Slashdot Mirror
DoD Study Contradicts Charges Against WikiLeaks
Voline writes "Last Summer, after WikiLeaks released 90,000 leaked internal US military documents in their Afghan War Log, Pentagon officials went on a media offensive against WikiLeaks, accusing it of having the 'blood on Its hands' of American soldiers and Afghan collaborators who are named in the documents. The charge has echoed through the mainstream media (and Internet comment threads) ever since. Now, CNN is reporting that after a thorough Pentagon review, 'WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded.' And, according to an unnamed NATO official, 'there has been no indication' that any Afghans who have collaborated with the NATO occupation have been harmed as a result of the leaks. Will the Pentagon's contradiction of the charges against WikiLeaks get as much play in the media as those original accusations did?"
Will the Pentagon's contradiction of the charges against WikiLeaks get as much play in the media as those original accusations did?
Thats not how FUD & propaganda work.
Seriously, who cares? Assange has an agenda, and so do we. If we can point out Wikileaks' bias and colr them as they try to do to us, than all the better.
Will the Pentagon's contradiction of the charges against WikiLeaks get as much play in the media as those original accusations did?"
No.
Rational discourse doesn't sell.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
to note seemingly half of ./ comments were dead set against Wikileaks for exactly this reason...
It'll barely get mentioned. Every smear against wikileaks gets maximum exposure but retractions are barely heard.
Everything the government says is a lie, especially if it involves Wikileaks, therefore I must conclude that this is a lie as well. I'm sure it is all part of a master plan to destroy Wikileaks.
A bit off topic but... anyone knows if there is a way to download all wikileaks documents? I would really like to save that locally
What this obviously means is that no one has been killed *yet*! There will yet be deferred blood on guilty hands!
It's about getting people with the first impression that hits them in their emotional, not rational center.
Once you control somebody's emotions, they'll change their thinking to justify it.
Only if their donations account is reopened.
What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
Let us get the word out since the media sure as heck won't.
Tired of my customary (Score:1)
Then the Pentagon should resign and put Wikileaks in charge of both wars. Surely the Pentagon has to have more blood on their hands just as a matter of pride. I mean, it's what they do, no?
People wouldn't change their behaviour even if X was different. They're just using X as an easy rationalisation for their existing bias.
...Nothing more to see here. Move along...
Evil person gives sacred information to our enemies. Holy troops threatened! Tune in at 11.
vs
Some guy posts some stuff and people don't die.
Which do you think will get more eyes and sell more ads?
the financial and legal measures taken against him/them.
Oh! Gee, sorry about the muck you got drug through........
Rick B.
Saying something doesn't disclose sensitive intelligence sources or methods doesn't mean no harm was done. Sort things into two piles: things that harm the troops or the US position, and things that harm the ability to collect intelligence. This statement says it had no impact on collecting intelligence. It doesn't say no harm was done to troop or the US position.
I'm a military veteran and I may have authored some of the documents that were leaked. But pretty much all of the information was already publicly available in some form or another. We all knew Pakistan was playing a double game. We all knew that the CIA was operating secret drones along the boarder - who else could it be, the Mongolians? If you drop a bomb on somebody, you can keep it secret from the press, but everybody on the ground will know about it. It just takes a little investigative journalism to get at the truth. The main problem the Pentagon has is one of credibility. The fact that a low level intelligence clerk could smuggle out many GBs of classified documents while lip syncing to Lady Gaga makes the military and the entire chain of command look like a bunch of incompetent boobs. It just goes to show that WallMart has better protection against shoplifters than the military has against internal leaks. So the initial reaction is one of self-preservation. "If you leak this, people will die." Which is another way of saying, we royally screwed up and we're placing the blame on you because we don't want to be the ones getting busted over this. I am no longer in the military, so I can speak my mind on this. I still think Julian Assange is an idiot, but that's another topic.
Pentagon is preparing to monitor the coming release with 120 reviewers. Therefore, it appears Pentagon isn't yet convinced about the non-harmful nature of Wikileaks.
