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.
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)
People wouldn't change their behaviour even if X was different. They're just using X as an easy rationalisation for their existing bias.
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.
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.
I somehow doubt it. They make great words about being on the ''right'' side and then lie through their teeth when it suits them.
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/
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.
,,,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.
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.
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.
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.