Leaked Doc May Have Forced US To Speed Up Bin Laden Raid

cf18 writes "Wikileaks released a set of leaked Guantanamo prisoner files to the public last week. Among them is a document dated from 2008, which mentioned both Osama's trusted courier's name and Abbottabad, the city in which Osama had been hiding. There are speculations that, fearing al-Qaida realized their courier may have been tracked and move Osama, the US administration accelerated their plan and attacked the target site over the weekend. This link highlights the relevant section of the document."

Comments

Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

For every improperly classified document they release, they're releasing thousands of things that should be kept secret.

They aren't competent to do what they are doing, and we're not safe as long as they are making these mistakes.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Microlith]

Indeed, it would be better to live in perpetual ignorance. We can trust the Government and Corporations to rule us fairly.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Beerdood]

Perhaps you mean something more on the lines of :

For every 1000 documents of embarrassing diplomatic relations, corporate malevolence, and government secrets, perhaps one or two get out that should have been kept secret. What's that official death count from all those leaked afghan cables? Zero? One?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[hinesbrad]

I sorta feel like The government is stuffing me from behind and corporate America is forcing my throat by grabbing my ears. All I know for sure is I'm getting screwed and the two seem to be tag teaming me!

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Red Jesus]

The interrogation file was dated "10 September 2008." Is someone seriously claiming that the military was willing to wait more than two years to conduct the attack but then had to rush things by a couple of weeks because of this leak?

WikiLeaks released the report last week, prompting speculation that the US, afraid that its planned raid might be pre-empted, brought forward its attack.

Apparently so. We have an article using the passive voice to indicate that someone somewhere is speculating that the military did in fact cut a two-and-a-half year delay down to just 2.5 years minus a week or two because they were worried about the consequences of this leak.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[mpoulton]

For every improperly classified document they release, they're releasing thousands of things that should be kept secret.

They aren't competent to do what they are doing, and we're not safe as long as they are making these mistakes.

We're not safe as long as the government is improperly hiding vast amounts of information, either. The most practical solution would be for the government to adopt a trustworthy approach to secrecy and build the public's confidence in their honesty. If the people could reasonably trust that classified information legitimately needed to be kept secret and was not just hiding misdeeds, there would be no need for Wikileaks and no demand for the revelation of any classified documents. Until then, Wikileaks serves a need.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ClioCJS]

Sounds to me like Wikileaks kept us from sitting on our ass and doing nothing despite our intelligence, like what happened in Tora Bora.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[vijayiyer]

Exactly.
We will never know how many people were figured out and executed or worse. Worse yet is the impact to our ability to gather human intelligence.
People on Slashdot live in basements. The real world isn't all about free information. Secrets won World War II for the Allies.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Chuck Chunder]

What's that official death count from all those leaked afghan cables? Zero? One?

Well, if you do attribute the raid on Osama as a reaction to Wikileaks then the number would be "several", albeit the "bad guys"

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Aphrika]

Actually, Wikileaks appears to have played a large part in stirring the uprising in Tunisia (cables about corruption), and consequently Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen, Syria and Libya...

So back to that death count...

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Osama was allowed to keep his life secret. You may believe all secrets are bad, Microlith (if that is your real name) but Wikileaks doesn't fix that - it's too random.

Any problem with trusting the government or other organizations comes from a lack of willingness to engage with them. It's not that we don't know what our government is up to, it's that we'd rather just stand on the sidelines shouting about how evil they are than get our hands dirty, get involved with actual decision making and risk making our own mistakes. It's not a question of trust - if you want to have influence, you have to get involved.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ClioCJS]

What do you mean we will never know? Why would the military hide information that would turn public opinion against wikileaks? You don't seem to understand the politics of the situation very well if you think the military -- enemy of wikileaks -- would protect wikileaks by hiding information about deaths caused by wikileaks.

Gee, Robert Gates doesn't agree with you. ([more analysis]).

You've also failed to point out the fact that the main *innocent* people who die are not our Afghani sympathizers, but american soldiers and Afghan civilians. Want to save american lives? Get the fuck out of afghanistan. It's over.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Fallen Kell]

Well, that and the lack there of for the Axis powers (with both the German and Japanese encryption code ciphers being broken by US/UK mathematicians).

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Culture20]

The implication is that Obama knew where Osama was in 2008 or slightly later, but did nothing until his Campaign 2012 poster child was about to escape.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

USA, Seattle, 33, yes.

Yes, if we discount things like ex-judicial detainment in gitmo as an inconvenient counterargument to rule of law and politicians calling for the summary execution of a non-American for treason for publishing as an inconvenient counterargument for freedom of the press, then yes, the USA is a shining example of a democracy.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Please state your country and city of residence, your age, whether you have lived in the US for an extended period of time if you are not American, and how exactly you arrive your assessment that those words have no meaning here. And please hold all incoherent rants about the TSA, Gitmo, and black helicopters to yourself.

Kansas City, KS, USA
39 years old
Born in The USA

THE USA is a Corporatism State

And you are a "Rightwing" nutjob

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Representative democracy requires informed voters to be truly functional and not just a facade for a ruling class. The balance of secrecy works the same as all other balances. It doesn't hover in a perfect middle. It pendulums between two sides with an average hopefully near the middle. Without Wikileaks and others like them there would be nothing to balance the over correction into government secrecy after 9/11. The counterweight used to be the traditional press but they got lost chasing profit with water skiing squirrels and drugged up celebrities.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

You would rather Osama get away to lead more terrorist attacks than that you not know the name of his courier?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

"We have met the enemy, and they is us."
- Pogo
- Walt Kelley

Shut up and vote, or bitch and moan and remove all doubt about how it got this way.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[AK Marc]

The USA has apparently known for 3 years where he is without acting. That's not a mistake. That's gross negligence. Forcing the US's hand in acting on this old information was a good thing, not a bad thing.

As long as governments are lying and hiding things from their people, we need someone watching the watchers. Or are you asserting that our safety is more important than our liberty? If so, then I'd need to quote an oft quoted quote that is rarely heeded.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

The government pretty sternly told Wikileaks not to release any of them, and why.

Wikileaks ignored them.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[mywhitewolf]

At least big media gives you the reach around!

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

If Wikileaks knew the difference between legal secrets and illegal ones, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[hinesbrad]

But then spits on you with commercials.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[AK Marc]

Empowering people to start revolt isn't blood on the hands of Wikileaks, but blood on the hands of the corrupt governments oppressing their people. Now, if Wikileaks named an informant who was executed for it, then Wikileaks deserves the blame for that. But starting revolutions that result in dead people in the attempts to overthrow corrupt and oppressive governments? That's not a problem. That's a good thing.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[gordo3000]

no, it would be better when national security is at risk that wikileaks grows up and realizes they are endangering lives, and lots of them, by their wanton approach. This isn't a reputable newspaper that tries to make sure they don't cause people to get killed by releasing information, and I'm not talking about the stupid idea of hiding the info because it's unpleasant.

For all we know, we had been using this information to intercept plans and derail them for several years and now with the document out, we had to kill the golden goose of knowing where the enemy leadership was and how they communicated.

and who said this had anything to do with corporations?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

The article is balls.

But the concept is valid.

If Osama knew that the name of this courier was known to al Quaeda's enemies, Osama could have stopped using him and prevented us from following him back. Or simply had him killed to prevent any chance of a linkage. Or determined how he was revealed and killed someone else for it.

Keeping secrets about the enemy keeps your people safe and keeps the enemy's status stable so you can find him and destroy him.

But if Julian Assange feels it's right to reveal these secrets in order that we find out what Hillary Clinton said about Nasser's nose-picking, well, then, let Osama go.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[neo8750]

The argument here is had they not released said wire would we have gotten Bin Laden?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Opportunist]

We live in a world where you can neither trust the government to protect your interests, nor can you trust the economy to treat you fairly. Personally, I consider speeding up a military operation a very minimal price to pay to at least retain SOME freedom.

To be blunt, whether they kill Bin Laden or not doesn't change jack. There's already a new top terrorist taking over. Probably he's been the operative head for a long time now anyway. Even if the leak would have foiled that attack, it would not have changed a single thing.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Opportunist]

I'm sorry, where have you been the past decades? The US you describe might have existed a while ago, but I'm not old enough to remember it.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[perpenso]

Sounds to me like Wikileaks kept us from sitting on our ass and doing nothing despite our intelligence, like what happened in Tora Bora.

No. What happened at Tora Bora is that we trusted our allies.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[theArtificial]

You may have a point if the parent is referring to all of the leaked cables. For what it's worth the grand parent was specific:

What's that official death count from all those leaked afghan cables? Zero? One?

Actually, Wikileaks appears to have played a large part in stirring the uprising in Tunisia (cables about corruption), and consequently Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen, Syria and Libya...

So back to that death count...

It appears the Governments there made their own mess. You discount the oppressive people/governments who actually are responsible for their actions thus far. Go back to bed Egypt, Bahrain, Jordan, Yemen, Syria and Libya.

So about that blaming the victims, not the perpetrators...

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[nedlohs]

It's a guys name, you seriously think based on a single couriers name they can determine exactly where Osama is?

Or are you thinking they'll magically know in 2008 where Osama is because five years earlier some other guy moved to Abbottabad for a year? Clearly Osama must be in that town in a building that didn't even exist when the detainee in question lived there.

The name is what is important. They were clearly tracking the courier mention (given he was there when they raided), if Osama find out that you know about the guy he has moving in and out of his hiding place he's going assume you are at least close to working it out and so move ASAP and get another courier. He survived for almost 10 years with the world's largest military after him and a $25 million bounty on his head - he had to be paranoid...

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[mywhitewolf]

I don't see how you think that an Someone who isn't American has some sort of patriotic duty to keep American secrets safe? Your beef is with manning, not Assange, Assange is just a journalist doing what journalists do. or do you think Assange should have kept the secrets safe and sold them off to the highest bidder? Just be thankful that you got to see the content as well, not just china's intelligence agency.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Runaway1956]

The question seems to be, "Should Wikileaks be complicit in the corruption, and be quiet, or should Wikileads expose the corruption, even though someone might be killed?"

Obviously our government didn't mind being complicit.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[scrib]

Yeah, it's a shame the administration couldn't sit on this until it was closer to the next election...

Setec Astronomy.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Opportunist]

Do you REALLY think that killing Osama changed anything? Think of it this way: Would killing the President of the US suddenly halt every operation running? Would killing the CEO of any large corporation make it fold and cease to exist?

We're not talking about a handful of loonies with a Bond-villainesque leader and a structure that would crumble when you remove the head. Ozzy has already been replaced, and I guess it's safe to assume that this "devastating blow" didn't change jack. Considering how "prominent" Bin Laden had been, it's quite likely that the day to day "business" was already in the hands of someone else.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[perpenso]

Didn't wikileaks give the government a preview of things they were going to release?

Perhaps you missed it but ***very few*** in government knew the courier's real name and the significance of Abbottabad. However UBL's folks in Abbottabad would and thereby know to flee if they had bothered to do a "find" on the wikileak docs.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[digitig]

This isn't a reputable newspaper that tries to make sure they will increase profits if they cause people to get killed by releasing information

FTFY.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

The intelligence community isn't in the habit of publicizing the enemy's successes. Especially when it might further compromise their operations.

There's also the small matter of the fact that the material that Wikileaks revealed is still, legally, classified. Nobody with a clearance is allowed to repeat it, even if they're reading it from the same Jumbotron in Times Square that the people around them are reading it on.

As for Mr. Gates, of course he's not going to vet the data as valuable. But the current situation pretty much shows he was lying his ass off, doesn't it? That's his job.

Yours, I think, doesn't involve much brainworking, if you can't figure this stuff out yourself.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Opportunist]

Then please clue us in, apparently you know that secret which secret is legal and which is illegal.

Lemme guess: Everything that isn't a secret of the US but somebody else's can be released. Right?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

No, that's an inference, not an implication, and it's an incorrect one. But you're clearly not interested in reality, so we expect this of you.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Runaway1956]

Ahhh, go ahead and quote. We don't hear enough of Benjamin these days. Seems the old bastard is politically incorrect, of some such thing.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Hartree]

Regardless of ones position on the war, your analysis is pretty questionable.

"Why would the military hide information that would turn public opinion against wikileaks?"

Because it's likely that they would figure out who a mole or agent was from indirect references in the documents. They might be sure enough to eliminate them, but not completely sure, just like the US was unsure about Bin Laden being in Abbottabad.

If suddenly, the US then says "insert-name" has been killed because of wiki-leaks, they know they were right.

It gets even better. If you follow the link in the original post, lots of the people mentioned are only identified by a code number (like ZU 100024 or such). If you suspected ZU 100024 was the person you killed as a mole, but weren't sure, now you know that anywhere else in those documents you see ZU 100024, you know who that is with high certainty.

"You don't seem to understand the politics of the situation very well"

Apparently he understand better than you seem to understand intel analysis.

As to what Gates said, do you really expect the Secretary of Defense to say publicly "Wow, there's a real blockbuster piece of information in those documents."

The Al Qaeda intel people may have missed a big one when they didn't catch on to this. If the US had missed something like that, we'd be talking about a major intelligence failure.

Even if they weren't sure enough to move Bin Laden, they could have raised his security level, or had an escape plan ready.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ClioCJS]

Ahhh, using government secrecy and a gut feeling ("somebody died! they just won't tell us!") to prove government secrecy is valid. Nice circular logic. Buy tinfoil.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

Do you REALLY think that killing Osama changed anything?

Yes.

Next stupid question.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[drinkypoo]

Well, you're true to your nickname. Only a right wing nutjob is getting what they want in this day and age.

Get it straight: We have nothing like democracy in this country and I'm not convinced we ever have had. Since Teddy Roosevelt there have been only three presidents who have not been total tools of the status quo, and one of them was only out for himself.

Manning is a patriot, Assange is a useful idiot. However instead of being useful to the power elite, he is useful to all of us.

The only way we will get accountability is when men like Assange and Manning do what they have done.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

I'm not the one who thinks that the U.S. government is hiding secrets that endanger me in any way. You keep the tinfoil sect all to yourself on that one.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[drinkypoo]

Your continual Ad Hominem attacks against Manning do nothing to him, but they make you look like an asshole.

Manning was trained to betray his countrymen in the name of serving his country. He instead betrayed his fellow servicemen in the act of serving his nation.

You're pissy because he went against his training, but we should instead discuss whether he did the right thing. There are still no reports of anyone dying because of what he did. But the information he delivered contains reports of wrongful death. He did more good than harm, except to the status quo, which needs harm in the worst way.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ClioCJS]

Wikileaks also revealed that they knew Bin Laden was alive all along - so when we had members of the administration stating that he died in Tora Bora, they were indeed hiding secrets that could endanger me.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[gordo3000]

being mindlessly cynical doesn't do anyone any good, and it may be worth mod points, but doesn't add much to the discussion. Many serious newspapers spend a great deal of money and time reviewing their work to make sure it doesn't cause the problems Wikileaks does. Read up on some of the procedures at the New York Times or other reputable sources. Considering their are trying to stay in business, it's pretty incredible what they go through to maintain integrity.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Kvasio]

the only question is which one - corporates or gov - is casting candies on the floor, and which - asks you "to Ben Dover".

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cpu6502]

>>>here in America, we've had it going in more or less working order for several hundred years,

Nothing to brag about really. Rome had a democracy (the Senate) for 500 years, and yet still succumbed to a tyrant (Julius Caesar and his offspring).

The UK democracy (Parliament) is about 200 years older than the american democracy. As for Assange, he serves the original purpose envisioned by the First amendment "freedom of press" clause. The citizens use the power of speech and writing to keep the spotlight on corrupt politicians, in order to keep them from becoming like the 1770s parliament we rebelled against.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Culture20]

No, that's an inference, not an implication, and it's an incorrect one.

I was referring to the implication on the part of the submitter.
"There are speculations that, fearing al-Qaida realize their courier may have been tracked and move Osama, the US administration accelerated their plan and attacked the target site over the weekend."
Why else wait for over two years? Maybe they were getting good intelligence on the rest of the network by watching the head, or maybe they were trying to work out a deal with Pakistan. But political maneuvering makes a lot more sense.

But you're clearly not interested in reality, so we expect this of you.

Oh, I'm sorry. I shouldn't have responded to a Troll.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Mashiki]

Considering this is relating to obama? And he had to sleep 16hrs before making a choice on solid intel whether or not to go and kill him. Well....I'd say yes.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ravenshrike]

"politicians calling for the summary execution of a non-American for treason "

None of whom can cause him to be charged with treason, and even assuming he was charged the SC would laugh it's ass off at the charge.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Qzukk]

There are still no reports of anyone dying because of what he did.

Osama died because of what he did.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cpu6502]

>>>Wikileaks appears to have played a large part in stirring the uprisings...So back to that death count...

The Declaration of Independence killed about 1 million British citizens, due to the uprising it stirred. Maybe you believe Thomas Jefferson should not have written it, and the US still be a bunch of British colonies? Maybe Thomas Jefferson is as "evil" as Assange for all the trouble he stirred-up?

(I disagree - I think they are of like character. They both believed the people deserve to know.)

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Scrameustache]

wikileaks grows up and realizes they are endangering lives

The only life they seem to have endangered to date is Ossama Bin Laden's.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Myopic]

False dichotomy much? I want both reasonable state secrets and eventual declassification of previously classified material. That's something similar to the present system, maybe with the declassification knob turned up a little.

I'm with the GP, mostly.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[praxis]

That was kind of my point, one cannot ignore those kinds of accusations and say we have a country that believes in the rule of law. What RightwingNutjob basically said was "how exactly [do] you arrive (sic) your assessment that those words [democracy, freedom, accountability] have no meaning here [US]. (sic) And please hold all incoherent rants about the TSA, Gitmo, and black helicopters to yourself." That's like asking to not use actual evidence to back up one's claim--let's not use what the US actually says and does. Of course, perhaps he or she really was interested in hearing about how the TSA, Gitmo, extraordinary rendition, and so on do show that we're not quite the freedom and accountability types that we say we are, only not willing to hear incoherent rants. To me though, it read that he or she felt that any mention of Gitmo, for example, would qualify the writer's words as an incoherent rant automatically.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[drinkypoo]

Osama died because of what he did.

While your sentence is grammatically, syntactically, logically, and in many other ways correct, I do not believe for one second that Osama died due to anything Assange did, nor that anything he did affected any schedules pertaining to any raids on his location.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cpu6502]

>>>The same Executive Order that gives people the authority to classify things

I cannot lay my hand on any part of the US Constitution which gives the Executive power to declare what documents shall be made "invisible" within the government. On the contrary if such a power exists (which seems doubtful), that power lies with the Congress, since they are the ones entrusted with all the other important powers of government (power of the purse, power to tax, power to issue letters of marque, power to form treaties, power to make war, ...).

Either that, or the States (amendment 10). NOT the executive. No man should be entrusted with the power to classify documents such that no one else can see them. What a convenient way to hide one's sins (think watergate).

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[TikiTDO]

The real question is not whether you or I, or the next guy thinks killing Osama will accomplish anything. It is whether the general public will think so.

The US culture has, for the past few decades, evolved to expect the "Good Guys Always Win" ending. It has been hammered into our heads by practically every movie, TV series, and book targeted for the mainstream audience. You and I may know perfectly well that the world is a complex inter-related network of challenging problems, but for the average Joe there is only a bad guy that needs to be defeated, and a world/girl that needs to be saved. Such a view may be depressing for those of us that can see through the illusion, but that does not change the fact that a huge section of the US society thinks this way.

Killing Osama simply plays right into this mentality; Yet again the US is the stereotypical "Good Guy" that killed the "Big Evil Villain." There was then a big party with a ton of booze and women, and now the credits are rolling, and everyone is getting up to leave the theater. This is a huge milestone not in terms of world events, but in the minds of millions of people in the US that wanted nothing more than to go to Afghanistan and kick one guy in the face.

So again, you can analyze the hell out of the problems of the world. You can create model after model and scenario after scenario for what will happen in all the various organizations. You can point out that the terrorists are still terrorists. However, you can not ignore how all of these things will sail straight over the heads of a good 95% of the population. Given that unfortunately these are the people that decide the elections, I will say that damn right this changed something.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cpu6502]

>>>Secrets won World War II for the Allies.

The difference is that we were at War and different rules apply (wartime law). At present we are still at Peace, so peacetime law (i.e. the constitution) applies in all things. the fact you are so blind as to believe you can trust the president (or congress) makes me wonder if you slept through history class.

Maybe you ought to watch the movie "Judgment at Nuremberg" so you can get a reminder. The best part is when the German judge admits he loved Hitler, but also that was a fool to trust him, and should have refused to cooperate (i.e. refuse to send people to death or sterilization).

And no I don't give a damn about godwin. Hitler was not an anomaly. There have been several hundred Hitlers throughout history - Napoleon, Pol pot, Mao, Stalin, Genghis Khan, and on and on. You can NOT trust leaders.