I somehow doubt it. They make great words about being on the ''right'' side and then lie through their teeth when it suits them.
that was a camera tripod watch it more carefully.
Don't forget the motto of our authorities: Never let a good crisis go to waste. Just like a good sniper, they wait for loud distracting periphery to take shots.
too bad they can't un-torture Brad Manning.
he's being held in Kuwait. hasn't been seen in months. do you think he is having a nice time there?
the name "Linux", or problems with the current intellectual property regime, or unicorns getting media coverage. It's also as likely as me teleporting to the other side of the world due to the uncertainty principle and quantum mechanics.
As opposed to the US Military who is ultimately responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians during the genocide that followed our toppling of the Iraqi government?
I know you're trolling, but give me a break, the DoD is the last organization that should be commenting on another organization's bloody hands.
It depends on who you are. George Bush was extremely irresponsible, yet he walked away totally free.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
If no one got hurt because the actions taken were designed to get no one hurt, I'd say that that is the definition of acting responsibly.
Or are you the kind of person that likes to tell people what to do just because you think you know everything?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
That means precisely zip. All it means is that they're expecting further leaks and are preparing for it. It also means that they realize that there's more material that could be leaked.
Beyond that it really doesn't mean anything at all.
Wikileaks has yet to admit that the troops in Afghanistan are fighting a decent war.
Wikileaks hasn't claimed any of the conspiracy nut theories you refer to. They just release intel. Nor do they have to admit to anything for this reason: anyone can look at the intel and make up their minds themselves about how well the 'war' is going.
As for own sad delusion about "news crew teaming up with insurgent RPG team" (for which even the military themselves dont believe in)...
" People won't change their thinking even if X turns out to be different. Because they're just using X as an easy rationalisation for their existing bias." - Khasim (1285)
www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
Holy shit, I just realized that more than one party can be guilty of something and more than one party can be held accountable for their actions at a time! When are you going to realize that?
This is nothing new. This happens dozens (hundreds?) of times a year. A story surfaces, whether it was a mistake or actual disinformation, and is exploited by those stand to gain from spreading. It's beaten to death those first couple of weeks, repeated to the point that people believe it as fact. Then once it's been forgotten details come to light that completely refute the original claims or sometimes simply strips the blatant sensationalism of the original reporting. The correction is always released quietly and easily missed. Of course, by that point the damage is done and there's no going back.
I see evidence of this all the time. And of course the average joe, who doesn't have the time or inclination to follow up on every shred of news, and too often doesn't want to believe something that violates his worldview, becomes an unwitting pawn continuing to spread falsehoods. Hell, I've seen it happen on Slashdot many times.
Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot that can be done about it beyond calling these people out I guess.
why not fake an information leak, make the enemy (in this case Al Qaeda & the Taliban) think some important information was leaked regarding informants or whatever, and when the enemy goes to seek retribution they fall in to a trap and BOOM! bye bye enemy combatants. cant say it would work 100% of the time but even if it worked 30% to 50% it would help some.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Just put your American or Anti-American perspective aside for a moment, and think about it as if *your* country were in a civil war. In a civil war, you cannot opt out, because at least one side goes by "if you are not with us, you are against us". You do not get to choose whether to be a part of it or not - this is what a civil war is about, has always been about. You can only choose which side you are on.
Now that the US and NATO interfered in the war, I would be on the side they support, and I would do my bit to support it, too. I'd be very unhappy if, for whatever lofty reason, some Westerner published my name and the names of other sympathizers. Maybe the Taliban knew about us already, maybe not, but now they certainly do. In every country after a civil war was lost, the losing side was punished, and any documents it left behind were used to target the punishment. So it goes.
Of course, whatever happens to me would not be a big deal to the US national security either way, and there is absolutely nothing Pentagon-level sensitive about me either. Basically, no one outside cares about the individual natives too much.
But, to answer your question:
Will the Pentagon's contradiction of the charges against WikiLeaks get as much play in the media as those original accusations did?
