take sides and start shooting at each other then they are going to start noticing who you line up with. There is no free press in war.

Re:How does

[Duradin]

You can only win a war that doesn't exist in the history books.

War was never declared. There is no clearly defined enemy. There is no victory condition. There is no exit strategy.

Afghanistan is a conflict, not a war. Calling it a war gives it undue merit (and we ourselves haven't lived up to the standards that a 'lawful' war would require).

Re: How does

[Rene S. Hollan]

Are you going to take up arms and march on Washington?

Didn't think so.

But here's a dangerous question for you to ponder (dangerous in the sense that when I asked it in another forum, I was accused of making death threats and being a terrorist):

How many people, armed, and descending on seats of government with the intent to kill treasonous legislators, judges, and executives, after deciding that no other recourse for their grievances was possible would it take for you to rise up and join them?

10? 100? A thousand? A million? A force larger than the standing military forces combined? How many?

Realize that to do this, you (a) have abandoned all hope in justice being available in the present government, and (b) have embraced the notion of dying on your feet for your beliefs instead of living on your knees: the liberty you might secure probably won't be your own. That's a heck of an altruistic stance to take.

Re:How does

[carp3_noct3m]

I have in fact perused the data, and while it is overwhelming, I can assure you that I have yet to run across a single one with a name on it. I would like to know, exactly how many names were released, and examples. This entire thing stinks of craftily made government PR machine (the MMM included), to demonize Wikileaks. When they say it endangers troops, I call the bullshit, as they are simply using the age old tactic of misdirection of the public to focus ire at Wikileaks in order to minimize their fallout. Make no mistake, the real issue here is not Wikileaks, or that the documents were leaked (as I have explained in other posts, they tell those of us aware of the situation anything new, we always knew the war was going badly and that Pakistan is a problem) The issue is that we should not be there in the first place. If I send a squad of men to rush a machinegun next minutes before Arty is supposed to drop, and then someone says "Hey, I have information that this guy is sending guys unnecessarily to their deaths" Who is really endangering troops lives here? It is the entire military chain of command, and the politicians who are a threat to our troops well being! As I posted before, "Bottom line, Iraq and Afghanistan are literally not only unwinnable (barring decades and more of perseverance) but were and are indeed mismanaged, misunderstood, unnecessary, and even morally questionable."

Re: How does

[Rene S. Hollan]

I suggest to you that 51 million Americans, armed with clubs and the odd rifle, descending on each seat of state and federal government on a few hours notice, could overthrow it. Especially with another 50 million ready in the countryside.

Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have proven that conventional military does not do well against guerrilla forces. They have technological might, but not agility.

"War Is a Racket"

[Doc Ruby]

Everyone should read War is a Racket, written by Marine Major General Smedley Butler in the early 1930s:

In War Is A Racket, Butler points to a variety of examples, mostly from World War I, where industrialists whose operations were subsidised by public funding were able to generate substantial profits essentially from mass human suffering.

The work is divided into five chapters:

      1. War is a racket
      2. Who makes the profits?
      3. Who pays the bills?
      4. How to smash this racket!
      5. To hell with war!

It contains this key summary:

        "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

In another often cited quote from the book Butler says:

        "I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

Re:"War Is a Racket"

[AhabTheArab]

An excellent read indeed, wish I had mod points. Smedley Butler is touted as a hero in Marine Corps boot camp. That's not inaccurate - he is a hero. He is one of the most decorated men in US Military history, with two Medals of Honor and a Brevet. What most Marines are not taught in boot camp is this side of him - when he started criticizing the motives behind the wars he was in (Philippines, Boxer Reb., Banana Wars) and was one of the first ones to talk about the Military Industrial Complex. Nor do they mention that he was essentially "in line" to be Commandant of the Marine Corps.. once again, until he started pointing out the collusion between Government and Big Business.

He truly is a forgotten hero.