You are fool to believe you can.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bsDaemon]

Apple and Birkshire-Hathaway's success is, for better or worse, truer or falser, tied to the leaders of the company in the mind of most investors. If Steve Jobs or Warren Buffet dropped dead tomorrow without having left clear plans for a successor, and having had the markets get used to the idea, I suspect the value would drop out of their stocks in a massive way before recovering.

Killing Bin Laden has changed the political dynamic in the United States. It's given Obama a popularity boost and an improvement in image which he can leverage in his negotiations on domestic policies. It makes it harder to call him "soft on defense" when he's kept up 2 wars, boosted troop levels in Afganistan, and just sent the Navy SEALS into Pakistan, pretty much unannounced, to bust into a house and cap Bin Laden in the face.

Whether or not getting at Bin Laden is going to have any effect in the "war on terror" is irrelevant. In Afganistan, we've been at it with the Taliban this whole time. There hasn't really been much of a foreign Arab-fighter presence there for several years. The Taliban and Al Qaeda are two different things. The spin-off groups in Iraq and Yemen were basically independent entities which used the name Al Qaeda for brand association hoping that believers in Bin Laden would come fight for them. It's basically trademark infringement.

The fact is that killing Bin Laden put the final cap on the whole 9/11 thing for Americans. Bin Laden can no longer be the boogey man hiding in the wings, because he's gone. Any threat that we might face going forward isn't going to come from him. Killing Bin Laden is a lot like the fall of the Soviet Union, in a way. The monolithic face of terror is gone and now the small operators are going to have to come up with their own spin on things. we'll see how this goes. We all know what a disaster letting the Soviet Union collapse was for us.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Darinbob]

Well we certainly can't trust wikileaks either, so who does that leave?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bsDaemon]

Causing the pace of an operation to accelerate isn't the same thing as putting Bin Laden's life in danger. If anything, it put the lives of the special forces operators at greater risk by having less time to prepare everything before hand. So, pretty much the opposite of what you said.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[vivian]

If everyone really is out to get you, is it still called paranoia? I thought you had to have a delusional belief that everyone was after you to be paranoid.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cpu6502]

>>>The government pretty sternly told Wikileaks not to release any of them, and why.

"You'll find out that Hillary stole credit card numbers from visiting politicians! And that the CIA is spying on your website history! We can't have that." - government.

Oh wait. That's not what you meant. (shrug) Well frankly, Hillary and friends are a MUCH bigger threat to my safety than Bin Laden since Hillary and friends can royally screw my life. I'd sooner know what my politicians are doing, even if it meant laden escaped. The true enemies work only 200 miles away from me, and they scare me a whole lot more than some tent-dude on the other side of the world.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[guspasho]

And anyone who thinks differently and tries to expose their secrets to be hanged.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[guspasho]

I don't know why we can't trust the government and especially the military, since they have never any innocent deaths, ever.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[AK Marc]

Politically incorrect? He's despised by the neo-cons for not being a rabid Christian. He's despised by the neo-liberals because he was libertarian (incidentally, he's despised by neo-libertarians because he is a practical libertarian, not a rabid idealist who hates all government).

Politically correct or incorrect deals with not with what you say, but how you say it. For instance, the neo-con teabaggers whining about the blacks causing the housing crisis based on failed Clinton Fannie Mae policies is politically incorrect. But saying that blacks take a disproportionate amount of welfare because the rich white people keep them down and prevent them from helping themselves out of fear and racism could be making the same point, but doing so in a "politically correct" manner (note, none of this should be taken as a factual statement, as I haven't looked up the proportion of welfare or anything like that, but just taking a couple examples of related statements).

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bryan1945]

I think blair is saying that they don't have to release every darn thing they get. Things like "Next Thursday we're sending troops into Boogerstantown at 4 AM." Release it next Friday after Boogerstantown gets clobbered. Just check the stuff first to see if it can get people (or more people) hurt by releasing it.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[HungryHobo]

for information purposes.
what is actually on wikileaks:

Abbottabad is mentioned 4 times on the site.
twice as someones place of birth.
once as somewhere where someone went to get his masters degree.
once as somewhere someones family lived for a few months.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

Whether bin Laden is alive or not during a shooting war isn't really endangering you.

If they'd said "bin Laden is dead, and we're leaving Afghanistan and ending the war" you might have a point.

But that'd be a first for you.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[arth1]

The real question is not whether you or I, or the next guy thinks killing Osama will accomplish anything. It is whether the general public will think so.

No, the real question is how history will judge this assassination. We are outraged about what he took responsibility for, and likely blinded by it, justifying our blood thirst by having lived through his.
Future generations might not be so biased, and think that the right to a trial is universal and should be stronger protected the more atrocious the acts were, and the surer we are of the guilt.

History might judge this as government sanctioned vigilante justice, which takes away any moral high ground we might have had.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[jackbird]

a million? You're off by almost two orders of magnitude. About 40,000 british soldiers and sailors died in the revolution, according to wikipedia. Or did you mean that Britain lost about a million subjects by virtue of them forming their own country?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ClioCJS]

So how is Wikileaks endangering me again, then?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[microbox]

You, sir, live in a very strange world. Killing Bin Laden does not weaken the terrorist threat and may well make all of this worse. Think Leia to Darth Vader "The tighter you clench your first, the more star systems will slip through your fingers like grains of sand." There is a fight for control of the hearts and minds, and you do not want to lose that fight -- it is more important in keeping america safe. Bin Laden is nothing, and should have been kept alive and paraded in front of international courts. Some radicals would have always kept hold of conspiracy theories, whether in America or the Middle East. We do not want to incite a clash of civilisations. We would be equally responsible for the consequences.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[arth1]

The UK democracy (Parliament) is about 200 years older than the american democracy.

Kids! The Icelandic Althing is 1081 years and still going. The US is a mere child when it comes to democracy. The right to vote is still not universal, which is a big obstacle on the road to the US ever becoming a democracy.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Loadmaster]

Well, if you do attribute the raid on Osama as a reaction to Wikileaks then the number would be "several", albeit the "bad guys"

You mean if it weren't for Wikileaks they wouldn't have killed Osama? I'm not sure that's a strike against Wikileaks.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[RoFLKOPTr]

Indeed, it would be better to live in perpetual ignorance. We can trust the Government and Corporations to rule us fairly.

If Wikileaks et al would do things the right fucking way rather than rushing things so they can be in the headlines tomorrow then it wouldn't be such a problem. Maybe we already knew where Osama was. Maybe we have known for years and have been allowing him to live without knowing we know where he lives so that he can continue to have power over his crippled and generally-useless organization. Now we were forced to kill him due to these recklessly-released documents and so his organization is leaderless. A radical organization like Al Qaeda doesn't remain leaderless for long, and now we don't know who it is or where they are, and that's a Bad Thing(TM).

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[sumdumass]

Not really. If he encourage, aided and abetted Manning in any way, He could be charged and the US supreme court would back him up on it like they have others.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[artor3]

False dichotomy much? I thought Slashdot was supposed to be good at spotting logical fallacies.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[RightwingNutjob]

Re: Gitmo. Too many people conflate military operations intended to collect information from uncooperative agents for the purpose of wider military objectives with criminal prosecution intended to prove guilt of one (1) person or a small number of people. If you believe there is a valid military objective to be obtained here, then you shouldn't talk about Gitmo. If you don't believe intelligence gathering of the kind that takes place at Gitmo is a valid military objective, then I don't want to hear the rest of your reasoning because from my perspective, you've crossed the line into either dangerous naivete, illogical pacifism, outright malevolence, or $INSULT, and thus "incoherent rant".

Re: TSA. 9/11 exposed a weak spot. Not THE weakspot, *a* weakspot. Do we ignore it and hope no one tries to take advantage of it? Sure, no one's going to get away with hijackings any more, but at least two or three nutjobs tried to blow up a plane in flight in the last decade. That exposes another weakspot. What do you do about it? Shrugging your shoulders and complaining counts as an incoherent rant.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[BluBrick]

Does it even matter which is which, if they're in league with each other?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[dave562]

At point in the history of this country, the government was keeping secret the fact that they were arming the mujahideen and training them to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. That same training, and those people who were trained, later conducted attacks against your fellow citizens and killed well over 3000 of them.

How does that reality mesh with your statement that the government does not hide secrets that endanger you?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Darinbob]

It's a complete misreading of the article and events. The plan was in motion and only accelerated because we were worried Osama would move once he realized we were closing in on his location. There is no credible information from anyone anywhere so far that we knew where he was in 2008.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Darinbob]

Where do you get the information that we knew this for 3 years? Certainly not from this piece of information. Is there some new info wikileaks hasn't released that you know of? You're running head long into conspiracy theory here, willfully discarding facts that don't fit the theory.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[neanderslob]

From what I'd heard on a recent documentary about wiki leaks that they approached the state department to say "Hey, if you have any tips on which ones to keep secret, we'd be more than willing to sit down with you" and the state department issued a blanket statement to them saying "none of them should be released because they're classified." It's a reason sure, but not a good one. Is this the one to which you're referring?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[dgatwood]

And this is why every name of private individuals (as opposed to public officials) should be replaced consistently by a pseudonym prior to publication. It does nothing to harm the transparency, yet does so without nearly as much harm to national security.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ArcherB]

Indeed, it would be better to live in perpetual ignorance. We can trust the Government and Corporations to rule us fairly.

Slippery slope fallacy. Not everything is black or white. Sometimes, there's gray. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Also, the claim that the PFC released the documents because they contained things we should know, I call bullshit. He obviously did not read all 10,000 documents so there is no way he could judge what we truly needed to know.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ArcherB]

But then spits on you with commercials.

They are not spitting on your back. They are faking an orgasm.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[elsurexiste]

For every improperly classified document they release, they're releasing thousands of things that should be kept secret.

They aren't competent to do what they are doing, and we're not safe as long as they are making these mistakes.

Are you crazy?! Thanks to Wikileaks, the operation to capture one of America's most wanted criminals, which had lagged for more than two years, happened in a couple of days. If only my projects were the same...

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ogl_codemonkey]

Well, I LOL'd.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[mywhitewolf]

that's not spit.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[neanderslob]

Exactly. We will never know how many people were figured out and executed or worse. Worse yet is the impact to our ability to gather human intelligence. People on Slashdot live in basements. The real world isn't all about free information. Secrets won World War II for the Allies.

The real world is about information. Secrets may have won World War II for the Allies but propaganda made Germany such a menace in the first place. Are you really implying that an abundance of whistle blowers would have helped Germany further their cause? Really??? Das wirklich passt nicht.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[guspasho]

So I'm just curious how do you think that bin Laden not being dead makes us safer.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[perpenso]

And this is why every name of private individuals (as opposed to public officials) should be replaced consistently by a pseudonym prior to publication. It does nothing to harm the transparency, yet does so without nearly as much harm to national security.

I think this example demonstrates otherwise. Merely mentioning a place of interest in Abbottabad could have caused the targets to flee.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ArcherB]

Do you REALLY think that killing Osama changed anything?

Using that logic, do you REALLY think that tracking down rapists will change anything? Maybe you should look up the term, "justice" and see what it's all about.

Would killing the CEO of any large corporation make it fold and cease to exist?

If that corporation was Apple, you bet! I'm not saying that Osama had any real leadership in Al Qaeda, but again... look up what justice means. Would you have preferred we just let him go? "Oh, he killed 3000 Americans who didn't even know who he was, but he's not in charge of Al Qaeda any more. We should live and let live."

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[russotto]

For every improperly classified document they release, they're releasing thousands of things that should be kept secret.

So bin Laden is dead now rather than in October 2012 when it can do the most good for the Obama campaign? Boo fucking hoo.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[dgatwood]

The same concept could be applied to specific locations that are not outside the publicly disclosed areas of fighting. The point is that the actions are the important part, not the names or places, and that those details can be obscured in the short term without loss of crucial transparency.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ArcherB]

for information purposes.
what is actually on wikileaks:

Abbottabad is mentioned 4 times on the site.
twice as someones place of birth.
once as somewhere where someone went to get his masters degree.
once as somewhere someones family lived for a few months.

What is important is that they leaked the courier's name. In other words, "we know who that guy is who is next to you. We know that you send him out for messages and we know that he will return to where you are. We don't need to find you. All we need to do is find HIM! Oh and we know that his home town and family live in a place called Abbottobad."

If you were Osama Bin Laden, and you knew what I just mentioned, would you stick around Abbottobad? Would you continue to hang out with your courier? Or would you give your courier a cell phone and tell him to go east while you go west after you booby trap your compound?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

This isn't a reputable newspaper that tries to make sure they don't cause people to get killed by releasing information

Actually it is exactly that. For almost a year now, everything Wikileaks has published has been vetted by professional newspaper editors like those at the NY Times, the Guardian in the UK, Der Spiegel in Germany, Le Monde in France, etc. Some of newspapers have changed over time, but in all cases top tier newspapers have been doing the work to keep the leaks from getting people killed. That's the main reason the documents have been coming out in a trickle rather than one big data-dump.

Furthermore, there has not been a single documented case of anyone being killed because they were "outted" by wikileaks.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Quietust]

Killing Bin Laden does not weaken the terrorist threat and may well make all of this worse. Think Leia to Darth Vader "The tighter you clench your first, the more star systems will slip through your fingers like grains of sand."

Funny, I was thinking of an entirely different Star Wars quote - "If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine." Martyrs are particularly difficult to deal with, after all.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[drinkypoo]

You really think I want to pay $4.00+ a gallon for gas? Sorry, but that is the wet dream of left wing wackos like yourself.

Thank you for proving that you are nothing more than an untalented troll, probably a third or fourth account. That makes me feel much better about myself.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[c6gunner]

The problem isn't that you don't remember it; it's that you refuse to acknowledge it. It's much more fun to delude yourself into thinking that you're a brave soul fighting against an oppressive dictatorship. The more freedom you give people, the more of a persecution complex they seem to develop.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Shihar]

The government pretty sternly told Wikileaks not to release any of them, and why.

Wikileaks ignored them.

Of course they did. Yet clearly, not all of what Wikileaks released was actually OMG WE CAN'T KILL BIN LADEN ANY MORE!!!!111!! important. Wikileaks gave the government a chance to play along. The government took the position of "fuck off". Wikileaks fucked off and did it their own way. Clearly, the position of "fuck off" has its consequences.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[DeadCatX2]

And why should we believe a self-admitted basement dweller such as yourself? The real world lies to you so that you will remain complacent with what is happening.

We are told stories of Good and Evil, and that we must Sacrifice so that we can Destroy Evil, stories needed to reconcile the cognitive dissonance generated by dropping bombs from the sky and blowing up innocent people, so that we spend our blood sweat money and tears carrying out the wishes of our leaders (who are never required to Sacrifice)

And they are told stories of Good and Evil, and that they must Sacrifice so that they can Destroy Evil, stories needed to reconcile the cognitive dissonance generated by strapping a bomb to yourself and blowing up innocent people, so that they spend their lives carrying out the wishes of their leaders (who are never required to Sacrifice).

Was bin Laden worth the trillion or more dollars of war that we spent as a result of him? Was he worth the thousands of US Soldiers who paid with their lives, or the many more who paid with their limbs?

"We will never know how many people were executed or worse" by our wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya, Yemen....but I'll bet you that it's many orders of magnitude larger than those who were injured as a result of WikiLeaks.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[davesque]

For every improperly classified document they release, they're releasing thousands of things that should be kept secret.

They aren't competent to do what they are doing, and we're not safe as long as they are making these mistakes.

Are you sure? Maybe the government would have sat on its hands too long if they weren't given an incentive to go forward with their plan. Maybe you should be thanking Assange...

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[sjames]

If our government would stop hiding documents from the citizens it is supposed to be responsible to, Wikileaks wouldn't be interested in leaking those documents at all. Perhaps our government should grow up and remember that the will of the People is it's one and only rightful claim to existence.

Meanwhile, you seem to be one step past a fishing expedition. You're actually making up scenarios from nothing and declaring Wikileaks guilty of them.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[c6gunner]

No, the real question is how history will judge this assassination

*facepalm*

Clearly more money needs to be put into psychiatric research.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[perpenso]

The same concept could be applied to specific locations that are not outside the publicly disclosed areas of fighting. The point is that the actions are the important part, not the names or places, and that those details can be obscured in the short term without loss of crucial transparency.

The concept you offer is flawed. Names and places are not enough. For example:
A man named [XXX] and employed by UBL as a courier has rented a large compound in [XXX].

Courier and compound are obviously troublesome so we wind up with:
A man named [XXX] and employed by UBL as a [XXX] has rented a [XXX] in [XXX].
I'n not sure rented should even be in there, so:
A man named [XXX] and employed by UBL as a [XXX] has [XXX] a [XXX] in [XXX].

Either line seems more opaque than transparent, so why even bother? Such a document should simply not be released in any form.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Lanteran]

Not universal? What, are you talking about how convicted felons can't vote?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Sene]

How exactly did this compromise your safety?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[squidguy]

Just how is PFC Manning a patriot? He violated orders and regulations, and he allegedly divulged classified materiel to which he had no need to know, nor right to access. If he was working in Baghdad he had no reason to be downloading shit about Afghanistan. He put the lives of many good people (and some bad) in jeopardy. Perhaps we should refer to him as an alleged patriot and alleged traitor, alleged moniker to remain until he sees his day in court. Meanwhile, the idiots who couldn't deploy access controls to prevent bulk downloading ought to be held as accountable as he should be.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[FlyingGuy]

You are a blithering fucking idiot!!!!

Bin - Laden getting killed made headlines because of who he was.

Deep cover agents / informers don't make headlines when they are taken out back and get a bullet in the head

The problem with people like you is that you just don't fucking get it. There are all sorts of operations going on with peoples lives in the balance, hell their whole families lives in the balance. We got Bin - Laden because of a massive intelligence effort eg: sifting through every shred of everything looking for the smallest clue.

The other side is doing / does the same thing and Manning / Assange gave them EVERYTHING no filter in a nice fully search-able form. NO ONE knows what small bit of info in ALL of that will give away informers, covert agents or operations that have to be shutdown because suddenly they are no longer secret Not ME, not YOU, not that stupid fucking traitor Manning and for GOD DAMN SURE sure not that idiot Assange!

People like you whimpering and whining about this stuff make me want to puke. You want all your little geek toys that consume electricity, you want convenience, you want to get on some sort of transport and go on vacation ( provided you can pry your dumb ass out of your parents basement ) and guess what all of that takes energy. People in the North East want heating oil, people in Arizona want air conditioning and guess what all that energy has to come from someplace. ANWR is not an answer, solar is not an answer, nuclear is completely NIMBY now no matter how or where it is built. Guess where 50% of our energy comes from, wait for it... yes the middle east. Guess what turn off that spigot and we got one big fucking problem.

When the lights go out and your cold and hungry you wont care how the energy is gotten, you will just want your government to go and get it and that is how the world spins.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[guspasho]

You've got to be pretty messed up to argue against the total destruction of al Qaeda in order to get a little more intel against them. I mean talk about missing the forest for the trees.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[guspasho]

Our government can obviously be trusted to never endanger lives through its recklessness.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ScentCone]

Sounds to me like Wikileaks kept us from sitting on our ass and doing nothing

And instead, just raiding every house in that large, primarily military-populated city, but doing it sooner to make you feel better?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[guspasho]

> Or are you thinking they'll magically know in 2008 where Osama is because five years earlier some other guy moved to Abbottabad for a year?

They seemed to magically know exactly where he was within a week of the Wikileak being released.

Some people argue that they knew long before and didn't want anyone to know because they were gaining valuable intel. To that I have to ask: why didn't they just perform the raid right away, capture him, gather all his materials, and take down the al Qaeda from the top?

Some people argue that they didn't know anything but what was in the Wikileak and figured everything out in a panicked rush after the leak. To that I have to ask: why did the government fail to do anything with this very important lead for the 2-6 years that they had it?

Some people argue that the government had been meticulously gathering information and was coincidentally very close to capturing him when the leak was released. To that I have to ask: would you like to buy a bridge?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ArcherB]

You really think I want to pay $4.00+ a gallon for gas? Sorry, but that is the wet dream of left wing wackos like yourself.

Thank you for proving that you are nothing more than an untalented troll, probably a third or fourth account. That makes me feel much better about myself.

So if I'm a troll for calling you a left wing wacko, wouldn't that make you troll for calling GGP a "right wing nutjob? We knew you can dish it out. I wasn't aware that you couldn't take it. Does being a hypocrite make you feel much better about yourself?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[sjames]

Yes, wikileaks helped people overcome oppressive and corrupt governments. If you want to credit someone with that blood, credit the U.S. and other governments that helped prop them up by keeping their dirty secrets quiet.

So, who should I be more inclined to trust, the guys who report the crimes of the powerful to the people (sometimes at considerable personal risk), or the powerful who cover each other's crimes?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Anonymous Coward]

Er...no. The US was just sitting on this information because Bin Laden's existence keeps people frightened and tolerant of gross infringement of their civil liberties.