The answer is the same answer for the question "Does publicizing the contradiction of the charges INCREASE the levels of fear and/or paranoia amongst the general population?"
Seriously folks, the only terrorists are The Government, The Department of Homeland Security (theater) and The Media. All of whom have a blatantly obvious interest in Keeping The Fear Alive.
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
,,,I want the option to write off any contribution I make to Wikileaks to be tax deductable.
My rational is quite simple and direct. For the people, by the people....... So damn't it... I want to know what I'm paying for as its bad enough that I don't have a choice what the taxes I pay are used for.
As to the idea of harm being done, the fact of teh matter is of course there is harm being done by the massive waring mindset budgets of which the funds could most certainly be better spend on removing reasons for war, instead of creating reasons.
George Bush didn't away free; he and his friends walked away richer.
I'll be the first to admit that I was misinformed about the actual damage caused by wikileaks' first batch of leaked Afghanistan documents, and now that I know the truth it does change my opinion somewhat.
I was initially supportive of wikileaks, as I am of responsible whistle blower groups in general. When the government and Fox news attacked wikileaks, it didn't phase me a bit - that was expected, and provided zero credible information. However, when Amnesty International and others rights groups came out and criticized wikileaks for not doing a good job protecting Afghan informants, that caught my attention. Those are groups that I trust to put the well being of the Afghans above politics, and I assumed that they had done their homework. That was followed by other wikileaks members publicly distancing themselves from Assange because they felt he was not doing enough to redact the documents before publishing them.
Even if I wasn't working or going to school I wouldn't have had time to personally review 700,000 pages of documents for myself. We are all dependent on others to provide information to us, and have to be careful who we trust. Given these independent sources it seemed reasonable to me to conclude that Assange wasn't being responsible in disclosing the documents the way he did. Now that report has been leaked, however, I am more likely to give him the benefit of the doubt that he will do the right thing with the next batch of documents.
But go ahead and assume that everyone who disagrees with you is a "patriotic tool" who only gets their news from FOX. Calling people names is a great way to change people's mind and strengthen support for your cause.
OK then, where did you obtain this mystical viewpoint into reality that tells you far more than is being reported? That's right - you made this bullshit up!
Newsflash: The suspected pedophile rapist Assange's terrorist spy network has once again come under the scrutiny of our glorious leaders. While no direct threats were reported, there remains a high level of suspicion about this egotistaical selfish showoff who's only agenda is to hate our freedom. More at 11.
Firstly, it was hardly genocide as commonly defined. Not every civil or even ethnic war is genocide.
Secondly, if by "genocide" you mean "killing", then killing was going on just fine under Saddam's regime, which you for some reason prefer calling "Iraqi government". BTW, the technical term for a government of unlimited power by a single person and his immediate family is "tyranny".
Thirdly, it would help to enumerate the parties responsible for the actual killing of civilians "during the genocide that followed". The decision to start the killing was theirs and theirs alone, and the US military had no part in it. However,
the US military did its best to contain it.
It may be hard for a Westerner to realize that *no* action or inaction can prevent bloody civil wars after a tyranny's end, because the murderous scores that pile up are going to be settled no matter what the West thinks about them and how hard Westerners try to "imagine peace". The question is only the scope of the ensuing violence. After the supposedly bloodless end of the Cold War, and the end of the so-called "socialist" regimes (USSR, Yugoslavia) ethnic or civil strife erupted, and several bloody wars were fought both in Europe and in Central Asia (the wars in Kosovo, Croatia, and Bosnia; Moldova vs Transdnistria; Abhazia vs Georgia; Armenia vs Azerbaijan; civil war in Tadjikistan, etc.)
The West is hardly responsible for the root causes and the conduct of these wars? Same with Iraq and Afghanistan, and even Yugoslavia - the US and NATO merely helped one of the already existing forces.
If this training had been happening in Waziristan, would you still support going to war over failure of extradition?
