Slashdot Mirror
UK Asks News Outlets Not To Publish WikiLeaks Bombshell, US Prepares For Fallout
Stoobalou writes "The UK government has issued Defense Advisory Notices to editors of UK news outlets in an attempt to hush up the latest bombshell from whistle-blowing web site WikiLeaks. DA Notices, the last of which was issued in April 2009 after sensitive defense documents were photographed using a telephoto lens in the hand of Assistant Commissioner Bob Quick as he arrived at No 10 Downing Street for a briefing, are requests not to publish, and therefore not legally enforceable."
This news comes alongside a raft of articles detailing the US government's preparations for the release. Officials are warning allies that the documents will be more damaging than previous releases, to the point of potentially damaging diplomatic relations with countries like Turkey. The Vancouver Sun wonders if this will lead to a change in the way diplomats communicate.
Yeah, your version is gods unvarnished truth. /rolls eyes
The last release was marketed as definitive proof that the US military actively practiced murder. The big "bombshell" was a video in which people on the ground have clearly visible rifles. Then it appears one peeks around the corner with an RPG and points it at a US helicopter.
The US soldiers radio back and ask permission to engage. They don't engage until permission is given. There are some individuals that are shot, but survive. The US soldiers don't initially shoot again to kill. They wait for further orders, and then see a van pull up, trying to grab the wounded individuals. They are given permission to open fire again.
The questionable aspect of the whole scenario is opening fire a second time on wounded targets, even if they are being taken away from the scene. But if you truly believe these targets were going to open fire on you by firing an RPG on you in a restricted area, then anyone assisting those targets are targets themselves. In a combat zone where the enemy doesn't wear a uniform, the lines are not clear. The actions are not 100% defensible, but it was also a far cry from the random murder of innocents that it was marketed as.
Soldiers should be accountable for their actions. They are not above the law. But care must be taken when making snap judgments about them, when they are being asked to make rapid decisions of life and death. Most of the people making judgments have no understanding of what it is like to be in those circumstances. And while I was never deployed in a combat zone, I'm a Marine myself. So I've at least put some serious thought into what it means to take a life in the defense of another.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Yes. Of course, there is the annoying element of Iraq being an unprovoked war of aggression, and, hence, a war crime. Not to mention Afghanistan just being moronic: $30 billion/year for a CIA estimated 100 al-qaeda in a country a little smaller than Texas. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/06/cia-chief-maybe-50-to-100-al-q.html So which is the treason? Hosting the wars, or demonstrating that the emperor has no clothes? It could very well be that the greatest fear the U.S. has about Wikileaks is that it will expose government as a racket.
But we'll see what this next batch unveils...
Maybe there isn't as much dirt because those governments aren't as corrupt as western propaganda would have us believe?
I can't see the Guardian agreeing to this.
Refusing to comply with a D Notice is something that is not done lightly. Although they are not legally binding, violating them is likely to mean that the newspaper in question is effectively cut off from future government press conferences and so on. The Guardian might make this kind of stand, possibly the Independent might, but neither is guaranteed.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News