Releasing this information forced the US to live up to its promises to be taking action by...you know...taking action.

But even if that is just a bunch of conspiracy-theory nonsense....people might be more sympathetic to your position if the US government didn't repeatedly and flagrantly abuse its powers, break its own laws, show wild incompetence, and then cover it all up by classifying the information.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ScentCone]

but we should instead discuss whether he did the right thing.

He did not do the right thing. He chose to bypass many options available for whistleblowing on his direct knowledge of actual illegality. Of course, all he did was have a big tantrum, and blindly steal hundreds of thousands of documents to demonstrate the "bad place" he was in, emotionally (his words).

He did more good than harm

So, you're willing to cut him some slack because you think he was well-meaning, if clumsy. But you aren't willing to stipulate the same thing about, say, people trying to run a US embassy and delicate relations in Yemen? Or people trying to make the most of having Al Queda captives who know things like the identity of one of Bin Laden's gophers?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Vancorps]

Sorry, where have I been granted more freedom in the last 30 years? Everywhere you look more is being taken away by both the war on drugs and terrorism. Remember times when a warrant was necessary to collect evidence? Remember when you had a right to speedy trial and didn't have to rot in jail for years on end without charge?

I'm amazed that you choose to blind yourself of the politics of the last 30 years and then have the balls to declare someone else deluded. Remember when I couldn't get a DUI for driving while sober? Now adays you can fail a piss test being bone sober and still end up with a DUI because a cop says you drove funny and even though you blow 0.0.

Parent wasn't a brave soul fighting anything, there is a big difference between acknowledging reality and doing something to fix it. Parent also said nothing about being persecuted.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Vancorps]

You neglect the most obvious question, if we knew how to get to Osama Bin Laden, why hadn't we done it already?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[gordo3000]

no, you just lack imagination. there will be no limit to the number of enemies we have, and Al Qaeda is one group that currently centralizes those forces. Our goal to keep one central enemy that we can constantly monitor with many roads into through planning and activities. The worst possible outcome is the destruction of Al Qaeda leaving us with 50 small organizations which we cannot track, cannot infiltrate, and frankly, will have huge problems responding to.

We sat on this information for 3 years, through a presidential election when the republicans could have used a huge win. What in the world makes you think that only today we figured out Bin Laden was there? It's much more likely we let him think he was safe and used this information to track what they were doing. Only a fool think the forest is destroying Al Qaeda (which we have not moved one iota closer to, as the rest of the command structure we were probably trying to bring down with this inside scoop is still intact and probably safe). The forest is stopping future terrorist attacks, everything else is a pawn on a chess board.

Consider what happened to the terrorism against Israel after they responded to Munich.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[gordo3000]

So we should probably publicly release all information we have on the construction of nuclear weapons, intel gathering operations, and future weapons tech so that the nerd in you can happily see it but do nothing with it? That's a great idea, I wonder why every country doesn't do this.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[gordo3000]

Incorrect, only a small subset of what they have released, but garnered the most press for, was vetted by professionals. Namely, the diplomatic cables. This document seems to be none of those. Wikileaks does not do big data dumps because they are trying to excite the press. Take, for example, the emails from a Bank executive, they have been milking that for press for quite a while, and they are not sifting through it to make sure no one is hurt, it's corporate docs, not government documents.

That they have fooled you into thinking them reputable because they did it that way once is a bit humorous.

Now, when the newspapers go into Afganistan and look up the named people and see if they are ok, I'll believe it makes sense to release the data wantonly. But since no one does any due diligence, it's a pretty weak argument to say there are no documented cases. it's a bit self fulfilling if no one ever looks.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Vancorps]

So I see you think Apple will survive with Jobs at the helm.

On a more serious note this shit bothers me because people seem to have forgotten why we set out on our war campaign to begin with. Osama Bin Laden orchestrated an attack that killed thousands of Americans on American soil and now has paid the price for his crime. The FBI and Interpol probably would have gotten him a long time ago if they had been able to do their jobs instead of needlessly engaging the military which had never dealt with terrorism before. Imagine if the military went in and did the investigation for the Oklahoma city bombing? Or the first WTC bombing?

Any, I for one am happy that at least one stated objective has been reached and hope we can finally begin the process of cleaning up the mess we've created with our tantrum across the middle east fueled largely by previous embarrassments.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[wallsg]

Yeah. Information wants to be free. Go Sony!

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[sjames]

I don't recall that incident, when did Wikileaks publish the atomic bomb schematics? OH, YEAH, that happened decades before Wikileaks even existed, back when the internet was a curiosity available to DoD and a few universities only. They printed it in the newspaper. Nothing happened.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[CrimsonAvenger]

The FBI and Interpol probably would have gotten him a long time ago if they had been able to do their jobs instead of needlessly engaging the military which had never dealt with terrorism before.

Well, the FBI wouldn't have done anything about him at all. Their jurisdiction pretty much ends at the US borders, and as long as bin Laden stayed outside, the FBI was irrelevant.

I quick read-up on Interpol suggests that as long as the Pakistani police (or Iraqi, Afghani, whoever) were unwilling to hunt for bin Laden, Interpol would have been unable to hunt him down either.

So, no, the FBI and Interpol wouldn't have gotten bin Laden any sooner.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[CrimsonAvenger]

hate when I don't close my blockquote tags properly....

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Comen]

I agree with you, If you find something incriminating, then a good news paper would make sure it was worth the risks of exsposure etc.. I agree we lack a good news organization anymore it seems, but just releasing everything to the wild liek that is just stupid, information is power and you can just have total transparency. having the enemy know what you know dont make sense to me. But if something shows the goverment is doing something very wrong, like purposly killing inocent people and knew it, then you should release it.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[FooAtWFU]

Of course, there's only two options: perpetual ignorance and this. Julian Assange couldn't possibly consider exercising any discretion in his release of documents. None at all. And why not? Because he hates America. No, seriously, I mean, he's said as much: We're a "corrupt regime" and he'd like to see us taken down. He's really interested in striking out at America's government and this influences his leak handling, for the worse.

See, I appreciate some of what Wikileaks is doing as an organization to effect justice and bring about more transparency in the world order, but this isn't the sort of release that seems to be the most productive.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[koxkoxkox]

Maybe you should look up the term, "justice" and see what it's all about.

I will give you a hint, this is not about sending seals to kill a guy in the middle of the night. Justice implies presumption of innocence, trial and conviction, even for the Big Bad Guy.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[annenk38]

You're spot on there. We could even use that as an argument for the legal defense of Manning. If indeed the leak was in the interest of National Security (and I am almost convinced that it was), then in doing so Manning was actually performing his duty, and should be acquitted.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Rakishi]

Why do left wingers always say that "dissent is patriotic". That's literally an oxymoron."

No, it's not. They're simply not as bloody stupid as you. Neither were the founding fathers. They had few illusions about what governments were and how wrong they could go. The government is a tool of the people, not the other way around. As soon as you think like a fascist, that the state is all that matters, then it's all over. Dissent is how you keep the government in check and ensure that the ideals on which the country was founded persist.

That's what other people understand and you don't.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[xero314]

Things like "Next Thursday we're sending troops into Boogerstantown at 4 AM." Release it next Friday after Boogerstantown gets clobbered.

Or maybe, just maybe, release it before boogerstantown gets clobber so that the people of the United States can tell the government and military to stop fucking around with boogerstantown and worry about fixing the ever dwindling economic power of a once great country. Or how about releasing it so that the people of boogerstantown can get out before they become labelled "collateral" damage.

The US military should not be left to act on there own except when in imminent danger and in defense of themselves or the citizens of the united states. The people of turkfuckistan or what every you were calling it are by an large most likely not a threat to the US, and even the few that are a threat are not near the level of threat that warrants significant governmental attention when the US economy is being shipped off to The Peoples Republic of Whogivesafuck.

Because I'll tell you, if they are willing to hide when they are attacking other people, they are also willing to hide when other people are going to attack us. They have and they will continue if the people of the United States (I can't speak for people of other countries but their situation is probably just as fucked right about now) start standing up and making this country what it is supposed to be, Of ,By and For the people.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ZirconCode]

Why he's correct you know, legality is defined by the government and international laws are very vague at times and far from accepted by everyone.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[dgatwood]

I'm not convinced that the large compound would be a giveaway by any stretch of the imagination. Lots of nutjobs rent large compounds....

Besides, the critical piece of information, which you abbreviated as UBL, was not obfuscated as it should have been. It should have been replaced with [TerrorSuspect#1231], e.g.

A man named [Informant#1786] and employed by [TerrorSuspect#1231] as a courier has rented a large compound in [Location censored].

Although this would give away a lot of information if it leaks instantly (right after the guy rented the large compound), after a few weeks delay, that's not nearly as much of an issue. The important thing is to avoid keywords or precise dates that would make it possible for the bad guys to connect the leak with their activities and thus discover that they had been outed.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Danse]

No, the real question is how history will judge this assassination. We are outraged about what he took responsibility for, and likely blinded by it, justifying our blood thirst by having lived through his. Future generations might not be so biased, and think that the right to a trial is universal and should be stronger protected the more atrocious the acts were, and the surer we are of the guilt.

That's ridiculous. When you gloat about killing 3000 people and promise to kill more, your life is forfeit and you can expect to be dead as soon as those you've attacked get their hands on you. I couldn't care less how history judges it.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[AlphaWolf_HK]

That all falls apart once you take conspiracy theorists into consideration. People will find any reason to believe that hiding information is for nefarious purposes, no matter what. Case in point, the whole Obama birth certificate mess. The mere fact that he didn't release it earlier raised concern that he was hiding his national origins, when really there was no legitimate concern to begin with. Doesn't matter how trustworthy the government becomes. And that is perfectly healthy - even the most seemingly honest government should be subject to auditing by its citizens.

That doesn't mean however that we go around endangering people's lives because of some bullshit idea that all information should be free. Or even worse, those who want the information leaked just so that they can go out of their way to find fault in what a previous politician did, no matter how many lives it endangers, merely because they happened to hate that politician (vis a vis, Bush)

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[glodime]

no, it would be better when national security is at risk that wikileaks grows up and realizes they are endangering lives, and lots of them, by their wanton approach. This isn't a reputable newspaper that tries to make sure they don't cause people to get killed by releasing information,

Yeah, they should have worked with real journalists like the ones at the New York Times to vet information and selectively release information over time. In other words, wikileaks, should have done exactly what they did and not worry that some people won't even realize that they took care to act responsibly with the classified information they received

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[shaitand]

"Do you REALLY think that killing Osama changed anything?"

Hopefully it gave the symbolic "victory" that will cause the bloodthirsty moronic masses to want to pull out of these stupid police actions turned war.

For fuck sake, Hilary said this operation was planned with the intention of killing bin laden. Has anyone considered that we just intentionally executed a man without trial? The most likely reason being that there wasn't any real evidence against bin laden in the first place (unless you want to count the fake video where some guy who wasn't bin laden claimed credit for 9/11).

God forbid people catch on and realize we just murdered thousands of people in two nations over evidence that wouldn't even stand up to scrutiny in the court system that we KNOW convicts the wrong guy 40% of the time.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[NotQuiteReal]

Well, as long as we have worthless pop culture references to toss at it, let's keep it simple; "He's dead, Jim".

Moving on...

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Vancorps]

You obviously haven't look very hard in regards to indefinite detention. There are more examples as well.

Then you are really saying with a straight face that warrantless wiretaps and GPS trackers on vehicles are not collecting evidence? Or perhaps you believe that this was always done and the laws surrounding Watergate somehow don't apply today. Those are just two examples, there are plenty more.

The reason I limited it to the last thirty years was again because of the parent which mentioned the last few decades and 30 years made sense as that is about the time our civil liberties were beginning to erode. You mention women couldn't vote, you mention jews treated like second class citizens, all things that were well on their way to recovery 30 years ago. Abortions now are even under attack even if it's unlikely the law will get changed and you really want to mention the whole black president thing with the birther issue so fresh? Are you serious?

I'm not sure why you want to argue that civil liberties aren't under attack in this day and age.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[shutdown -p now]

I think the point GP was raising that it would have been more appropriate to capture the guy alive, put him on trial, and then - if (heh) he is found guilty - execute him right and proper. Then it wouldn't have been assassination.

This is not unprecedented - Israel did just that to Eichmann. He was directly responsible for so many deaths of their people that 3000 is chump change in comparison - and yet they felt that capturing him alive and putting them on trial is preferable to covert assassination.

Personally, I don't see how it makes any difference in the end in terms of justice - Osama is clearly guilty, never denied it, and would have gotten the death penalty anyway. But I think that putting him on trial would have been a much more prominent propaganda win than merely killing him.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[perpenso]

I'm not convinced that the large compound would be a giveaway by any stretch of the imagination. Lots of nutjobs rent large compounds.... Besides, the critical piece of information, which you abbreviated as UBL, was not obfuscated as it should have been. It should have been replaced with [TerrorSuspect#1231], e.g.

A man named [Informant#1786] and employed by [TerrorSuspect#1231] as a courier has rented a large compound in [Location censored].

The key question remains. What good is served by publicizing this information? What abusive behavior is being exposed? This is classic and justifiable intelligence data and should not be released by wikileak types at all.

Although this would give away a lot of information if it leaks instantly (right after the guy rented the large compound), after a few weeks delay, that's not nearly as much of an issue. The important thing is to avoid keywords or precise dates that would make it possible for the bad guys to connect the leak with their activities and thus discover that they had been outed.

As someone who has read a couple books about WW2's Bletchley Park I would disagree. A terror suspect's courier renting a compound is incredibly specific information and should set off warning bells of anyone in the compound even without a date or location.

I apologize for being redundant but I am truly baffled by the idea that the public has a right to know that a terror suspect's courier is renting a compound.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Vancorps]

Many international criminals are caught everyday through agency cooperation across borders. The FBI for instance did the investigation of the bombing of the Marine Corp barracks back in 1983. To say their jurisdiction ends at the U.S. border while technically accurate isn't the end of the story. In more recent times they investigated the first bombing of the WTC towers which required international cooperation again.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

There has not been a single documented case of you making poopie, anywhere, any time. Therefore I can conclude that you MUST be full of shit. Isn't logic wonderful?

I am not surprised that you are one to pop up with the logical fallacy that an absence of evidence is actually conclusive proof. You want to accuse people of being endangered by wikileaks? Then you need to back that shit up with more than self-serving speculation.

Also: http://www.anorak.co.uk/267106/politicians/wikileaks-killed-1300-people-and-counting.html

Yes, when people die in the aftermath of the removal of corruption it's not at all the fault of the people abusing their power in the first place. Good thing you aren't an American because you have far more in common with the ideals of the DPRK than with ours.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/taliban+hunt+wikileaks+outed+afghan+informers/3727667.html

Seems like you are plenty willing to take terrorists at their word, until it no longer serves your purposes. It was an empty threat then and it still is today.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/11/28/104404/officials-may-be-overstating-the.html

"But despite similar warnings ahead of the previous two massive releases of classified U.S. intelligence reports by the website, U.S. officials concede that they have no evidence to date that the documents led to anyone's death."

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[dgatwood]

Fair enough. I'm merely using that as an example because that was the example posed to me. I'm not arguing that this particular piece of information was appropriate to release, merely that better sanitization would have made it much less dangerous.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Danse]

I don't really see the point of a show trial in this case. The guy had declared war on the US, and done everything he could to kill as many as possible, so whether we kill him there or here doesn't make a lot of difference. There's no dispute about his guilt, by him or anyone else, and there's really no dispute about the consequences for it. Any trial would be simply for show. I'd rather not give him a platform for spreading any more of his message, which is exactly what a trial would do.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[drsmithy]

If Wikileaks knew the difference between legal secrets and illegal ones, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

You misspelled "Governments".

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[arth1]

Yes, this is a big problem, because many felonies are political in nature (like recreational drug use), which gives the people in power an opportunity to reduce the votes for the opposition.

Also, anyone who is arrested for a possible felony at the time of the election, whether the charges later get dropped or not. In certain southern states, it wasn't uncommon for the sheriff to round up the "undesirables" for the election, to prevent them from voting, and then let them go later.

In addition, you have to register to vote, which effectively disenfranchises the very poorest who have fallen completely out of the system. An added complication here are that in many district, any homeless who HAVE registered (through the help of others) consistently get their votes challenged by republicans and thrown away, since they seldom can prove residency.
Plus, of course, enforced voter registration prevents anyone who changes their mind and decides to vote just before the election from voting.

Oh, and let's not forget that any permanent resident of the United States can NOT become a citizen and vote if they ever directly OR indirectly have ever been affiliated with the communist party. Even if they've lived here for fifty years and are as American as apple pie.

Then there are related problems, like no minimum requirements for voter turnout, meaning that elections are never disqualified due to not having a majority.
This is made worse by the system not allowing blank votes -- if you have the choice between A and B, you can't say "neither" by voting blank, and even if 90% of the adult citizens refuse to vote for either A or B, whichever gets the most votes of the alternatives will win. Even if that's 2 votes against 1 with a million refusing to choose either.
And guess who sets up the alternatives? Yep, the ones in power.

All in all, it's no more a democracy than the voting system in the Soviet Union was. It's a farce.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[nedlohs]

Obviously, but that is completely different than "the military was willing to wait more than two years to conduct the attack but then had to rush things by a couple of weeks because of this leak".

Clearly if he might find out that you have a good lead you are going to have to move up the schedule and not wait to take him down a few months before the election (or more realistically wait for a him to invite some other high value target over for a meeting before going in and getting both of them).

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Opportunist]

I don't think the politics got worse. The people did. Think Nixon would get away with Watergate today? I'm quite convinced, he would.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Opportunist]

Please elaborate. So far I can't see anything that could possibly change.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Opportunist]

So this might end the war? Not because "we" won but because the bad guy's dead?

Ok, so something good might come out of it eventually.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Lemmy Caution]

Absolutely. The possibility that Obama might have been trying to hold off for an October surprise is horrifying. If the WikiLeaks revelation made that impossible, good on Wikileaks.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[arth1]

So, in other words, you do not think Justicia should be blind and provide _everyone_ with the same rights -- that the right to a fair trial can be waived if the commander in chief says so?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[countertrolling]

What do you mean "which one"? It's two words describing the same thing..

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[shutdown -p now]

Historically, it has been a part of the image of "good civilized guys" (which I hope we're still trying to project) that even the most vile scum is only put to death after a trial. If that courtesy was extended to the perpetrators of the Holocaust, I don't see why it shouldn't be applicable to Osama. The end result is the same, but symbolically it does make a big difference.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Paul1969]

And you live in an equally strange world.
Here in 2011, nearly 10 full years after 9/11, bin Laden has become largely irrelevant to terrorism. The original Al Qaeda has evaporated, replaced by ad hoc groups in various locations. But those groups have also been rendered irrelevant by the spontaneous "Arab spring" that has swept through so many countries.
There may be isolated individuals who will try to "avenge" bin Laden in some way. But his killing will not inspire any mass terrorist reinvigoration.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[doomsday_device]

Do you really believe what you said there?

If you believe there is a valid military objective to be obtained here, then you shouldn't talk about Gitmo.

five posts further up

No, it would be better to live in a representative democracy with checks, balances and a centuries-long tradition of government accountability, the rule of law [...].

Shut up about it? Now that's a great tradition of rule of law if you ask me.

You know, laws and military objectives are not supposed to be contradictory. Two parties, in a combined 10 year effort, with all checks and balances in place, could not come up with a legal way of locking up and _interrogating_ their prisoners of war short of keeping them on extrajudicial territory. That is pretty much a low for the united states.

And those politicians knew, at least after 9/11, that they would fight a war against terrorists.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Danse]

So, in other words, you do not think Justicia should be blind and provide _everyone_ with the same rights -- that the right to a fair trial can be waived if the commander in chief says so?

Had he surrendered, then sure, give him a trial. Maybe a military tribunal. But they were in a long firefight in a dangerous place, and he didn't surrender. If he wanted to be captured and wanted a trial, then he should have surrendered. I'm not going to ask that those guys put themselves at any more risk than necessary, and I'm not going to ask that they put a more priority on capturing rather than killing him if he isn't going to surrender. Better him dying than any one of them.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Danse]

Historically, it has been a part of the image of "good civilized guys" (which I hope we're still trying to project) that even the most vile scum is only put to death after a trial. If that courtesy was extended to the perpetrators of the Holocaust, I don't see why it shouldn't be applicable to Osama. The end result is the same, but symbolically it does make a big difference.

Like I said in my other post. If he wanted a trial, he should have surrendered. The Germans surrendered. They got trials. I wouldn't ask the men who raided the compound to take even slightly more risk to save his life just so we can kill him later. Having any one of them die because of that would be beyond tragic.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[shutdown -p now]

According to news stories I've read, Osama was unarmed. Yet he was shot in the head, point blank. It's pretty clear that it was a planned assassination from the get go.

Getting back to the example of Eichmann - Israelis went so far as to craft an elaborate undercover operation all for the sake of capturing him alive and getting him into Israel. Assassinating him would be much easier to them (as evidenced by other cases where they did just that).