We destroyed Afghanistan to make us feel better about 9/11, plain and simple. Afghanistan was an easy scapegoat for our own intelligence failures and bullshit foreign policy that contributed to 9/11 in the first place. It's a country that hasn't had a strong central government in decades, because every time one forms, a foreign power invades and dismantles it.
That's why Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon. Pakistan is home to Al Qaeda and the Taliban as well, but so far no American government has been dumb enough to consider invading a nuclear power that borders two other nuclear powers. North Korea's government is batshit insane but we don't invade because they have nukes, as well as their proximity to China. Pakistan's government is enormously corrupt and has close ties with terrorist organizations, but we don't invade because they have a nuke. Now, on two of Iran's borders, America has unilaterally invaded simply because we could without fear of repercussions. If you were an Iranian, what would you rather have? Nukes or a foreign army occupying your homeland?
If American planners are dumb enough to pursue terrorist organizations into third world nations that barely have electricity or running water every time there's a successful terror attack, then the War of the Flea tactic will destroy our economy within two decades. We're already spending one trillion a year on warfare and weapons research. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including interest, will cost well over two trillion dollars according to the CBO by 2014.
If we're serious about ending the use of terrorism as a military tactic, the first thing we should do is stop using terrorism as a military tactic. Stop threatening sovereign nations with invasion if they don't capitulate to our demands. Use international law to address international issues through peaceful and diplomatic means as outlined in the UN charter we signed. Stop giving money and weapons to Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia until they all sit down and settle their diplomatic relations. That will involve denying all aid to Israel until they formally agree to stop colonizing Palestinian land with settlements, and sign a treaty to accept the 1967 borders in exchange for full diplomatic relations with the Arab nations. Then we should push Israel and India and Pakistan to sign the NPT and open themselves up to international inspections.
Anything else is just pissing in the wind.
a bunch of state sponsored criminals.
You just have to love them and I really mean have to.
Man, I thought people would actually go look up the video instead of modding me down and disagreeing with me. Here's the link:http://winteryknight.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/investigation-shows-rpgs-and-rpg-rounds-found-at-collateral-murder-site/
You'll see that RPGs were discovered at the site and one is visible on the footage. The irony is slashdotters are not better at "camera or RPG?" than the pilots who they condemn.
Don't you worry about X. You let me worry about X!
New mod option wanted: -1 DrunkenRambling
The 100k figure is also part of the standard press, government rubbish. The only independent peer-reviewd scientific survey is the Lancet survey conducted in 2006 its findings are here: http://brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lancet111006.pdf
Lets not forget the millions of refugees displaced internally and externally.
Or the ongoing horrors in Fallujah: http://www.medialens.org/alerts/10/100907_beyond_hiroshima_the.php
Anything that helps us realize the true horror of wars committed on our behalf is a good thing.
Also, the actual number of dead civilians is 100k I believe, not half a million. Note also that this number includes all civilians who died as a consequence of the war regardless of who directly killed them. All these 100k civilians were not shot/bombed by US troops, they may have been killed by Talibans. I'm not sure if this number includes people who died as an indirect consequence of the war, for example people who died of illness/hunger because the war may have made medication/food unavailable. If not, then the total number of civilian war casualties is higher and may in fact reach half a million.
It doesn't include indirect deaths from illness or hunger:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
It is about 100k "documented civilian deaths from violence".
As far as I am concerned, mistaking the journalists for combatants was a reasonable (if unfortunate) mistake. However, attacking the men that tried to pick up the wounded/dead journalists was not reasonable, it was a war crime. The Geneva Conventions are very specific that giving medical aid to an (enemy) combatant does not make one a combatant and thus a valid target. Note that the Apache aircrew never mentioned seeing weapons; they obviously thought that the mere act of picking up a wounded "combatant" made one a valid target, which is false. Perhaps the U.S. military needs to devote more time to explaining the Geneva Conventions to its soldiers.
OK then, where did you obtain this mystical viewpoint into reality that tells you far more than is being reported?
Magic Eight Ball, duh.
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
All these people bitching about lies and propoganda from the government and MSM are whole heartidly believing a story on CNN of a Pentagon statement.