WikiLeaks Set To Release Unpublished Iraq War Docs

Tootech writes with this snippet from Wired: "A massive cache of previously unpublished classified US military documents from the Iraq War is being readied for publication by WikiLeaks, a new report has confirmed. The documents constitute the 'biggest leak of military intelligence' that has ever occurred, according to Iain Overton, editor of the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, a nonprofit British organization that is working with WikiLeaks on the documents. The documents are expected to be published in several weeks. Overton, who discussed the project with Newsweek, didn't say how many documents were involved or disclose their origin, but they may be among the leaks that an imprisoned Army intelligence analyst claimed to have sent to WikiLeaks earlier this year."

Comments

CIA to Release Video of Assange Kicking Puppies

[elrous0]

"They're really cute puppies too," said a CIA spokesperson. A Swedish prosecutor immediately filed charges of animal cruelty against the Wikileaks founder, then retracted them, then filed them again.

You know what bothers me the most?

[Pojut]

Not the fact that Wikileaks is publishing information like this. Not the possible side effects from "inside information" being released.

No, what bothers me the most is that something like Wikileaks needs to exist at all.

Re:I like the concept, not the implementation

[Anonymous Coward]

It's ugly. No doubt. Really really ugly but in a ugly world can you really play with kid gloves on?

I like that it contributes to the accountability but it frightens me that I believe wikileaks. Is it any worse then believing (insert major news outlet here)?

In a world filled with neverending bullshit, anything different can't be bad though.

What other option?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no other option. You are providing evidence against a powerful wrongdoer. One that holds a special right to employ physical force against you. You cannot play "let's make a deal" with them. They will bury you. The only option is to be aggressive, just as government was aggressive in hiding their wrongdoings in the first place.

I salute those who engage in whistle-blowing and hold the highest respect for them. They are the ones making personal sacrifices to help us all, not the elite at the top of the power pyramid.

Re:I like the concept, not the implementation

[Conspiracy_Of_Doves]

If they were making it all up, the government wouldn't care what they said.

Re:I like the concept, not the implementation

[betterunixthanunix]

I don't really know, perhaps someone can explain better, but I just get this bad feeling the way they are going about this.

Well, here is the situation we have right now: the government labels a document classified, and we are expected to assume that it would be dangerous for anyone without clearance to read the document. After all, we are at war, and if the enemy were to learn about our planned troop movements, it would result in many dead American soldiers.

Great, in theory, and it makes sense -- the military has always needed to keep certain things secret during times of war. Unfortunately, the military also has a habit of classifying documents inappropriately. An old video of an attack that left two reporters dead? Reports about the numbers of casualties? We live in a democracy, and we need to know what is happening in order to make democratic choices. The inappropriate classification of documents is the reason Wikileaks does what it does. The government can only lie about the reasons for classifying documents so long before the people stop trusting the government, and we crossed that line a long time ago. Wikileaks exists to fight back and show people what the government (and other powerful organizations) does not want them to know. Sure, Wikileaks has some responsibility for ensuring that civilians are not harmed in the process, and they try to redact the leaks. They even asked for government help in redacting the leaks. In the end, though, Wikileaks is run by volunteers, and the government is not willing to help them, so yes, some civilians are harmed. That is unfortunate, but it is not Wikileaks' fault -- Wikileaks is not responsible for the war, and Wikileaks is not responsible for the government misclassifying documents to the point of becoming untrustworthy.

Of course

[SmallFurryCreature]

*ENGAGE SARCASM MODE*

When you are blowing the whistle, you got ask permission first. Because I am SURE the pentagon would happily lend a hand and help with releasing video of its soldiers slaughtering unarmed civilians complete with audio track of the soldiers enjoying the slaughter as if it is a game.

*END SARCASM MODE, SWITCH TO QUIET DESPAIR*

The above post is sadly a growing movement of "don't rock the boat" people who just don't want to hear anything that upsets them. If you tell them their house is on fire, they blame you, not the fire. Shoot the messenger, so you never have to hear anything disturbing. Trust the state, keep quiet and all will be well.

Reagan did this well, soothing voice, zero policies zero convictions. No wonder people want him back. No matter that he killed the economy. All is well because he said it was.

If you read the news and your blood doesn't boil every other article, you ain't reading news, you are reading entertainment.

Re:Shatters Confidence of Control

[conspirator57]

Obama promised openness and accountability. He delivered more secrecy and persecution of whistleblowers than Bush. Ergo he deserves what he gets. Maybe with enough popular backlash (and make no mistake: domestic or not wikileaks and thinking Americans' support for it constitutes popular backlash) politicians will start considering *doing* the things they promise in order to get elected.

Here's an alternative view for you: if, for example, rather than hiding pictures of our torture behind claims that releasing them will incite those near our victims, what if we instead had a firm policy of releasing pictures of our wrongdoings, prosecuted those responsible, and had that whole accountability thing? Maybe the fact that we don't have any accountability (because we're tacitly approving heinous activities) is *actually* more damaging to our national security than releasing these sorts of documents. But hey accountability and transparency have never worked before. Nope. The Church Commission was completely wrong about that one. Whoops. There went 20 years where we could've been torturing more than we did.

Re:I like the concept, not the implementation

[betterunixthanunix]

How would that law be enforced? If you cannot read the documents, how do you know whether or not they have been overclassified?

do you live in a hole? citation is easy.

[conspirator57]

read some Glenn Greenwald. Yes, the same Greenwald that excoriated Bush. It's called consistency in pursuit of your beliefs.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2009/10/06/obama

But perhaps you missed the recent decision and its history.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/08/obama/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/09/opinion/09thurs2.html?_r=1&hp

for those who say it wasn't Obama, it was his Justice department, for which he appointed Holder, "champion of civil rights"... except when it matters.

Re:I like the concept, not the implementation

[FriendlyLurker]

Improve accountability? No, all this will do is force the decision-making process further away from the prying eyes of public scrutiny.

How I wish you were wrong - but this weeks major, (incredible, unbelievable, and under-reported) news proves you very very right....