In fact, there's also an interesting point to consider. Hamas commanders who mastermind terrorist acts which kill, at most, a few dozen, eventually just get a bullet to the head, quiet like. But a guy who masterminded the murder of millions - him they got on trial, which many consider to be more fair than e.g. Nuremberg trials, and then hanged him right and proper - the only civilian ever executed in the history of Israel. Why? Because the trial was part of setting it an example for everyone to remember - here's what the man did and how, in rigorous detail; and here's what he gets for doing all that. A bullet to the head in the heat of the battle does not have quite the same effect.

Personally, I think it would have probably been even better to capture Osama and keep him alive. A dead man is a martyr, a shahid - doubly so as now he actually gloriously died in battle against the "infidels".

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[TheEyes]

Please elaborate. So far I can't see anything that could possibly change.

About five stories back was the real news: the US got ahold of bin Laden's computer. Regardless of the symbolism of killing the man himself, the seizure of his files may turn out to be the beginning of the end of at least the Pakistan/Afghanistan chapter of Al Queda.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[jpapon]

I'm pretty sure Eichmann surrendered. Osama greeted his captors with the business end of an AK-47. granted, that's what we wanted him to do, but it wasn't an assassination. We came to capture him, he shot at us, so we shot back. If Obama hadn't picked up a gun, he wouldn't be sleeping with the fishes.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[jpapon]

Shit shit shit oSama goddamnit. Now I'm probably on a watch list. Sigh.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

What's the case against Osama? Comfortable making it in court? If not, sit the fuck down asshole.

The world is far safer with the jingoistic actions of the USA exposed.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[shutdown -p now]

I'm pretty sure Eichmann surrendered.

He wasn't - he was abducted, and it was specifically arranged to take him alive:

"Finally, almost a half hour later, Eichmann got off a bus. A Mossad agent engaged him, asking him in Spanish if he had a moment. Eichmann was frightened and attempted to leave while blinded by Mossad headlights. Two Mossad men wrestled him to the ground and he was brought to the car."

Granted, they actually gave him a choice of being killed there an then, or standing trial - after he was tied up.

Osama greeted his captors with the business end of an AK-47. granted, that's what we wanted him to do, but it wasn't an assassination. We came to capture him, he shot at us, so we shot back. If Obama hadn't picked up a gun, he wouldn't be sleeping with the fishes.

Per official story, Osama was unarmed.

Frankly, personally I'm more and more inclined towards the fact that they didn't actually get him. Hasty burial at sea, persistent refusal to release the photos ("gruesome" my ass! we've seen much worse than a man shot in the head from both wars already), and that photoshopped photo floating around early on after the announcement - there's too much cheesiness surrounding this. If the man was dead for real, I'd fully expect his head paraded on a pike at Ground Zero - well, maybe not quite, but definitely more evidence and not just empty talk. That conspiracy theory about him actually being dead for 3 years now suddenly makes a lot more sense - it would explain all the theater.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

Sure. "Your honor, I put millions in danger to protect National Security"

"What the fuck are you talking about, son?"

"Well, your honor, if I didn't let out all those secrets totally unrelated to the secrets that hid the dead people who were already dead, then...uh...well, then more people wouldn't have a chance to be dead. Or some shit like that."

"Okay. I see. You're a total idiot. 99 years in Leavenworth. Unless you'd rather face a firing squad."

"I can get a do-over, can't I? Julian said I'd get a do-over for a first offense..."

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

The Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief. Among the powers of such a person is the power to determine what is and is not a military secret.

The Constitution also gives the Congress the power to make the laws, and the Congress gives the President the authority to classify information. Hence the explanation in the introduction to Executive Order 13526 - Classified National Security Information, December 29, 2009:

"This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information both within the Government and to the American people. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation's security and demonstrating our commitment to open Government through accurate and accountable application of classification standards and routine, secure, and effective declassification are equally important priorities.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:"

So. Unless you have been elected to be Congress, and by that I mean that within your sole person you comprise a majority capable of deciding what is and is not law, then your attempt to rewrite the law to prevent the President from having and delegating this power is nothing but ignorant bullshit.

Which is really all I needed to say. "What a load of ignorant bullshit," I'd have said, and been done with it. But then you wouldn't have learned anything, and neither would anyone else. And we can't have that.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[c0mpliant]

You're exactly right, there is a principal involved in this that most people are overlooking. Even before the news broke that Usama was actually unarmed at the time, I found it very suspect that the best trained military team in the world, as the American media is telling us, was unable to capture an individual without killing him. There are any number of non lethal ways to take someone down who is armed with a weapon. But the fact now that they are telling me that he actually wasn't armed and yet they shot him in the head tells me that they were never interested in capturing him alive.

However I am fundamentally opposed to capital punishment. It has shown to not be a detererant, it doesn't bring justice only revenge (the two are not the same thing) and, most importantly in my eyes, the state doesn't have the right to kill anyone where it can be avoided.

I acknowledge that this view isn't the most popular idea right now, but historical trends are showing that capital punishment is becoming less and less acceptable and that is exactly what this was, an untried execution of a person. Whatever way you break it down, the US government acted no differently to a gang in the street

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

At the time they were doing it, it was secret, and it was protecting me from Soviets, not hurting me.

After, they told us they'd been doing it, and that they were stopping it. The secret was secret no more. But it turns out that the act of stopping it turned the psychotic among our allies into our enemies.

Making it open didn't make anyone less safe, so your point is moot.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

I can't tell you. It's a secret.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[blair1q]

You could read executive order 13526, which spells out what is and isn't a legal secret, and why and how to get things declassified.

Then you wouldn't think he's correct.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

And if you aided or abetted the USA in any way the rest of the world should treat you as a war criminal.

Or are you merely saying that the supreme court is full of politicians and frightened children instead of principled adults?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

If you think Gitmo is related to any valid or useful military actions please list them.

Leave out any military action entered into on lies and false pretenses, or knowingly against uninvolved targets.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[manicb]

I heartily endorse Doing Things The Right Way. No reasonable man could disagree!

What is it, by the way?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[hinesbrad]

That was hilarious. ;-)

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Luckyo]

First of all, what exact proof do we have of his guilt that has been shown to public? All we have is "I did it!" boasting, as well as intelligence agencies saying they have proof that it was him as well as press released stuff. Most of this is media-level stuff. Very little of it has been actually shown, mainly for political reasons (Saudi involvement and realpolitik). Court, even a show one would have allowed a judicial test of actual evidence and testimonies, and wiped away many of these doubts.
On the other hand, court would have had a chance to actually blow these connections wide open, and as a result damage US politically. Additionally it's highly likely that Bin Laden would have been able to testify on things behind 9/11 that still remain secret by choice of US intelligence agencies. In this regard, this is indeed a clear cut assassination to avoid justice and potential fallout from it.

Second, being a war general is NOT a crime. Else Petraeus would be the biggest war criminal of this century in terms of kill count of civilians. Note that I'm not saying he's advocating the "everyone supporting the enemy is the enemy" approach that modern terrorists have, but am simply quoting the numbers. In this regard, US has eclipsed even Romans when it comes to terror as a tool of vengeance - for every american civilian killed in 9/11 we have several hundred (by a very conservative count) "target country" civilians killed in follow-up wars. The obvious counter-argument here is that US tried to avoid civilian casualties (at least far more then anyone else), but that doesn't help the people who lost family and loved ones. On either side.

When it comes to justice, even a show court is still better then a head shot and a body tossed into the sea. I don't think anyone can seriously argue with this point.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

Pray tell, which party is against unjust war?

And for bonus points, which one is for trying the mongers of unjust wars for murder and treason?

We knew Iraq wasn't a democracy when Saddam got 90%+ of the vote, always. But the top two parties in the USA consistently share 95% of the votes, and everyone knows "a vote for a third party is a vote _____" as "wasted" and yet we pretend we're a democracy.

We knew Iran wasn't a democracy when their theocracy vetted candidates and controlled not only the vote counting but all independent review of the result. Both parties in the USA are headed by people who profess belief in fantastical space-friends who will save our 'souls' and who owe allegiance to their church more fundamentally than to their oaths of office.

As long as government apologists justify this by saying "Vote, or it's your fault" we're stuck with no real choice.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[IamTheRealMike]

It's not that we don't know what our government is up to

Wait, what? Isn't that the entire point of WikiLeaks - that without leaks we don't know what they're up to?

You realize the recent WikiLeaks dump revealed all kinds of ludicrous "decisions" (using the term loosely) were being made, right?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[hjrnunes]

Maybe you should look up the term, "justice" and see what it's all about

AFAIK, in most civilized countries, "justice" implies a proper, unbiased and free trial.

I think this was a great opportunity for the US and the West in general to show that they have the moral high ground and condemn this "state vigilante justice" like someone said above. Instead, all TVs shown people all over Western countries celebrating as if it was a reason of great joy. Worse, the leaders of those countries did pretty much everything but jumping around in joy too.

Lets not forget that if Osama had blood on his hands, as far as Muslims are concerned, the West has it's own hands drenched in it. Now they look at us and think: "They talk a lot about human rights, but when it comes down to it, they're no different of anybody. They kill when, where and what they want", and they're right, because we conveniently ignore basic human rights when it suits us. Like the US now did. To think that it is for a good reason, no matter what that reason is, makes us as bad as all those we condemn. Of course it would be a lot harder to try Bin Laden and condemn him in court (if he was to be considered guilty at all, lets not forget about presumption of innocence - another basic right we conveniently ignore sometimes) than to blow his head off in Pakistan, but it would have sent a clear message: a democracy will search, capture and force all criminals to answer for their crimes in front of a judge, and that is the right way to do it. But, instead, we just put a bullet in his head. Many more of them may now be thinking that they'd like their country to do the same to some Westerners, namely the ones that sent the Tomahawks that hit their houses in Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq, even if by mistake, and why shouldn't they? After all, that's what we do anyways...

The world is safer now? I seriously doubt it. It's probably become more dangerous.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[shilly]

Perhaps you should do a little more reading then. You could start with Jason Burke's insightful analyses in the Guardian.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[mcvos]

For fuck sake, Hilary said this operation was planned with the intention of killing bin laden. Has anyone considered that we just intentionally executed a man without trial? The most likely reason being that there wasn't any real evidence against bin laden in the first place (unless you want to count the fake video where some guy who wasn't bin laden claimed credit for 9/11).

That's exactly why I think the US killed him. Getting him convicted could turn out to be too hard and take too much time. A quick victory works much better in the media.

Interestingly, a Dutch poll showed that quite a number of Dutch people would have preferred him on trial, but it's mostly people to tend to vote for the left-libertarian parties. The more conservative, the less they care about justice, apparently.

Also, my newspaper had an article explaining why Bin Laden is more valuable to Al Qaeda dead than alive. He's a martyr now, whereas over the past years, he accomplished nothing other than cost money to keep him safe and hidden. The world had practically forgotten about him, but now he's news again, and so is Al Qaeda.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[shilly]

Um, Israel has also carried out assassinations. The approach chosen depends on many other factors, not least of which is that Eichmann did not have tens of millions of sympathisers around the world who would be motivated to launch repeated terrorist attacks to free him.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[shilly]

A photo of someone who's been shot in the face isn't really going to be much use to you in identifying them.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[mangu]

the real question is how history will judge this assassination

Killing someone who resists arrest is not assassination. Sometimes law enforcement must take a hastier approach when taking charge of a suspect, it's not always that they have a safe way to make him surrender.

There are famous examples, like Billy the Kid, Jesse James, John Dillinger, or Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, where law enforcement seems to have committed summary executions rather than controlled arrests, but who are we to judge that?

I'd rather risk being unfair in calling a confessed but not convicted criminal like Osama a terrorist, than calling assassin a law enforcement official who kills a suspect during his arrest.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[meadowsp]

Now it turns out he was unarmed after all.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

What is important is that they leaked the courier's name. In other words, "we know who that guy is who is next to you. We know that you send him out for messages and we know that he will return to where you are. We don't need to find you. All we need to do is find HIM! Oh and we know that his home town and family live in a place called Abbottobad."

If you were Osama Bin Laden, and you knew what I just mentioned, would you stick around Abbottobad? Would you continue to hang out with your courier? Or would you give your courier a cell phone and tell him to go east while you go west after you booby trap your compound?

If I were Osama Bin Laden, I wouldn't stay were I was if they captured somebody who knows my whereabouts.

OTOH the guy was captured 6 years ago, and Ossama moved to Abbottobad 3 years ago. If Bin Laden had read that document (that is 2.5 years old) a week ago, he would have thought: "Hey, they know about my courier and even mention where I live right now (even so it is only mentioned as the place where the detainee lived for some time). They had this information for at least two and a half years. They must be close on my tail. Not."

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

Because reprinting the hymn cards for the hate rallies is expensive.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cculianu]

What you're saying is true. We should organize to change things.

But in practice it's extremely difficult. There are some extremely wealthy corporations you have to contend with and they have a lot of power and sway over politics and who gets elected and what they do once in office.

But yes, it's true, if we ban together and get involved it's possible to change things.

In the meantime I'm all in favor of Wikileaks.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Savage-Rabbit]

Al Queda was and is a loose confederation of Islamic fundamentalist terror groups with a central core in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Killing Bin Laden has huge significance for US Americans due to 9/11 but it will do nothing to kill off Al Qaeda it self. You can think of Al Qaeda like a bot net except there is no administrator you can kill and neutralize the network. Al Qaeda just an umbrella term for a bunch of loosely connected self organizing terrorist cells that benefit from being able to communicate and cooperate with each other but will be relatively unaffected if you remove a few nodes from the network. Since there is no commander-in-chief the best you can hope for is to remove a cell from the network and assassination attacks against the leaders will just temporarily cripple parts of the network. Killing Bin Laden may be satisfying and I won't mourn his death but it also acted as a motivation to his followers to continue his struggle. That's how sainthood and militant religious fundamentalism works. It's kind of a loose/loose situation for the security forces because to the fundies a traditional victory is a success but if they get their ass kicked and you kill a bunch of them they win too because the dead fundies you killed become martyrs and that persuades other fundies to become recruits and replenish the ranks.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cculianu]

I don't think it changed anything real, to be honest. It's symbolic though. I often resort to mafia analogies when trying to understand these things.

For example, using the mafia don model: You can make an argument that when the mafia don (US) has an enemy, and they finally get him, it "sends a message".

Also, politically it makes Obama look good because it gives the impression he gets stuff done competently. He might be able to point to it in the next presidential campaign.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

wow. a political optimist.

How rare. A political optimist.

FWIW, I largely agree it's not that bad, but let's be frank here though, some freedoms have taken a bloody nose in the last few decades.

The fact that we can bitch about our Government and not have to worry about a Mubarak or a Gaddafi style crackdown means that maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't be using hyperbole like we do.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cculianu]

When it comes to justice, even a show court is still better then a head shot and a body tossed into the sea. I don't think anyone can seriously argue with this point.

I could not agree more. But you know, they got Hitler II. Let's rejoice and beat our fists against our chests and get drunk and be proud to be an American. That's how we're supposed to react.

It's sad how many people have died globally under the pretext of 9/11. And now even the death of Bin Laden doesn't get most people to question the US's actions. It has the opposite effect in that people react viscerally to it.

It's just completely ok and we are awesome that we got him and it's great and YEAH! AMERICAAAAAAAA!

A lot of people have died as you have pointed out and it's sad. Bin Laden's death doesn't bring them back. I just wish violence would end and not a single additional person would die because of all of this. :(

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Joce640k]

America continually changing their story on how he died and dumping the body at sea as fast as possible before anybody could see it won't help how history sees this.

At the moment though, he's right. The American mentality is hard for the rest of the world to understand but "killing the bad guy" had people out on the streets firing guns in the air this week. Even Scott Adams blogged about how good it made him feel.

Sad really, but all too true (as the GP pointed out).

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Internetuser1248]

Killing Osama changes almost nothing, but the fact that the people in the US are looking at their groundless fears that they are fed every day is a small victory. Perhaps it will dawn on them one day.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[intheshelter]

Actually this sort of proves the government wrong. If this article is to be believed then Wikileaks actually caused us to kill a terrorist SOONER, so Wikileaks obvioiusly is helping our war on terror?

It's all how you spin it, and Wikileaks is NOT making us unsafe. Let's not invent BS arguments here, okay?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[intheshelter]

Any other obvious evidence that makes his point that you plan on disallowing first? Perhaps a name change to rightwingdumbass might be in order?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[intheshelter]

You counterarguments are so full of shit it is ridiculous. Essentially what you've said is "If you agree with me then I admit your evidence, if you don't agree with me I don't want to hear it". Go back to your compound George, your administration ended in January '09 and nobody is missing you.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[FhnuZoag]

Well, the code breaking was only useful so long as the Germans and Japanese didn't know the code was being broken. If Wikileaks existed then and leaked the existence of ULTRA, it'd have done a ton of damage.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[FhnuZoag]

>You can NOT trust leaders. Yet you trust Assange.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[hairyfish]

Do you REALLY think that killing Osama changed anything? Think of it this way: Would killing the President of the US suddenly halt every operation running? Would killing the CEO of any large corporation make it fold and cease to exist?

We're not talking about a handful of loonies with a Bond-villainesque leader and a structure that would crumble when you remove the head.

Actually that is that is pretty close to what Al Qaeda is. The proof is in the pudding and apart from 9/11, which was mostly piss-poor logistical blunders on our part, Al Qaeda haven't really acheived much. If they we the massive co-ordinated terrorist organisation that the media claimed then, then where is the terror? No schools bombed, not sport stadiums gassed. Even a half baked biker gang could organise more destruction than Al Qaeda managed after 9/11.

Ozzy has already been replaced, and I guess it's safe to assume that this "devastating blow" didn't change jack. Considering how "prominent" Bin Laden had been, it's quite likely that the day to day "business" was already in the hands of someone else.

What business? If I had even 100 guys at my command I could achieve more terrorist acts in a week than these guys have done in ten years. Don't believe the hype.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Marcos Eliziario]

You have a point when you tell there's a huge trust problem with our current governments, but I don't think wikileaks is the solution. We've got watergate without wikileaks, we've got iran-contras denounced even before most people had internet connections. But we've had it all without a guy that blackmails governments and corporations. See, we don't live in a democracy, it's a republic. We don't need systematic leaks, we need laws to protect the free press, we need people who are a lot more responsible before voting. I find it funny that people that never bothers even to see what the congress is doing, that never bothers even to go voting, think that the solution for the problems caused by their lack of involvement is to fuck the institutions. Things are not like they are because there was no wikileaks, things are what they are because people think that posting some sarcastic quote on twitter is political participation. Do you things to improve? Involve yourself locally first. Most bastards on the high echelons started their political careers on the city council level. So what? you go there and make sure people like you are represented on the city council. It takes work? it takes time? yes, it takes! But that's how a republic is supposed to work.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[intheshelter]

Nice spin. Complete BS, but nice spin. OR, perhaps failed American foreign policy decisions put the special forces operators at greater risk by increasing the likelihood they will encounter enemy fire in their career? So, pretty much the opposite of what you said?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[FhnuZoag]

Maybe it'd have been valuable to wait, to prepare better, so that Bin Laden would have been captured alive. Or maybe the US was tracking people leaving the compound, for a source of intelligence. What if by rushing the operation, it was actually bungled (as it nearly was, since one helicopter was lost), and Bin Laden got away? Would you be praising Wikileaks now?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Luckyo]

But you know, they got Hitler II.

Really? Hitler was one of the main causes of WW2. That is over 75 million dead.

Bin Laden was probably behind about 4-5 thousand deaths of 9/11 and a couple of other terrorist incidents. He has no operative leadership at all in Afghanistan. We're looking at 4 orders of magnitude of difference. As a comparison, Bush Jr. and his orders can be directly linked to at least 100 thousand deaths which is still three orders of magnitude less then WW2.

Bin Laden's main crime was popularising terrorism. Comparing him to Hitler is just a direct insult to victims of WW2, and open warfare in general.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[intheshelter]

Actually his question is fair. Essentially WHO decides what secret is legal vs illegal? The corrupt government? Won't they just declare anything they don't want to disclose as a legal secret?

Wikileaks doesn't bother me. My government has run unchecked for too long and if the light of day hurts the cockroaches in Washington then they are free to leave.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

You've always been paying $4/gallon for gas, or more, but the cost is hidden in your taxes and the functioning of government.

People simply want the veil to be lifted so that the true costs of things are revealed, thus making the case for products currently kept out of the market by unfair subsidies.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[hairyfish]

Yeah because we were all so much safer before wikileaks. There is no perfect scenario, but I prefer a world with wikileaks than one without.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[intheshelter]

I think only the blind people trust that. How could anyone with any degree of intelligence legitimately believe that the government doesn't classify information and hide it to avoid exposing its misdeeds?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Marcos Eliziario]

Sir, You've nailed the point. People are too worried about correcting the symptoms, even if it involves doing wrong things. Here in Brazil, there's huge support for a quite unconstitutional law that prohibits politicians under investigation to be candidates. The problem is, unless you've gone to trial, you're supposed to be innocent. What people should be questioning is why it takes so much time to condemn corrupt public agents. Governments got their secrets, but the kind of secret a government has is the real problem, if only crooks involve themselves on the political process, if only crooks get elected, you've got crook's secrets, no matter how much you scream on twitter or Facebook. Really, if you really want to change the government, you've got to seriously consider being part of the government, or at least thinking on supporting directly people you trust. Electing a president is not enough, you've got to be part of lowest level, from city councils up.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

Shoot the messenger. That'll make it all better.

He's a patriot (or falsely accused) because he revealed the truth to the electorate. It's not guaranteed to make things better but lies can pretty much be guaranteed to make things worse.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

You think George Washington would have had someone executed for leaking documents showing his forces wantonly killing civilians?

You've got a pretty low opinion of the man.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[TheRaven64]

Deep cover agents / informers don't make headlines when they are taken out back and get a bullet in the head

You don't think that the Pentagon would want to trumpet deaths caused by Wikileaks to garner popular support for clamping down on them? Or that the anti-Wikileaks faction of the media wouldn't want to broadcast them loudly? Instead, we have a statement from the Pentagon saying that no one has been killed as a result of the leaks, and a media strangely unwilling to cite any specific cases...

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

Oh totally, one of our soldier dying, that'd be such a tragedy. I mean, it's not like for every US citizen/soldier who died in this since 9/11 our forces have killed thirty people, most innocent, mostly civilians, often children...

Oh yeah, that's exactly how it is. So no, I guess that means it'd be poetic fucking justice if every one of the fuckers choked to death on their own grenades, not a tragedy.

And, you. You could go too, you war-mongering prick.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Tuan121]

Would killing the CEO of any large corporation make it fold and cease to exist?

You mean like, Apple?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Will.Woodhull]

Reading parent post triggered an insight: Wikileaks does in fact serve us well.

Persons who rose to powerful positions in governments and organizations had only had to avoid being obviously incompetent while devoting their cleverness toward getting one rung higher on the ladder. But now Wikileaks has made things more difficult since from now on since it has become much more difficult to avoid a public display of incompetence.

There is the possibility that in the future those who are selected for higher levels of responsibility will be persons who are somewhat more competent in making decisions than those who we are now reading about on Wikileaks.

If that happens, it would be a good thing.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[TheRaven64]

In this case, the Pentagon could issue a statement saying that n people had been killed as a result of Wikileaks. They could privately provide the names to a small group of journalists, on the condition that the names are not published. Instead, the Pentagon has publicly stated that no one has died as a result of these leaks.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Candid88]

We keep hearing about this massive "treasure trove" of intelligence seized, but what I don't understand is then why haven't the US/Pakistan military been spending the last few days conducting similar operations based on this intelligence? By now Al Qaeda must know the information is compromised, so its usefulness is decreasing dramatically everyday.

Many wasted hours studying history has taught me wounded enemies are usually defeated when the momentum of initial victories is kept up and enemy routs turned into heavy defeats. The momentum seems to be none-existent in this case.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

Wikileaks gets the data to the people. Without knowledge of what's going on your vote is irrelevant and meaningless. Without knowledgeable voters our democracy is a sham. If you love America you MUST support Wikileaks.

Read up on how the Times (and every other news source in the USA) held off on publishing details of domestic wiretapping, among other things, at the request of the government at election time.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[geekmux]

For every improperly classified document they release, they're releasing thousands of things that should be kept secret.

They aren't competent to do what they are doing, and we're not safe as long as they are making these mistakes.

I agree with you, but I also think that living in complete darkness as to what our Government is involved in isn't the answer either.

And to be honest with you, not even our own Government really knows how to manage classified data, which is why you end up with the CLASSIFIED blanket being thrown over data that probably shouldn't be classified (better safe than sorry excuse). This is mainly due to the compartmentalized nature of how they manage classified data in the first place (think SCI). We see how bad the "left hand not talking to the right hand" is in the public sector of the Government. It sure as hell isn't any better on the classified side.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

Of course, they're willing baby-killers. They're still in the armed forces despite it being clear that Bush made up the reasons for war in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Not only was Iraq totally uninvolved, but Osama was only (supposedly) staying in an unpopulated area of Afghanistan - certainly not a reason to kill peasants in another part of country or go empire building.

If these thugs can't be bothered to investigate what they're fighting for, or value patriotism above truth, they are the problem.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

1) Bullshit, you fucking liar.

2) The USA causes, on average, more than 250 deaths a day in Afghanistan and Iraq alone - virtually all innocents.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ArcherB]

You neglect the most obvious question, if we knew how to get to Osama Bin Laden, why hadn't we done it already?

All we had was the name of the messenger boy who stayed close to Bin Laden. The break came not to long ago when this courier made a phone call to another known Al Qaueda member's phone line that we had tapped. Once we knew where the courier was, it was only a matter of time before we found where he was staying.

All the name did for us was let us know who to look for. It's not like he was listed in the phone book.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ArcherB]

Maybe you should look up the term, "justice" and see what it's all about.

I will give you a hint, this is not about sending seals to kill a guy in the middle of the night. Justice implies presumption of innocence, trial and conviction, even for the Big Bad Guy.

OK. Let's presume Bin Laden had the presumption of innocence. Then we saw him on video admitting to giving the order to do the attacks on 9/11. Let's call that a confession, which would negate the need for a trial and conviction. The only thing missing is a judge giving out the sentence. Personally, I don't want to take the chance that some panty-waist judge would give a lighter sentence than a bullet to the head, so I'm OK with the outcome.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

A radical organization like Al Qaeda doesn't remain leaderless for long

Oh yeah, and you know that because you've got a fucking degree in the psychology and operations of radical organizations.

Or, you've watched Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome and have an active, if poor, imagination.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

Exactly, so knowing that at least one of the documents contained critical information for the people, he (whoever leaked the documents) had to leak all of them. Nothing else would be guaranteed to get all the dangerous secrets.

And of course it's obvious that you protect the victims of the criminal before you protect the criminal, so even if the information would have fundamentally hurt the USA (which is far from clear) you'd have to release it anyways because they're clearly prosecuting an illegal war under false pretenses.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[quenda]

They aren't competent to do what they are doing, and we're not safe as long as they are making these mistakes.

That is why Wkileaks works with mainstream media before releasing to the general public.
Oh ... you were referring to the organisations that authored the documents?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Threni]

Yeah, but take a step back - would governments make the sorts of mistakes which leads to invading Afghanistan, backing dodgy dictators in the first place? You're saying the cost - that one person might evade assassination a bit longer - is too high?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cpu6502]

>>>>>You can NOT trust leaders.
>>
>>Yet you trust Assange.

False. I do not trust Assange. Everybody lies.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

If he sickens you with his need for energy, why do you support the USA's empire-building to go get it?

Oh, btw, you're the traitor. Anyone conspiring to keep secrets from the electorate, or supporting doing so, is destroying the country from the inside out.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[quenda]

I don't really see the point of a show trial in this case. ... done everything he could to kill as many as possible,

Agreed a show trial would be pointless, but you are swallowing the propaganda a bit there. Osama had concrete aims, such as expelling US troops from Saudi Arabia. He was callous to the deaths, but hardly killing for its own sake. If body count was all that mattered, they could have killed far, far more.
  You also hear how they "want to destroy America". What nonsense, as if Osama could have been so deluded.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

You mean despite hundreds of detainees in Gitmo, Osama never expected the US to know the name of the courier he used to contact many of his terrorists?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

You're a dishonest fucker. The leaks have revealed the covered up deaths of civilians, more evidence that the reasons for the war were faked, that the USA uses undue pressure to coerce the signing of bills like ACTA, that the USA is perfectly happy dealing with terrorists who elevate themselves to a state level, etc.

All far more important than some figurehead of yet another group of politically motivated terrorists.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[rwv]

The most practical solution would be for the government to adopt a trustworthy approach to secrecy and build the public's confidence in their honesty.

Your assumption is that the public is trustworthy. In fact, one main reason why the government exists is to protect those who are trustworthy from those who aren't. If everybody was trustworthy, there would be no need for a government.

Could the government employ more transparent means to identify untrustworthy people who endanger a trustworthy person's well-being? Maybe. Probably not. Opaque is critical in this instance. It's like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle... you can't know both velocity and position. The untrustworthy people will change/adapt their behaviors if they know that they're being watched. You only lie on your taxes when you reasonably believe the IRS won't catch-up with you. A receipt deducted from something that wasn't actually a business lunch? A charitable "donation" made to buy uniforms for your son's Little League team? These aspects of your untrustworthiness don't endanger a trustworthy person's well-being so they're fine. Because there are real crooks to catch... rapists, thieves, and dishonest businessmen.

The point is that having a government with accountability forces these real crooks to consider ways of conducting their business without getting caught... because getting caught has strongly negative implications. If the government was transparent about all of their investigations, the real crooks would never get caught because they'd be able to stay one step ahead of their pursuers. That's why I don't see too much harm allowing the government to collect and archive vast amounts of information. Maybe this is sort of what you're advocating, though it seems like you want less secrecy and everything to be done in the open.

One thing I will concede... as information becomes easier/cheaper to obtain, agency budgets should be slashed. Taxpayers don't need to foot the bill for government to go after small-time crime. As long as dangerous crime is not increasing the federal budgets shouldn't either. Does that make sense? To me, it seems like a reasonable compromise between "Big Brother" and "Mad Max".

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[MaroonMotor]

Why go so far back? See this guy Ajmal Kasab. Given the full benefit of due process, defense lawyers, open trial. Ends with a hanging verdict. No secret evidence, in-camera trial of the US kangaroo military court system. India positively makes the US justice system look medieval in this particular instance.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cheekyjohnson]

I'd much rather have things that "should be kept secret" leaked than trust the government.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[arth1]

Had he surrendered, then sure, give him a trial. Maybe a military tribunal. But they were in a long firefight in a dangerous place, and he didn't surrender.

Huh? From the accounts, he and his wife was in the top floor of the building, unarmed. His wife yelled at the soldiers, who shot her in the leg. Then they shot the unarmed, sitting Bin Laden in the head. How utterly brave. Something to be proud of.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cpu6502]

>>>You would rather Osama get away to lead more terrorist attacks?

Yes because of 1 enemy (Osama), our actions have now created 1 million NEW enemies (the children who will grow-up hating america for killing their mothers or fathers). It is never wise to piss-off people and create new problems.

Peace is the wiser course.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cheekyjohnson]

No, the people did that. By acting on the information. That's not Wikileaks' fault.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Thelasko]

The US culture has, for the past few decades, evolved to expect the "Good Guys Always Win" ending.

You can thank the Comics Code Authority for that one.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[grnrckt94]

The difference here is that in addition to his death, we gained Intel from his compund in the form of harddrives, usb sticks, DVDs, etc. Presumably, these devices contain tons of useful information about the people involved. I'd bet that they've already started acting on that intel, and that the end is near for UBL's branch of AQ. So yes, it will change something. It's like chopping off the head of a snake, but at the same time siphoning out the contents of its brain.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ClioCJS]

Raiding every house? Huh? Did some news come out in the last 12 hours that I didn't read about? Link please.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[ClioCJS]

How religious :)

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Gilmoure]

...we've had it going in more or less working order for several hundred years

Several, as in three hundred or more?

Um, no.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[MikeMo]

In a long firefight, in the dark, the "din of war" all around, do you really think they knew if he was or was not armed? What would YOU have done in that split second?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cobrausn]

Actually he was shot at a distance in the chest, and then shot in the head afterwards to ensure he was dead. And you say the word 'assassination' as if anyone gives a shit, which assumes a lot. An assassination is just a death sentence handed down with the accused in abstentia, when transgressions and identity are well known and a trial would change nothing (and just end up being a spectacle).

Since you keep citing Eichmann, you should know that the Israelis killed several Nazis post WWII without bringing them back. In particular, the first Nazi war criminal hunted down and killed by the Mossad in Argentina was killed on site by four agents, after he had admitted to them who he was, his body left in a trunk with a note stuck to his body. He was unarmed when they put a couple bullets in the back of his head. It was their statement to the world about how they planned on dealing with Nazi war criminals.

Now I would have preferred they bring him back alive to a US aircraft carrier and held a military trial there, as there would be next to no possibility of an attack on the trial and they could have done the entire thing on video, which would have the secondary effect of ensuring nobody could say he wasn't dead. But I didn't know all the details of the operation, and it wasn't me conducting a raid into a foreign country without notifying their military of my presence for fear they might leak the info, so I won't sit here and play armchair critic, pretending I knew what was best.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Asic Eng]

From what we've been told it wasn't very difficult for Manning to get to the data. With so many people having easy access, it's hard to imagine that actual enemies of the USA didn't have this information before. Which in turn would make it rather unlikely that there is any additional danger from letting the public know, too.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[teslafreak]

Yes, if we discount things like ex-judicial detainment in gitmo as an inconvenient counterargument to rule of law and politicians calling for the summary execution of a non-American for treason for publishing as an inconvenient counterargument for freedom of the press, then yes, the USA is a shining example of a democracy.

This is part of the problem though. When illegals don't get treatment under our laws, people whine about it (even though it should only apply to actual legal citizens). Then when they hear about someone being suggested for a death sentence because of breaking our laws, they think that they shouldn't be held to them. You don't get to have it both ways just because it is more convenient. If you sell out the safety of our people, and then are caught, you absolutely deserve to die. At least we usually use quick methods (provided we ever get around to it with all the crappy legal battles). Most other places wouldn't be so kind.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[multi io]

For every improperly classified document they release, they're releasing thousands of things that should be kept secret.

The documents were known to some 2 million people. If they contained top-secret information about where the US thought OBL was hiding, the question arises as to who really was the one who didn't know what he or she was doing.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Grishnakh]

Yep, it's funny (in a bad way) seeing Slashdotters all arguing over the morality of something that never happened. Osama died years ago, of natural causes. Many reports say that he died in december 2001, or a lung infection. Google it: there's tons of stuff from that time.

"Gruesome"? They had no problem releasing photos of JFK with part of his head removed back in the 60s, when people weren't generally accustomed to gruesome images on TV like they are now.

The only "evidence" that Osama was killed two days ago is the government saying "trust us". No photos, no video, no body, nothing. These days, soldiers frequently carry video cameras into battle, even helmet-mounted. If this thing happened, there's no way there wasn't video of the whole thing. Where is it?

It's simple: it doesn't exist. This is all a big ploy to boost Obama's flagging popularity.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[tehcyder]

For every improperly classified document they release, they're releasing thousands of things that should be kept secret.

They aren't competent to do what they are doing, and we're not safe as long as they are making these mistakes.

So the US were just going to sit around twiddling their thumbs, even though they knew where OBL was, until they were forced to act by a Wikileaks document?
That would put Wikileaks in a better light than the mysteriously paralysed US military/government.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[FatAlb3rt]

...but what I don't understand is then why haven't the US/Pakistan military been spending the last few days conducting similar operations based on this intelligence?

Have they not been providing you with up-to-the-minute reports? Wow, I guess I can see how that would disappoint you.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Grishnakh]

The problem is, there was no other way to do this operation than to kill him, armed or not. Here's why:

If they were to keep him alive, they'd have to have a trial, and that means they'd have to actually show him on live TV to the world. The problem with that is that Osama has been dead for nearly 10 years, having died of a lung infection. So it'd be rather difficult to pull off that piece of fiction.

Instead, they make up a story that he was killed in a firefight, and that his body was disposed of at sea, and they throw in some lame excuses about photos being too "gruesome" to show publicly. So we're all supposed to just trust the government that this ever happened, just like we should trust the government about Vietnamese boats attacking us in the Gulf of Tonkin, or we should trust the goverment about Saddam having WMD.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[tehcyder]

So I suppose you think the Nurenberg Trials were just a sissy waste of time too?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Grishnakh]

Exactly, and those reasons (1. Obama's popularity boost, and 2. putting a cap on the whole 9/11 thing) are why this whole fictional story was created. Obama's really been dead for nearly 10 years of a lung infection.

As teenagers frequently say these days: "photos or it didn't happen". Of course, they're probably busily Photoshopping some photos right now to support this fiction.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[HornWumpus]

The killing of Osama Ben Ladin.

We were led to the pig fucker by information we collected in Gitmo and in eastern European 'torture' prisons.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bstender]

" When you gloat about killing 3000 people..."

1. OBL denied organizing 9/11, all we have is the word of the USG (which has less credibility than OBL to any intelligent observer)

2. OBL was not killed in this recent PR stunt. He died many years ago.

3. Assassinating people without trial is the practice of low-life scumbag terrorists.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[tehcyder]

Like I said in my other post. If he wanted a trial, he should have surrendered.

The line now is that, although he wasn't armed he "resisted arrest" or something. In the UK this is standard police code-speak for "he looked at us funny, so we beat the crap out of him, then hauled him of to be hosed down in the cells". I really find it almost comical to think of an unarmed OBL "resisting" a bunch of armed special forces soldiers.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[HornWumpus]

They were waiting till the election was closer. Obviously.

So IMHO Wikileaks did a good thing without meaning to.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[david_thornley]

But the fact now that they are telling me that he actually wasn't armed and yet they shot him in the head tells me that they were never interested in capturing him alive.

I don't know the advance planning and training. I don't know the exact situation. I have precisely no experience or training in arresting people. Do you actually know more than I do, or do you just know several ways that might work to take down an armed man without killing him? Have you ever been in a situation where you wanted to break into a place with presumed armed defenders and arrest somebody? It's really easy to sit in one's chair and second-guess what actually happened in a possibly confused tactical situation.

I'm not going to be happy somebody got killed, but it happens. Until I hear otherwise from well-informed people, I'm considering OBL as killed while resisting arrest.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bstender]

do you REALLY think the US killed Osama a few days ago? ridiculous.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[xyourfacekillerx]

I've been alive in America in over 20 years and never had my rights violated. I certainly don't feel some overwhelming police power restricting my every thought, word, and action, anyways. I have yet to experience any retribution for dissent, I don't FEAR retribution for dissent, I don't FEEL persecuted/repressed/oppressed... In fact, the number of times per day that I'd say your awful, tyrannical and unjust government affects my life as negatively as it has somehow affected yours, is about zero. It's one thing to spend time thinking about the government, it's another to spend time feeling threatened by the government, when there is nothing to show for those thoughts, nothing to warrant such preoccupation. I guess what I'm getting at, is it sounds downright crazy to talk like the way you are.... sorry, but if you heard me rambling about the imminent danger and threat sharks pose to my life, though I enjoy life without such threats, you'd think I was crazy. And it's not far off from rambling about government taking my freedoms, though I enoy quite a reasonably free life - like I said not ONCE has due process been violated in the interest of violating my rights...

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[HornWumpus]

Sometimes it does, but it's basically a random thing.

e.g. Tojo got his justice, Hirohito did not. Hitler did, Stalin did not. Bin Ladin did. (Not a philosophical discussion: Earthly justice.)

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cayenne8]

Also, politically it makes Obama look good because it gives the impression he gets stuff done competently. He might be able to point to it in the next presidential campaign.

Oh God, let's hope that doesn't work. We can't take 4 more years of this clown.

I will admit, he had done LOTS of killing. He did kill Osama, he did kill the economy, he's working on killing the constitution (carrying on that job from others granted), killing off freedoms and way of life previously lived in the US....etc...etc.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[HornWumpus]

Bzzzt wrong. They were already our enemies. The only path to placating them would start with abandoning our only reliable ally in the middle east (Israel).

This bullshit has been repeated for the last 10 years. It was never true. It will never be true.

What it might do is get an enemy to drop his/her cover. That is a benefit.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[HornWumpus]

They weren't planning on sitting on the information forever.

Just until 3 months before the election.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[shutdown -p now]

Last official word on the matter is that the guy was unarmed (but "resisting", whatever that means - spitting at them?) when he was shot.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[shutdown -p now]

Personally, I would have soaked the entire compound in paralyzing gas, and grabbed everyone inside for a ride. Forget about the trial, even - think about the intel.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[c0mpliant]

First of all, he wasn't armed. They've admitted that now. If you can't arrest an unarmed man, then no police in any country would ever be effective or else they would be butchers.

But since you ask there are several techniques by which you can disorient someone long enough to arrest them. Here are only a handful which are available to any military in the world
Flashbangs, stinger grenades, stun grenades, rubber bullets, bean bag shotguns. Even an ordinary hand gun/rifle can be used in a non lethal capacity by not shooting someone in the face.

While I've not had training on the issue, it doesn't take decades of training to know that you can incapacitate someone without killing them even if they have a weapon, which in this case he did not

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cavreader]

Hunting down and killing people like him is a demonstration of intent, capability, and dedication. The whole point of the US response post 9/11 has been to generate a level of fear and uncertainty in those who encourage or participate in actions against the US. Ditto for Guatanemo. You can't stop all terrorist attacks no matter how many security precautions you put in place. Eventually someone will succeed. But you can make a lasting impression on those thinking about participating in a terrorist attack. You know why the Arabs make only half assed attacks against Israel? It's not because they can't get the necessary weapons it's because they are scared shitless of Israel's army and intelligence agencies. It's their fear combined with their humilation of getting their assess handed to them whenever they have started a standup fight with Israel and not Palestinian land issues that drive their foaming at the mouth radicalization. Where did this fear come from? The Jews have always had long memories and have chased Nazi's all over the world for 40 years. When their olympic athletes were murdered Israel took years to hunt down and kill anyone who was involved with that action while simulataneously warning other countries to shut up and stay out of it. Israel doesn't need to get anyones "permission" to take out their enemies.The much vaunted "international community" couldn't find a set of balls at a NBA all-star game let alone actually do anything to stop Israel or the US for that matter. On the flip side no one has every really feared the Americans. People think Americans are soft and weak with no stomach for violent retaliations that might make them look bad. Look at how the US restrained themselves from marching on Baghdad to take out Saadam in the first Iraq war because the "international community" might get upset. Also remember that the American's toughest battle in the first Iraq war was keeping Israel from retaliating after Iraq started throwing SCUDS into Israel. Think of all the trouble that could have been averted had the US told the "international community" to get bent and proceeded to downtown Baghdad. Some times an example needs to be made. The application of violence has always been the most effective means of making a point and there has not been a single world changing event of any consequence that was not settled using violence of some sort. Pretending otherwise is foolish.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bstender]

i think your answer is that the troves of valuable info is a bunch of bullshit. OBL wasn't killed there, there wasn't much of interest in the compound, just some more dead people who may or may not have anything to do with any terrorist operation. The USGov is desperate to find ways to justify the lives and billions of dollars per day they are taking to maintain the Wars. (well, to be fair, they aren't really taking much heat over the brown-skinned lives)

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Langalf]

Just to be pedantic, I will point out Leia said that to Grand Moff Tarkin, not to Darth Vader.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bstender]

"Osama is clearly guilty, never denied it,"

say what? Osama explicitly denied any involvement in it and no evidence has proven him guilty of it.
Which doesn't mean that he is not an self-proclaimed enemy of the USA, but once you start executing people because of their rhetoric you are no better.

It's really shocking how radical this notion is in the USA today. the terrorists have clearly won.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bstender]

the only legitimate proof was dumped in the ocean, right next to Sadaam's WMD's...with some yellow cake sprinkled on to mark the spot.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bstender]

you make a valid observation; "terrorism works", but do you really think there isn't a downside to that strategy? Take your prime example, Israel, worldwide pariah that will fall into the dustbin of history in our lifetimes. The USA has not coincidentally slid downhill rapidly since the adoption of the Israeli strategy and is on its way to collapse as well. The basic fact is that violence does work, but is contrary to the evolution of humanity and is fought against by every decent person within and without until it is ended.

but there's fabulous profit to be made in the interim!

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[shilly]

Right. I have no idea what this has to do with my post, but never mind.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bstender]

"identifying"

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[mcvos]

Hunting down and killing people like him is a demonstration of intent, capability, and dedication.

But not one of justice. And to people who care about justice, that's a problem.

The whole point of the US response post 9/11 has been to generate a level of fear and uncertainty in those who encourage or participate in actions against the US. Ditto for Guatanemo.

But the effect has been the creation of fear and uncertainty in everybody, not just those who participate in actions against the US. Basic civil rights have been suspended for everybody. You can be punished for mere suspicion, nothing has to be proven anymore. And many innocents have been punished.

You can't stop all terrorist attacks no matter how many security precautions you put in place. Eventually someone will succeed. But you can make a lasting impression on those thinking about participating in a terrorist attack.

And you know what impression you're making? That you're evil. That you don't care about justice. Much of the US response post 9/11 has just created more enemies. Leave the horrors of 9/11 stand on its own, and everybody will be disgusted with Al Qaeda. But if you show them that Al Qaeda might be fighting a worthy cause, many more will flock to that cause.

The good thing about the past few years is that Al Qaeda had been practically forgotten. Nobody cared about them anymore. But now they're back in the news, everybody's talking about possible retribution from them, and they have a martyr for their cause. They're back on top, and the only thing they had to do was get assassinated.

You know why the Arabs make only half assed attacks against Israel? It's not because they can't get the necessary weapons it's because they are scared shitless of Israel's army and intelligence agencies.

That's nations. People don't work like that. Look at the continuing rebellion that Israel is sowing in their occupied territories. It's as if Israel likes to have enemies.

Israel doesn't need to get anyones "permission" to take out their enemies.

But the end result is that Israel has become a rogue nation. They've alienated their allies, and made enemies of their neighbours. They're in a tough spot, and they did it all themselves. Yes, they are feared, but they are not loved. Not by anyone.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cavreader]

Terrorism works because it only took about 24 hours for people to start blaming the US for 9/11 instead of the people who actually did it. That one example, all though their are a lot of others have vendicated those committing terroristic acts. There used to be a pretty standard procedure for dealing with terrorists and that was no negotiating. No matter what the cost never give in to terrorist threats or you will just be inviting more in the future. Just like the first time you pay ransom for someone kidnapped you have opened the door for more kidnappings in the future. Too many people lend credibility to those commiting terrorist actions. A prime example is any time the US or Israel is attacked you will not find it hard to find plenty of people saying they deserved it. People will justify anything today if it supports their way of thinking. So if you already hate someone and someone attacks them then your beliefs have been supported. The evolution of humanity is the best example of applied force using violence. Only the strongest survive. I don't consider Israel a pariah at all. Their enemies have spent 45+ years spouting lies and BS that even good meaning people of today do not know the real facts. I am not arguing that Israel is always right by any means but until their antagonists are ready to admit their cupalbility to the conflict the situation will stay the same. And people have been predicting the fall of the US for 200+ years so I doubt I will lose any sleep over this issue. As long as everything stays OK for about 60 more years I will be content.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Hartree]

I think Faith is some gal he doesn't like. So, he wants her to go to church and then he'll set fire to it.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Magius_AR]

Of course they did. Yet clearly, not all of what Wikileaks released was actually OMG WE CAN'T KILL BIN LADEN ANY MORE!!!!111!! important. Wikileaks gave the government a chance to play along. The government took the position of "fuck off". Wikileaks fucked off and did it their own way. Clearly, the position of "fuck off" has its consequences

A "non-choice" is hardly a choice. If someone steals your house and then says "okay, okay, we'll work with you -- pick which room you'd like to live in", I bet you'd tell them to fuck off too. The government was completely correct: everything that was stolen was classified. It's not the responsibility or right of Wikileaks or any other third party arbiter to determine what out of that information should or shouldn't be released. They're pretty much holding the information for ransom and blackmailing the government with ultimatums (ala "play along or else"). Couple that with the fact that we know they're purposefully withholding information to maximize their time in the spotlight (and Assange is pushing for book deals...) and I'd say their ethics are highly dubious to say the least.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Hartree]

Could be.

They'd be taking a risk that the names would leak.

If Al Qaeda killed one or more due to wikileaks sourced info and the US confirmed that some number were, they'd still know they were right at least part of the time.

If you say "no one was killed due to it" they're left with no info on whether they were right or not.

I doubt that the DOD saying people were killed would make them all that much more likely to get their hands on Assange or much change existing perceptions of him. You can bet the press and others (extradition courts, etc.) would want confirmation of that and would just look that much closer at the leaked info and how you knew people were killed etc.

They've already got Manning under lock and key for now and even if he's exonerated, they can largely control him till his term of service is up.

If DOD gives confirmation the wikileaks info is important, it's just that much more embarrassing, especially in front of congressional hearings.

But, as Clint indicated, this is speculation. All of it.

He was asking if there were any reasons they wouldn't do it and I was giving some possible ones.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cavreader]

Justice is malleable and based totally on the circumstances. Trying to adhere to an idealized universal definition of justice will never leave everyone satisifed. This is the 3rd time this week I have seen someone state that basic civil rights have been suspended. Can you give me an example of this terrible situation? So we should just ignore people who commit random murder in job lots because it might advertise their existence and help recruiting? Sort of just close your eyes and hope it all just goes away? A Nations actions are initiated by it's leaders. The real palestinian leaders, the ones holed up in their villas in Syria and Lebanon know that if they cross a line Israel would have no problem eliminating them. Their only defense is propaganda and sadly people are falling for it instead of doing independent research themselves and really looking at the facts. You might still feel the same way after but you may not either. Besides the palestinian leaders make a ton of money running waepons and black market goods that they high jack from International donor shipments into the "occupied territories". Israel is in the spot they are in because they didn't roll over and die when 5 Arab armies evacuated the "palestinian" territory and then attacked the Jews in 1948. The Arabs lost. The Arabs re-armed and gave it another shot in 1967 and not only got beat but lost territory to the defending army. Next time you look at a map check out the size of Israel. Any competent military commander would want to enlarge the area between itself and it's enemies and that is what Israel did. They took another shot in 1973 and caught the Israelis off guard and had the best chance to win and still lost because of incompetent military commanders. The Arabs had the latest Russian SAMs, wire guided anti-tank weapons, and night vision gear for their tanks and infantry and they still lost. That is the humiliation that drives thier hatred not any land issue. Egypt signed a psuedo peace treaty and Israel returned the Sinai to them. That could have been a start of peace but the Egytption leader was assinated for trying to make peace. It just happens that those responsible for that assisination morphed in to the Muslim Brotherhood after being inprisoned in Egypt by the Egyptions themselves but somehow their brutal treatment by fellow Arabs needs to be taken out on the Jews.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[TikiTDO]

Nice find there, thanks.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[PyroMosh]

I don't know, but there is good reason to believe that it might.

Al-Quaeda in Iraq has nothing to to do with Al-Quaeda. But they took the name. Why? Because OBL is a powerful figurehead for anti-western jihadiism.

Likewise OBL may not have had much of a hand in day to day operations, but his charisma and brand name recognition was (believe it or not) a huge driver in Al Quaeda's ability to FUND it's operations from jihadi sympathizers.

There is according to all the analysis I've read, nobody waiting in the wings of the organization with the charisma, and recognition OBL had in those circles.

This does have the potential to throttle Al Quaeda's growth. Here's hoping.

Even if it doesn't, this was worth doing, regardless due to his role in terror attacks over the past two decades.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Kvasio]

thanks Captain Grammar Nazi! learning English with you is a pleasure.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[mywhitewolf]

That's a lie. Assange is a better journalist then most because he posted his sources, Of course he analyzed the data, you can read articles he wrote about the information contained within the leaks. he also included his source information, something most journalists don't do and should be done more often. He also retracted select sensitive information that he came across, not much, but there definitely was an effort made.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[im_thatoneguy]

When it takes 20 people and $40k to bankrupt the world's only superpower... I don't think any intelligence or military campaign has a prayer of succeeding.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[im_thatoneguy]

But you can always count on self interest. And in this case we know this wikileaks document didn't push them to act since... the government didn't accuse them of such.

If the government wanted to destroy wikileaks all they would have to say is "We almost lost Bin Laden because of Wikileaks. See they're dangerous!"

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[FlyingGuy]

Hmmmm isn't the point of a covert operation to remain, well, covert? You don't run around screaming your head off that a covert operative got whacked or an informer got whacked. The other side might have whacked that person simply on suspicion (yes I know, something completely unheard of...) So rather then confirm those suspicions you keep your mouth shut and hope it all blows over and you can continue the operation.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[FlyingGuy]

I sure wish we didn't have to but as my wise old relative once said, "shit in one hand and wish in the other and see which one gets full first".

There are some things that really need to be kept secret. I am not saying everything they do keep secret should be, but there are some things.

Diplomacy, the alternative to war yes? Our diplomats need to be able to communicate between themselves freely and not worry that some shit for brains private is going to spew it forth. What our diplomats say to each other and what they say to their counterparts in other countries are two very different things and the two should never meet because wars have been started over less.

Wanting everything to be out in the open and no secrets is a valid position in some instances but in the case of relationships between countries it is both naive and utterly reckless. Given you very low ID number you should be old enough to know better

As to calling me the traitor... I served my country, I kept the secrets entrusted to me, even though I disagreed with them because that is what I swore to do and it was my duty to do so and if you sir would care to to meet me on the field of honor I would demand satisfaction and I would send you to your maker with gusto and aplomb.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[sumdumass]

I am saying US law extends to non-citizens in other countries when they act in connection with someone directly under US jurisdiction to violate a law in the US. This has been the case since well before the internet was conceived of and will be the case long after you have thought of any snide remarks to make while pretending to be clever in front of your ignorant friends.

You can go to China, commit a crime that is also a crime in the US, then go to Japan, get caught, and they will extradite you to the US for prosecution of that crime under US law. You can be a UK citizen and be arrested and extradited to face violations of US law when you never entered the US at all but acted in a way to further the violation of a US law by someone subject to US law.

Look into the long arm jurisdiction precedents. There is plenty of history with it dating back to times when the Founding Fathers were still in government. The US Supreme Court has upheld some of them quite strongly too. They are reluctant to override those cases and do so sparingly.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Danse]

According to the news, the White House admitted that Bin Laden was unarmed. He was shot because he was resisting arrest. That made me wonder, what kind of unarmed resistance is too tough for Navy Seals to handle? Aren't they supposed to be really tough guys? Later, Bin Laden 12 year old daughter tells that he was captured and then executed. Not unlikely, from that still considers non-Americans as sub human, even if the source isn't the most trustworthy. Now, who do we trust? The guy who claims that Navy Seals are a bunch of wussies, or the girl who claims these guys did what they set out to do?

He didn't surrender. They couldn't really know whether he was armed or not until afterwards. He could have had a detonator or other weapon on him and they wouldn't know until it was too late. I certainly wouldn't want them putting themselves at any additional risk in an attempt to take him alive. He had ample opportunity to surrender and he chose not to. He sealed his own fate.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Wandering Idiot]

he did kill the economy

Did you get amnesia during the Bush presidency and only wake up at Obama's inaguration? Because that's the only explanation I can think of for this statement.

he's working on killing the constitution

killing off freedoms and way of life previously lived in the US

Care to explain what you mean by this, or should I just continue assuming you're kind of hyperbolic and insane?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Wandering Idiot]

Obama's really been dead for nearly 10 years of a lung infection.

I find it interesting that you state this as a verifiable fact, rather than a loosely-supported at best supposition. You do realized that believing any story wholeheartedly as long as it differs from that of the official sources is still being overly credulous, right?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Wandering Idiot]

(Also, I assume you meant "Osama" in the above post, otherwise you're so far off the deep end you can't even see the edge of the pool)

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

Thank you, you pathetic shit, but I'll protect myself, thanks. As for your prediction than I'm a pacifist, that's a good thing for you to think.

What is it with you cowards who will do anything, and trade anything, for useless and illusory security?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

No, you may have killed people with guts and plumbs, but if you support keeping the kind of secrets that the USA routinely keeps, you *are* a traitor. That you swore to do it just makes you a convenient patsy. That you did it against your own beliefs - that's just baffling. That you're threatening someone who says unpleasant things just shows what you're like and why we need to expose people like you.

As for the necessity of diplomacy, I've not only found that I could get through life without lying to placate the thugs and bullies but that it's led to further tears almost anytime anyone else tries it. You don't deal with rattlesnakes - at most you keep their attention fixated on you while someone clubs them to death from behind.

Somewhere along the line we lost the concept of citizens taking up arms in defense of their homes and families and turned it into this abomination where following orders is prized above all. That "shithead" private is a better man, and ultimately doing more for the USA, than the rest of the soldiers who blithely murder a bunch of innocents.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

Of course the SC is loathe to override precedent giving them power, especially if it's questionable. But all you're saying is that the USA acts like its laws are universally applicable. As for needing proof, everything you guys do is proof of your attitude.

It's good to know you support the application of foreign law though, it'll make it easier when we try you and your cronies for murder for supporting an unjust war.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

Pft. That's such a load of shit.

1) No, Gitmo and the torture was almost totally irrelevant. You'd have gotten better results putting the money into reading tea leaves. Gitmo created more enemies than it ever housed.

2) Your own government labelled him a heroic freedom fighter for fighting the overwhelming odds of the Russians. Who are you, you fucking coward, who at best fights heavily armed and in, not against, overwhelming numbers, to cast aspersions at a known war hero.

3) Osama was barely an enemy. He *may* have orchestrated the destruction of a few buildings, and some deaths, but the USA inflicted a hundred times more casualties among totally unrelated people to get him.

4) He's only a problem because you forcibly built a military base in his home. Get the fuck out and he'd have left you alone.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[sumdumass]

There is nothing questionable about it and the supreme court doesn't have any power outside of telling the government it can't do something.

And yes, because of international treaties and long standing precedent that was taken from other legal systems in other countries, US law as well as the law of many other countries are universally applicable, when_you_consort_ with_someone_under_that_jurisdiction_to_ violate_those_laws.

It's good to know you support the application of foreign law though, it'll make it easier when we try you and your cronies for murder for supporting an unjust war.

First, it's trial, not try. Try is an attempt trial is bringing someone to trial. And no, I never said I support foreign law. I said that when someone conspired or acts with someone under the jurisdiction of a countries laws to violate those laws, the jurisdiction of that country extends to those outside individuals.

If you would take the slightest bit of time to have a cursory glance that the Long Arm Jurisdiction you would understand exactly what is being said here. Well, maybe not, you think try is the same as trial. So here are a few examples like Hew Raymond Griffiths and a copy of an 1960's era extradition treaty with Australia.

Now I know it hurts your feelings that you might be wrong and your idol might be in trouble after your uneducated mind thought he was free and clear, but for fucks sake, look into it a little before spouting off more crap and proving to the world how much of an idiot you are.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[mcvos]

Justice is malleable and based totally on the circumstances. Trying to adhere to an idealized universal definition of justice will never leave everyone satisifed.

No, but it will create less of a mess than replacing justice with vengeance.

This is the 3rd time this week I have seen someone state that basic civil rights have been suspended. Can you give me an example of this terrible situation?

Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay. People can be imprisoned for a long time without a formal charge, let alone a fair trial. The principle that people are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law is the very basis of the modern rule of law.

(The word I'm really looking for here is an English translation of the Dutch word "Rechtsstaat". Imagine my surprise that it has an English Wikipedia entry, but it also seems to be a mostly continental European concept. Maybe that explains why the US takes this a lot less seriously, but on the other hand, many European countries have also been undermining some very basic principles of justice of the past decade. Mind you, I think that the fact that we are undermining our own justice, our own nations, is the real victory of Al Qaeda.)

So we should just ignore people who commit random murder in job lots because it might advertise their existence and help recruiting? Sort of just close your eyes and hope it all just goes away?

Of course not. Arrest them and try them in court. Don't murder them right back. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

A Nations actions are initiated by it's leaders.

Like Tunesia, Egypt and Libya?

The real palestinian leaders, the ones holed up in their villas in Syria and Lebanon know that if they cross a line Israel would have no problem eliminating them. Their only defense is propaganda and sadly people are falling for it instead of doing independent research themselves and really looking at the facts. You might still feel the same way after but you may not either. Besides the palestinian leaders make a ton of money running waepons and black market goods that they high jack from International donor shipments into the "occupied territories".

I'm not sure who exactly you mean by "the real palestinian leaders". There are a lot of different factions among Palestinians, some of which try to direct the anger and unrest about Israelian atrocities into action against Israel, others are striving for peace against all odds, and certainly some of them are merely trying to enrich themselves. Fatah (the official leadership on the West Bank) is well known for its corruption, for example. Hamas, funded mostly by Saudis, has actually built a lot of schools and hospitals. It's no surprise they are popular, even among people who don't agree with their extremist goals.

Israel is in the spot they are in because they didn't roll over and die when 5 Arab armies evacuated the "palestinian" territory and then attacked the Jews in 1948. The Arabs lost. The Arabs re-armed and gave it another shot in 1967 and not only got beat but lost territory to the defending army. Next time you look at a map check out the size of Israel. Any competent military commander would want to enlarge the area between itself and it's enemies and that is what Israel did.

But that's the real problem. Israel has never even tried to make friends with its neighbours. I'm not in any way condoning what the Arab nations did, but their last attack was nearly 40 years ago. Israel has been at peace with the leaders of its neighbours for over 30 years, but has done nothing to establish friendly relationships with the neighbouring peoples. And as you've seen in Egypt, those leaders, undemocratic though they may be, don't last forever. In the mean time, rather than working on a peaceful solution, Israel has increased

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[shilly]

The bit I don't understand is the WMD and yellow cake. I get that they are arch references to previous claims made, but not really sure of the relevance here, given the counterfactuals are fairly implausible:
- It wasn't him, he was already dead, they knew this and are lying. Why not reap the benefits when he was first killed?
- It wasn't him, he's not dead, they knew this and are lying. Pretty risky strategy.
- It wasn't him, he was already dead, they have deluded themselves. DNA tests work quite well and I'm sure these ones will have been carried out with extreme care given the crucial importance of getting the right answer.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[MaDeR]

"Do you really believe what you said there?"
Hey, he have it right in his nick. Of course, he meant it ironically, but it IS funny when he lives up to his name. Rethuglican crank, indeed.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[MaDeR]

"He *may* have orchestrated the destruction of a few buildings, and some deaths"
It is nice to see that we have here retards from all sides, not only rightwing lunatics.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[MaDeR]

Why you think Nixon did not get away? He got slap on the wirst.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

You miss the point. Yes, of course your government, and some others, agree that their laws are nearly universally applicable. Yes yes, they have it in writing. That's nice. Your rules interest me as far as you can project force, and pretty soon that won't be to your borders.

The problem with your rules, and do you ever have a bunch, is that they only apply when convenient. If a US serviceman was treated like the Gitmo-detainees have been the USA would cry and call torture, screaming about the barbarity of the enemy, etc.

The USA took its freedom back largely through un-uniformed guerrilla combat and yet now wants to deny rights to combatants for failing to wear uniforms. It wouldn't matter what Assange did, or how great the benefits to the world, you'd still find some rule to justify whatever you planned.

On the other hand, when we have war crimes trials for you freaks we aren't going to point at any historic precedent or supporting treaties, we're merely going to treat you the way you advocate others being treated, which is arbitrarily and brutally. You support and justify the wars - even post revelation of Bush's lies, you can take the blame for them.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[MaDeR]

You really think Osama was cause of global financial crisis? Wow.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[MaDeR]

"Hitler II"
I hope you are sarcastic.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Danse]

Agreed a show trial would be pointless, but you are swallowing the propaganda a bit there. Osama had concrete aims, such as expelling US troops from Saudi Arabia. He was callous to the deaths, but hardly killing for its own sake. If body count was all that mattered, they could have killed far, far more.

You also hear how they "want to destroy America". What nonsense, as if Osama could have been so deluded.

What propaganda? What aims did he have that justify the targeting of civilians? What evidence do you have that they could have killed far, far more? They launched many more attacks and attempted attacks. Some succeeded, others didn't.

As for destroying America, I don't know that he's ever actually used those words. I don't think it really matters. Whether he wants to destroy America completely or not, his crimes remain the same.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[MaDeR]

Oh, another conspiracy retard.
"Many reports say that he died in december 2001, or a lung infection."
Someone would thought that USA would announce it. Oh no, I get it, Bush did not it to help some nigga go for second term 10 years in future.
"Google it: there's tons of stuff from that time."
I read it on internet, it must be true!

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

I see your standards of proof are so low you'll sign off on the death penalty without a trial or hearing the evidence.

We *know* Bush ordered the USA to war using carefully selected and doctored intel, knowing it to be far less likely then not. All we have to link Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks is coincidental and hearsay. A conveniently bad confession video that was never fully displayed or available for vetting.

I've seen such seemingly slam-dunk trials in the USA be totally wrong, why should I assume this must be different?

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[cavreader]

I am going try and not be rude or condescending but your idealism and fanciful wishes do not lend themselves to reality. "No, but it will create less of a mess than replacing justice with vengeance" Like I clearly stated you will never find a situation where everyone agrees on what is justice and what is vengeance. The people who have lost someone close to them in a terrorist attack are likely to have a different definition of justice then those who have not been personnally effected by the violence. "Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay. People can be imprisoned for a long time without a formal charge, let alone a fair trial. The principle that people are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law is the very basis of the modern rule of law." The Patriot Act and Guatanemo has not taken away any legal protections from US citizens. Those measures provide a framework for handling non-US citizens engaged in hostile actions against the US and it's allies. The people in Guatanemo were collected in other countries and are classified as enemy combatants not criminals and they have released a lot of the people who were kept there. They have tried to release others only to find out that no country is willing to accept them. The US could have legally executed a lot of these people using the Vienna Conventions which allow execution of those detained on the battlefield that are not displaying marks identifying them as participants in the ongoing battle. . When this rule was written it's main target was spys. The terrorists also violate the rules regarding the involvement of civilians and civilian structures such as hospitals, schools, and mosques for military purposes. People have been trying to use the Vienna Conventions to critizize the military efforts targeting terrorist groups and non-state actors but they like to cherry pick only those laws that support their position and ignore the laws that do not support their position. And if you are referring to Manning he is being held in pre-trial detention which is legal in both civilian and military justice systems. He still has the right to a fair trial and legal representation. The Military justice system is a little different from the civilian justice system but those who join the military know that upfront before voluntarily commiting themselves to the military rules and regulations. Manning knew full well the consequences of his actions and is lucky he hasn't been charged with more serious offences such as treason which allows for execution for punishment. I personally don't believe he should be charged with treason. I also don't believe he deserves some draconian 50 year prison sentence either but he does deserve some jail time if convicted. "Of course not. Arrest them and try them in court. Don't murder them right back. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." Those taken into custody in the US do have civilian trials and the same legal protections as anyone else. How would you arrest and try terrorists from all over the globe? Your talkng about literally thousands if not millions of arrests and trials under a multitude of jurisdictions. The attempt to enact this type of policy is pure folly. It's like saying the US should have arrested the Germans instead of fighting them in WW2. If the US government wanted to operate under an eye for an eye manner they would be targeting civilians on purpose like the terrorists do. Hell the military has JAG officers on the front lines to review battle plans to test the legality of the action. "Like Tunesia, Egypt and Libya?" Yes their leaders are responsible for the acts commited in the name of their government. Of course all those who supported these leaders actions also share some responsibility for the outcome. "I'm not sure who exactly you mean by "the real palestinian leaders". There are a lot of different factions among Palestinians, some of which try to direct the anger and unrest about Israelian atrocities into action against Israel, others are striving for peace against all odds, and certainly some of them are mer

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[quenda]

I'm talking about contorted words from the media & politicians etc.
e.g. the terrorists always "hate" the US, when "angry" might be a more accurate word.
You can fault Osama's ethics, but not his logic. 9/11 got the US out of Saudi, and into Afghanistan where they are heading for the same financial fate as the Soviet Union. Osama succeeded beyond his dreams. That would justify the civilian casualties to them. Collateral Damage, as the Americans say.

Anyway, congratulations on catching the bastard!

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Grishnakh]

Here's some links for you:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/osama_dead.php
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years--U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html
http://stevebeckow.com/2011/05/he-shall-not-be-hurt-of-the-second-death-fox-reports-osama-dead-2001/

Here's some links from many years ago:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1366508/US-casts-doubt-on-bin-Ladens-latest-message.html

According to this one, the US thinks he's already dead. Note the date.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/US/02/01/gen.bergen.cnna/index.html

As for official sources, do you believe the Saddam had WMD, and that he was in league with Al Qaeda as the government claimed in 2001? If not, then you're a hypocrite.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Grishnakh]

So you believe the government's version of events?

I take it you also believe that Saddam had WMD, and that he was in league with Al Qaeda and Osama? That is the official story, after all. If you don't believe that, but you do believe the government's latest story about Osama, then you're a hypocrite.

The government's been keeping Osama "alive" all this time to keep a boogeyman around to instill fear in the public, and to justify their continued actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Danse]

You can fault Osama's ethics, but not his logic. 9/11 got the US out of Saudi, and into Afghanistan where they are heading for the same financial fate as the Soviet Union. Osama succeeded beyond his dreams. That would justify the civilian casualties to them. Collateral Damage, as the Americans say.

Since when are we out of Saudi? We've already done a lot better in Afghanistan than the Soviets did. I still personally don't think it's truly a salvageable situation for us, but it's hardly the same thing. Had we not taken our eye off the ball for several years to mount that insane invasion of Iraq, I think things could have turned out significantly better.

Collateral damage and intentionally targeting civilians are definitely not the same thing. When the enemy fighters intermingle themselves in the civilian population, there's inevitably going to be civilian casualties. That doesn't mean we don't try to minimize those casualties, if not just on principle, then also because they are very counter-productive for us.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bolthole]

what I don't understand is then why haven't the US/Pakistan military been spending the last few days conducting similar operations based on this intelligence?

Apparently, you dont understand that Pakistan is a muslim terrorist supporting state yet either.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bolthole]

Must be a new right you are referring to, that I missed: the right to publically proclaim, "yes I killed xyz, I'm glad I did it, and I'm glad they're dead", but then change your story when "the law" catches up to you? Personally, I dont think that should be a "right".

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Danse]

Ok, just checked myself on this one. Forgot about the closing of the airbase there. From what I understand though, we still have a military presence there, it's just a lot more low-profile now, and the big hardware has been moved to other nearby countries.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[sumdumass]

You miss the point. Yes, of course your government, and some others, agree that their laws are nearly universally applicable. Yes yes, they have it in writing. That's nice. Your rules interest me as far as you can project force, and pretty soon that won't be to your borders.

No, you miss the point. This isn't about projecting force whatsoever at all. This is about agreed to submissions from other countries in which you will find that they will willingly give you up to the other country. You simply cannot work to violate most of the more serious laws in one country and within the jurisdiction of that country and claim exemption because of a technicality. You couldn't do that long before the US was ever a country and you will not be able to do that long after is stops being one. The entire "they're across the border, they got away with it" bullcrap only exists in Hollywood movies. The reality of it is much different.

The problem with your rules, and do you ever have a bunch, is that they only apply when convenient. If a US serviceman was treated like the Gitmo-detainees have been the USA would cry and call torture, screaming about the barbarity of the enemy, etc.

And your point is what? This discussion was about the long arm jurisdiction extending to Assange, not double standards. And yes, it's natural to object to treatment of your own people while stating whatever it takes to preserver the percieved safety of your own. Do you see a common thread there? IF not, let me spell it out, they both end with protecting or attempting to protect your own people.

The USA took its freedom back largely through un-uniformed guerrilla combat and yet now wants to deny rights to combatants for failing to wear uniforms. It wouldn't matter what Assange did, or how great the benefits to the world, you'd still find some rule to justify whatever you planned.

Well, here is where you would be completely wrong. First, the vast majority of the revolutionary soldiers were uniformed soldiers. They carried visible items as part of the uniform that made it well known they were uniformed soldiers even though the color of their coats, shirts, pants, hats, or even type of gun might have been different.

Furthermore, these so called rights you are talking about didn't even exist during the US revolutionary war. They were inventions of the 19th century. The treatment of even standard uniformed prisoners at that time by both sides would violate these so called rights.

On the other hand, when we have war crimes trials for you freaks we aren't going to point at any historic precedent or supporting treaties, we're merely going to treat you the way you advocate others being treated, which is arbitrarily and brutally. You support and justify the wars - even post revelation of Bush's lies, you can take the blame for them.

And this just shows how willfully ignorant and biased you are.

First, there will never be any legitimate war crimes trials. The entire thought of that is little more then people attempting to gain the support of idiots to gather for their own advantage. Dick Cheney visited Germany and France at a time they were publicly calling for his arrest for war crimes and they failed to do anything remotely close to it.

But at least I know what motivates you know and can mark you off not only as ignorant, but purposely ignorant in order to maintain your own false reality. I have to ask though, is it frustrating to walk around with all these misconceptions and find that reality doesn't match anything close to what you think? I mean does it really chap you ass that while other countries will bark like a dog when it's close to negotiate something they want, even getting you out there railing support for them, only to back away like a spoiled child ending his tantrum after getting his way when push comes to shove?

Yo

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bstender]

I think your option one is very plausible. Why now instead of earlier? They may have not gotten confirmation of his demise until more recently, or they may have preferred to preserve the PR benefits until now. And why now and not even later? I'm not seeing any clear rationale, but the support for war in Afghanistan is a real problem right now so this could provide a boost, or maybe they're thinking of wrapping this war before the election and this will help sell the 'mission accomplished' idea? or maybe something else forced their hand that we'll never know about.

The fact that they have produced no evidence is extremely suspicious combined with the fact that Osama hasn't communicated since Tora Bora, was not well--on dialysis. Which means he was either captured and couldnt communicate or he died, most likely he died since capturing him would have been fantastic news. (but would have taken the wind out of the war against Iraq and all the rest of the post 9/11 cashflow, so it's somewhat plausible they would sit on it to keep that larger agenda on track)

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[shilly]

I think you've actually suggested another counter-factual here:
- It wasn't him, he was already dead, they learned of this now and faked his death to take the credit. I guess that's more plausible than the other counterfactuals. But as you say, the current timing doesn't really seem particularly helpful to the administration. Earlier or later would have been better. To explain the timing, you have to hypothesise further ("they were about to be found out"; "their hand was forced in some other way"). Again, for me, that starts to creak at the seams a bit.

It's Ockham's Razor that's causing me the problems. The conspiracy would have to be pretty wide-ranging and would thus be vulnerable to compromise from anyone who got an attack of conscience or nerves among the conspirators.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[arth1]

It's not a new right. It's called "innocent until proven guilty". There are enough kooks that confess to crimes that they never did. What they're guilty of is being kooks.

Even terrorist organizations -- it's not uncommon for several of them to claim responsibility for a single action. And you know that at most one of them could have done it.

Thus the need to prove guilt. Not take it at face value.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[bstender]

Agree with the questionable timing, but not so much about the conspiracy problem. the only people who have to keep the secret are whomever was in the room with obama, the same folks who also know the full story behind 9/11. and there are also bullets for traitors if the sheer ignominy isn't sufficient. and there's some number of Navy Seals who are probably as trustworthy as it gets. Deception is a standard war tactic, it's not a stretch to believe a deception like this is in the best interest of the war effort.

Compared to the notion that OBL is hanging out in a large fenced off compound a mile from a military base and noone knows for years. And also that he decided to retire from his role as an inspiration to the jihadists for over 9 years in the face of so many outrages against his people? That alone seems the best evidence of his being long dead.

of course, one might consider that he never stopped being a CIA asset, really was alive awaiting further instruction!

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[quenda]

Since when are we out of Saudi?

Since 2003. They really did not publicise that in the US? It means Osama won, sadly.
Sure, the Arabs are mostly still in poverty, under oppressive regimes supported by the US, but he achieved his goal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_withdrawal_from_Saudi_Arabia

Collateral damage and intentionally targeting civilians are definitely not the same thing.

No, but when the US chose to invade Iraq (on a trumped-up excuse) it knew it would kill thousands of civilians, and has killed far more indirectly. I'm not sure the survivors and wounded appreciate the subtle distinction.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Opportunist]

True. But today he'd probably get reelected after the whistleblowers disappear in some prison for leaking government secrets, while half of the people wouldn't care and the other half would cheer it because they tried to tarnish the nation's credibility.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[MaDeR]

"If you don't believe that, but you do believe the government's latest story about Osama, then you're a hypocrite"
There are other possibilities than "goverments always says truth" and "goverment always lies". There is no hipocrisy in taking in account this fact. But I understand you, don't worry. False dilemma fallacy is practically obligatory in conspiracy theories.
"The government's been keeping Osama "alive" all this time"
Bullshit. Bush would stick corpse of Osama all time on TV in December 2001. He invaded Iraq exactly because he could not catch Osama, wanted placate people wanting revenge and get second term. That Iraq had nothing to do with Osama is little detail that no one cared about. In other words, I claim Bush would prefer catching and/or killing Osama publicly to invading Iraq.
"to keep a boogeyman around to instill fear in the public, and to justify their continued actions in Afghanistan and Iraq."
So now suddenly they do not need "instill fear in the public" and "justify their continued actions in Afghanistan and Iraq"? Funny how conspiracy theories work.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[MaDeR]

"I see your standards of proof are so low you'll sign off on the death penalty without a trial or hearing the evidence."
I commented on alleged crimes commited by Osama, not how he should be treated for it.
"We *know* Bush ordered the USA to war using carefully selected and doctored intel, knowing it to be far less likely then not. All we have to link Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks is coincidental and hearsay. A conveniently bad confession video that was never fully displayed or available for vetting."
Yeah, because all we have is one "conveniently bad confession video" or "coincidental and hearsay". This was sarcasm, by the way. Don't worry, you can always cover ears and sing LALALA. Try it, your fellows from other side practice it everyday. Loon is loon.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

No, I'm simply willing to participate in whatever defense I think is needed. I don't need jingoistic thugs and their "with us or against us" mentality to do it for me.

You on the other hand are a fear-motivated simpleton.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

No, you miss the point. This isn't about projecting force whatsoever at all. This is about agreed to submissions from other countries in which you will find that they will willingly give you up to the other country.

And your request has as much weight as your military/financial clout. The rest of the world benefits heavily from having the USA's secrets revealed and won't help you except as forced. See the rest of your jingoistic and self-serving statements for the reasons.

You simply cannot work to violate most of the more serious laws in one country and within the jurisdiction of that country and claim exemption because of a technicality. You couldn't do that long before the US was ever a country and you will not be able to do that long after is stops being one. The entire "they're across the border, they got away with it" bullcrap only exists in Hollywood movies. The reality of it is much different.

Those are two different scenarios. In your scenario a bad-guy commits a crime and flees. In this case Assange is rumored to have done something that was not a crime anywhere else and you're saying your law supersedes that. By that logic a Saudi citizen coming to the USA and buying a beer and a porno mag is opening the US retailer up to extradition to Saudi Arabia.

I don't doubt that your law says this, I'm just saying it's clearly abusive and only works while you're powerful.

The problem with your rules, and do you ever have a bunch, is that they only apply when convenient.

And your point is what? This discussion was about the long arm jurisdiction extending to Assange, not double standards.

The point is about your laws being clearly abusive. That's why they're only good as long as you've got the ability to force others to follow them.

If a US serviceman was treated like the Gitmo-detainees have been the USA would cry and call torture, screaming about the barbarity of the enemy, etc.

And yes, it's natural to object to treatment of your own people while stating whatever it takes to preserver the percieved safety of your own. Do you see a common thread there? IF not, let me spell it out, they both end with protecting or attempting to protect your own people.

Oh wow, no, I never realized you were protecting your own. Well okay then... I guess that justifies anything.

While that may be natural, for sociopathic lying fucks, to object to something while doing it themselves, you're still hypocritical assholes for doing it.

The USA took its freedom back largely through un-uniformed guerrilla combat and yet now wants to deny rights to combatants for failing to wear uniforms. It wouldn't matter what Assange did, or how great the benefits to the world, you'd still find some rule to justify whatever you planned.

Well, here is where you would be completely wrong. First, the vast majority of the revolutionary soldiers were uniformed soldiers.

When convenient. Uniforms and badges of rank help your side direct the battle. But when the opportunity came to be more effective otherwise, they did.

Furthermore, these so called rights you are talking about didn't even exist during the US revolutionary war. They were inventions of the 19th century.

Pathetic excuses. You gained your freedom by fighting that way and yet now use any technicality against those fighting with similar methods.

You support and justify the wars - even post revelation of Bush's lies, you can take the blame for them.

And this just shows how willfully ignorant and biased you are.

That I expect your day will come? You make sure of it with every word you say. Not by anything I do, but by world perception of you as immoral thugs.

Firs

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Grishnakh]

Bullshit. Bush would stick corpse of Osama all time on TV in December 2001. He invaded Iraq exactly because he could not catch Osama, wanted placate people wanting revenge and get second term.

You've got to be kidding. Bush invaded Iraq for two reasons: 1) His own personal revenge, because his father couldn't/didn't get Saddam out back in Gulf War I, and 2) To secure control over Iraq's oil. Another very likely thing is 3) Saddam was about to start selling his oil in Euros, which would have been bad for US and the Dollar, and America wanted to make sure oil is valued only in Dollars as long as possible. There's also 4) to give lots of money to his buddies at Halliburton and Blackwater.

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Osama, that was just a cover story to justify the invasion. Bush himself even said in 2002-2003 or so that he didn't even care about Osama any more, probably because he knew he was already dead.

There's a reason we haven't seen any new Al Qaeda recruitment movies with bin Laden in 10 years, and what few movies have come out have been recycling footage of him.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[Lanteran]

Here I was thinking that drug use wasn't considered a felony offence. And are you sure about the communist party affiliation thing? I thought that kind of shit stopped when the red scare stopped (or at least when the soviet union fucking collapsed). But I agree with you totally about voter registration, corruption, and turnout problems. That kind of stuff should've been fixed years ago.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[arth1]

And are you sure about the communist party affiliation thing? I thought that kind of shit stopped when the red scare stopped (or at least when the soviet union fucking collapsed).

Quite sure. I've lived in the US for a generation now, and looked into what it would take to become a US citizen.

http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/n-400.pdf
(It's a government form, but crippled to only work with one vendor's PDF reader. But I ascribe that one to incompetence and not corruption.)

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[sumdumass]

And your request has as much weight as your military/financial clout. The rest of the world benefits heavily from having the USA's secrets revealed and won't help you except as forced. See the rest of your jingoistic and self-serving statements for the reasons.

It's been this way since before the US was even a country. What in the hell are you talking about? This has nothing to do with military or financial clout and everything to do with rules and law. Do you realize that you are attempting to argue that it's because of something before that something ever existed. I mean fuck, use the brain sitting on top of your head for a minute.

Those are two different scenarios. In your scenario a bad-guy commits a crime and flees. In this case Assange is rumored to have done something that was not a crime anywhere else and you're saying your law supersedes that. By that logic a Saudi citizen coming to the USA and buying a beer and a porno mag is opening the US retailer up to extradition to Saudi Arabia.

Listen, I posted a link about a guy who never stepped foot in the US and got deported to face charges. Actually, there was two of them. If you somehow think it's different and you are still refusing to see the reality we live in, then I'm done here. I cannot make you smarter then you are willing to be. IF you insist on being an idiot and spout off shit that makes your even more idiot friends think you are some how better, then that is where you will stand.

I'm sorry that something as clear and as established is such a pain in your belief system that you want to do whatever it takes to close your eyes and hope it disappears. I have already established through several links to specific cases that explain it nicely, I have told you what you need to look it up, and all you do is sit there and deny everything exists.

Oh, and it's not just my law, it's international treaty that says that. More precisely, In this case it's a treaty with Assange's home country which I already provided a link to..

The point is about your laws being clearly abusive. That's why they're only good as long as you've got the ability to force others to follow them.

That would be a silly and untrue point. But alas, you are already convinced and no manner of fact will change you mind.

Oh wow, no, I never realized you were protecting your own. Well okay then... I guess that justifies anything.

While that may be natural, for sociopathic lying fucks, to object to something while doing it themselves, you're still hypocritical assholes for doing it.

Its natural for everyone. History has definitely showed us that all sorts of people have done things to others that they didn't want done to them. Stop with the drama as if it impresses anyone.

Pathetic excuses. You gained your freedom by fighting that way and yet now use any technicality against those fighting with similar methods.

And this just shows your ignorance as if someone light a bonfire in your underwear. First, we did not attack innocent civilians while telling the king to go change something. We attacked the standing army at the time. Second if you are comparing terrorists acts with any revolution, you failed from the start because the terrorist acts are happening from outsiders. But I know you probably thought of that and have something fancy to say as if you closed your eyes and supplanted your own reality. Well, that doesn't make it true.

That I expect your day will come? You make sure of it with every word you say. Not by anything I do, but by world perception of you as immoral thugs.

Oh, so now you are the final arbitrator on right and wrong? When you can't even acknowledge reality. What a wast. I'm sorry I even fed your trolling.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[MaDeR]

Oil and money to his buddies are just nice side bonus. He value second term more than that.
"Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with Osama"
I did not claim that. I agree on this point.
"Bush himself even said in 2002-2003 or so that he didn't even care about Osama any more, probably because he knew he was already dead."
Or because he cound not catch him, so he downplayed Osama. See, there is more thatn one way to interpret something. I know, unbeveliable.
"There's a reason we haven't seen any new Al Qaeda recruitment movies with bin Laden in 10 years,"
There are photos/movies with Osama taken after december 2001, you know. Google it (after removing this clog about death itself). For example, here.
"and what few movies have come out have been recycling footage of him."
So you claim that any footage/video of Osama taken after december 2001 is fake? Who would thought, conspiracy theorist dismissing incovienient evidence against his claims as "forged". Hilarious, if very, very predictable.

I see one basic problem (aside from videos/footage taken after dec 2001): why Al Quaeda did not announced/admitted/whatever death of Osama in december 2001, but admitted it now? What interest they have in playing along with official version? Not that I expect consistency from conspiracy theories. :)

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

I commented on alleged crimes commited by Osama, not how he should be treated for it.

But you're sure he's guilty before the charges were ever officially read, let alone proven.

Yeah, because all we have is one "conveniently bad confession video" or "coincidental and hearsay".

Yeah, that's all we have. There are rumors that they have evidence showing Osama is guilty but there were similar rumors of intel that would show Saddam had WMDs. We needed to get him into court, preferably an international one, and figure it out. It'd do us all a lot of good to get the mechanism for war-crimes trials out of storage and use them properly now and then.

The USA is provably fighting a war on false pretenses. The world really needs to be able to see their information before we just trust them. Especially after Wikileaks helped prove how habitually they lie.

Don't worry, you can always cover ears and sing LALALA. Try it, your fellows from other side practice it everyday. Loon is loon.

Yeah, damn those who ask for evidence, they're such loons.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

And your request has as much weight as your military/financial clout. The rest of the world benefits heavily from having the USA's secrets revealed and won't help you except as forced. See the rest of your jingoistic and self-serving statements for the reasons.

It's been this way since before the US was even a country. What in the hell are you talking about? This has nothing to do with military or financial clout and everything to do with rules and law. Do you realize that you are attempting to argue that it's because of something before that something ever existed. I mean fuck, use the brain sitting on top of your head for a minute.

What, your strawman doesn't make sense? Unpossible!

You say it's to do with rules and laws, and are right. But do you think laws just uphold themselves? There are countries full of people who are already re-evaluating the worth of treaties with the USA, especially given how self-serving and dishonest they've appeared lately. If those rules were applied to someone who appeared to be a real criminal, Kadaffi say, there'd be little question of other countries helping, but when applied to someone who merely exposed the lies of criminals, no.

Unless you plan to go to war with the New Zealand they're going to be asking themselves what's in it for them to sit back and let you take Assange because not only have you recently fucked them over with copyright treaties but as the 'little guys' they have far more to gain than lose from Wikileaks' revelations.

Those are two different scenarios. In your scenario a bad-guy commits a crime and flees. In this case Assange is rumored to have done something that was not a crime anywhere else and you're saying your law supersedes that. By that logic a Saudi citizen coming to the USA and buying a beer and a porno mag is opening the US retailer up to extradition to Saudi Arabia.

Listen, I posted a link about a guy who never stepped foot in the US and got deported to face charges.

Sure, for something the rest of the world doesn't consider ludicrous. Or self-serving for the USA to be trying to extradite someone for.

Most people have an anti-crime bias, but crime as they see it - harm to good people. They'll bend the rules to punish those criminals, but not people who break laws standing up to bullies.

Actually, there was two of them. If you somehow think it's different and you are still refusing to see the reality we live in, then I'm done here.

You were never here, in the sense of actually reading. Your proof isn't as convincing as you want it to be because you're trying to prove the wrong thing. You're stuck on showing that there are treaties. The point is that treaties need to be mutual or enforced and treaties with the USA are rarely mutual and your ability to enforce them decreases rapidly.

Oh, and it's not just my law, it's international treaty that says that. More precisely, In this case it's a treaty with Assange's home country which I already provided a link to..

It's in their interests to rid the world of murderers and bank robbers, etc, and even a few other things, so you largely have their cooperation with that. But when it comes to giving a whistleblower to the offender for punishment, despite the whistleblower clearly being in the right, it isn't going to be such an easy sell.

The point is about your laws being clearly abusive. That's why they're only good as long as you've got the ability to force others to follow them.

Oh wow, no, I never realized you were protecting your own. Well okay then... I guess that justifies anything. While that may be natural, for sociopathic lying fucks, to object to something while doing it themselves, you're still hypocritical assholes for doing it.

Its natural for everyone.

It is how animals behave, and

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[MaDeR]

"Yeah, that's all we have."
You are lying, boy. You really should think up before stating things that can be defeated by 5-minute google search.
"damn those who ask for evidence,"
Nah, I call you loon because you first ask for evidence and later pretend that said evidence does not exist, is forged and all of that classic excuses of conspiracy theorist crap.
BTW new, previously unseen videos straight from compound was released. Surely these are also forged, riiiight? Oh, how easy life conspiracy loons have.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[sumdumass]

What, your strawman doesn't make sense? Unpossible!

You better look up the meaning of strawman and perhaps it would be better if you used real worlds.

You say it's to do with rules and laws, and are right. But do you think laws just uphold themselves? There are countries full of people who are already re-evaluating the worth of treaties with the USA, especially given how self-serving and dishonest they've appeared lately. If those rules were applied to someone who appeared to be a real criminal, Kadaffi say, there'd be little question of other countries helping, but when applied to someone who merely exposed the lies of criminals, no.

All treaties are self serving. It doesn't make sense to give up something without gaining something in return. And what you fail to understand here is that Australia will uphold their end of the treaty willingly as they have in the past for lesser crimes.

You pretend that the US is the only country to benefit from such a treaty, you are completely wrong. The treaties other countries enter into is because they saw a benefit and value in entering into them. If they withdraw from those treaties, we will discuss the rules then. As of now, you even bringing that up is saying little more then in your imaginary world you are right and then proclaiming that makes you right in reality. This is a complete fallacy. We are discussing the way things are, not how you want them to be.

Unless you plan to go to war with the New Zealand they're going to be asking themselves what's in it for them to sit back and let you take Assange because not only have you recently fucked them over with copyright treaties but as the 'little guys' they have far more to gain than lose from Wikileaks' revelations.

Do you speak for New Zealand? It doesn't really matyter because he is not there right now, he is in the custody of countries who aren't afraid to hand him over. And even if they returned him to his homeland, as I already pointed out, Australia will extradite lesser people for less of a crime. And that is where he would be deported to.

Again, all this rethink bullshit you are bringing up is nothing but what you want to be real. until it is, do not pretend it is real.

Sure, for something the rest of the world doesn't consider ludicrous. Or self-serving for the USA to be trying to extradite someone for.

Most people have an anti-crime bias, but crime as they see it - harm to good people. They'll bend the rules to punish those criminals, but not people who break laws standing up to bullies.

And none the less, it happened. Your objection to it as being ludicrous or something does not change that fact. Your objection is little more then an acknowledgment that you don't like it. Nothing more, nothing less. So stop pretending it has some sort of weight that isn't faithfully considered in reality.

You were never here, in the sense of actually reading. Your proof isn't as convincing as you want it to be because you're trying to prove the wrong thing. You're stuck on showing that there are treaties. The point is that treaties need to be mutual or enforced and treaties with the USA are rarely mutual and your ability to enforce them decreases rapidly.

You have showed absolutely nothing but speculation in your own mind that any of the treaties will not be honored or that they aren't mutual. I have showed that not only have they been honored in the past, that they were mutual as it didn't take an invasion to get these people, they were arrested and extradited by that country's police force and government.
So stop acting like what exists only in your mind is somehow connected to the reality we live in. It isn't. Either stick with reality or kiss off and go play know it all with your gullible friends.

It

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

You are lying, boy. You really should think up before stating things that can be defeated by 5-minute google search.

Things that would stand up in court. Could you convict a rich American on such evidence?

If you've got a link, to anything that existed before the raid, that meets that standard I'd like to hear it. Because everything I've seen is weak, coincidental, or hearsay.

Nah, I call you loon because you first ask for evidence and later pretend that said evidence does not exist, is forged and all of that classic excuses of conspiracy theorist crap.

All I ask is that it would stand up in court.

BTW new, previously unseen videos straight from compound was released. Surely these are also forged, riiiight? Oh, how easy life conspiracy loons have.

Videos of Osama buying box-cutters for 9/11? Or just videos of a raid on the compound.

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

Protect yourself? Hah. Only because you live in a safe country. One made safe due to the military.

[...]

You're so far off the mark of my political beliefs that it's ridiculous. Fear isn't even close to being a major motivating factor for me. What do I have to be afraid of? I live in pretty safe place.

Not at all. You're afraid of just living without a standing army. Of having to be responsible for yourself and others.

My main concerns are for us to quit invading places without good reason, and to start thinking rationally about our future in a world of dwindling resources in certain areas.

Why, simply because it's not profitable or because of all the killing?

As far as Osama is concerned, he was at war with us, he killed thousands and promised to kill more.

No, you were at war with HIM, You put military bases in his country.

And yes, he (supposedly) killed thousands. But in trying to catch him you guys killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions (when counting sanctions too).

Re:Still think Wikileaks knows what they're doing?

[WNight]

All treaties are self serving.

They're sold as mutually beneficial.

And what you fail to understand here is that Australia will uphold their end of the treaty willingly as they have in the past for lesser crimes.

What bearing does their reaction to "lesser crimes" have on world-shaking whistle-blowing. Most crimes serve the criminals and hurt the world and that's why everyone agrees to measures to enforce justice.

If they withdraw from those treaties, we will discuss the rules then.

In other words, breaking out the threats.

The approval rating of the world is insignificant.

And you can't imagine why other countries are pissed with you.

he is in the custody of countries who aren't afraid to hand him over.

It's not that they'd be afraid to hand him over. It's that they benefit from not. Every leak that comes out levels the field a bit. Every delay costs the USA, they don't even have to say no.

extradite lesser people for less of a crime.

Yes, they'd extradite a thief or murderer, because we all benefit from catching those people. We all benefit from leaving whistleblowers though, all but the guilty.

Anyways, they *may* extradite him, depending on the pressure the USA uses. But that's how it'll have to be, because the rest of the world benefits from having the USA's secrets spilled.

You have showed absolutely nothing but speculation in your own mind that any of the treaties will not be honored or that they aren't mutual.

No, that they aren't mutual is pretty obvious. Also that USA is trying to use them to hush up a whistleblower that everyone else benefits from listening to.

I have showed that not only have they been honored in the past, that they were mutual [...]

Yeah, in the past. Things were different. The treaty served them then, and does not now. Or rather, not letting it serve you serves them.

The founding fathers did not go around and kill the kings citizens hoping he would rule differently.

Because the rich war-backing civilians were an ocean away.

Innocent civilians and legitimate military targets, while still sometimes blurred, have been defined much clearer then any interpretation Bin Laden could possible use to justify that.

Not at all. If those people backed the USA's military ventures in the area, financially or politically, they are legitimate targets. The USA states that financially supporting terrorists implicates you, and has acted upon this to arrest, detain, and torture people who've never held a weapon.

By those (your!) rules, Bin Laden was in the right.

Fuck, are you that damn stupid and screwed up that you are now arguing that terrorism is a legitimate military tactic?

When fighting the 'Shock and Awe' people, yes. You use terrorism, and indiscriminately kill civilians - having killed easily 50 times more civilians (and innocent ones) in these wars than Bin Laden did.

And yes, when someone attacks you unprovoked and without warning, it is an illegitimate attack according to international law.

He was provoked, and had tried to warn you in smaller ways. By your logic it was a legitimate attack.

However, your unprovoked attacks against Afghanistan (linked because Bin Laden occasionally hid there) and Iraq (linked for absolutely no reason at all) are, as you say, illegitimate.

Yet you fail to see that they are only using it because it's to their advantage. They have no other reason to bring it up and will not bring it up unless it can be used to their advantage. So when we have nothing left, it will disappear along with their desire to have some sort of advantage.

Oh, you're so c

sorry ... what?!

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's the argument here? That wikileaks got the government to actually get around to going after the most wanted man in the world? HBGary? Is that you?

Re:sorry ... what?!

[OverlordQ]

So what's the argument here? That wikileaks got the government to actually get around to going after the most wanted man in the world? HBGary? Is that you?

To play devils advocate here, there may have been indications that Bin Laden *may* be hiding there. But the US Govt might have wanted to have firmer intel on that before sending DEVGRU a 100 miles into Pakistan, wikileaks may have forced them to act on not solid intel. If Bin Laden hadn't been there, wikileaks would have caused a nice win for OBL.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[Spazmania]

The argument is that if Bin Laden's folks had been more on the ball, Assange's indiscriminate leak would have cost us the opportunity to end Bin Laden.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[osu-neko]

So what's the argument here?

There isn't one, save whatever argument you yourself would like to make, based on the facts as reported. Facts do not, in and of themselves, form an argument, although you can tell a person's biases by their tendency to see certain facts as making an argument when they're just facts. The more biased they are, the more likely they are to perceive bias and an implied argument in an unbiased presentation of facts. This reached its most amusing heights on /. recently when people objected strenuously whenever the media did something as simple as make an unquestionably factual statement of objectively measurable facts about current radiation levels around a certain nuclear plant.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[guspasho]

But that's a difficult story to swallow. What was our government doing in the 3-6 years that it had this information? Why did Bush end the hunt for bin Laden 3 years ago?

Re:sorry ... what?!

[guspasho]

I should have included: consider all the bombs we recklessly drop on Pakistani villages as we hunt for "militants" and frequently kill only innocents. An excess of caution in this isolated instance seems utterly unbelievable. Especially because as the length of time we hang on to a lead without acting on it only increases the chance that we lose the opportunity.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[mywhitewolf]

because "someone who knows exactly where i am hasn't reported in for 2 years, maybe its time to change location" wouldn't have ever crossed his mind. IMO OBL stayed there because he assumed that Pakistan would protect him, he assumed wrong.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[nedlohs]

To play devils advocate, given that American politicians have essentially called for Assange to be killed surely he counts as a bad guy. Why would they not assume that he would pass it all along to Osama before making is public?

Re:sorry ... what?!

[amicusNYCL]

But the US Govt might have wanted to have firmer intel on that before sending DEVGRU a 100 miles into Pakistan, wikileaks may have forced them to act on not solid intel.

I seriously doubt Wikileaks "forced" them to do anything. The document says that this guy, LY-10017, had communication with Bin Laden's courier, and that in 2003 LY-10017 lived in Abbottabad. He moved somewhere else in 2004 or 2005, before Bin Laden's compound was built. The only connections are that it lists the name of the courier, and indicates that this particular detainee once lived in the same city that Bin Laden turned out to be hiding in (but not at the same time). It's more of a coincidence, the document doesn't even draw a link between Bin Laden's courier and the town, other than a guy who once lived in the town also once communicated (indirectly) with the courier.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[scrib]

They had a couple YEARS to get firmer intel. The only thing Wikileaks might have done is push the raid to "sooner" rather than "closer to the next election."

Yes, I'm that jaded about politicians. And I mean all of them, not just the person in the White House today... If WikiLeaks pushed them to actually act on the intel, then hail WikiLeaks!

Re:sorry ... what?!

[Opportunist]

What was gained by killing Bin Laden?

I know it's the old "we want revenge" feeling, but objectively, what has been accomplished?

Re:sorry ... what?!

[The MAZZTer]

From what I've read they were certain a major terrorist was hiding there, they just weren't sure if it was Osama or not. It would have been a win either way I'm sure.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[Alex Belits]

HBGary? Is that you?

Quite possible. It's a truly remarkable day today -- first time in Slashdot history US government shills outnumbered Microsoft shills.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[calzones]

We got buttloads of intel from his personal documents and computers.

It's a huge morale boost for the country and the troops. And the inverse for his ilk.

We got rid of the most likely foundation for an imminent nuclear attack.

We've proven that Pakistan is playing us like a fiddle.

We've taken out one more terrorist, and a pretty thorny one at that.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[Darinbob]

I believe the government was following the leads from this information. That doesn't happen instantly you know, it can take a very long time to turn one tiny shred of a clue into something you can take action with. This isn't some mystery where Miss Marple figures it out by the end of her weekend in Swansea.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[Jiro]

To play devil's advocate here: they may have had very solid intel but been waiting to execute the mission for greatest political gain. Wikileaks may have forced them to act at a time less beneficial to them but they're seizing the opportunity to bash Wikileaks some more, knowing that some people will be swayed.

Here's even more speculation: They may have had solid intel, but had been waiting to execute the mission for greatest actual gain. Waiting to kill bin Laden could have had legitimate nonpolitical benefits, such as being able to get information on other people involved in the organization.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[Permutation Citizen]

Wikileak published these leaked document because they think what is done in Guantanamo is wrong.

Ok, intelligence gathered there has allowed to kill Bin Laden. "The ends justify the means" as we often say. Except that when the means include torture, this still a disgrace for a democracy.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[intheshelter]

I think until we can confidently replace the phrases "may have" and "might have" with something more definite then this is just all speculation.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[intheshelter]

IF? I love that word, it give us a wonderful escape clause from reality.

IF US forces had not trusted Afghan soldiers to participate in the Tora Bora assault then Bin Laden would have been smoked LONG ago?

IF US foreign policy did not flippantly involve the use of military force all over the world then maybe this wouldn't have been an issue at all?

I LOVE this game!!

Re:sorry ... what?!

[intheshelter]

Maybe we could have not started the second war in Iraq and instead focused on the task at hand, capturing/killing OBL?

I don't blame the military, they are simply tools to execute foreign policy, but the government hasn't exactly prioritized things appropriately if their goal was to get rid of OBL.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[intheshelter]

Objectively about the same as when you put someone in jail or execute them after they killed your wife/husband/child? Not much, the damage is already done, but there is a bit of psychological closure for the nation in crossing his name off the list.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[Opportunist]

We got rid of the most likely foundation for an imminent nuclear attack.

Really? Hmm... what's a more likely scenario?

(pre-killing): Oh, the US are our enemies. Let's throw a bomb at them.
(post-killing): The infidels murdered our beloved leader! Nuke the bastards!

Re:sorry ... what?!

[Opportunist]

So... I guess that means we have no good reason anymore to stay? And our troops can come home?

Re:sorry ... what?!

[calzones]

Wanting to launch a nuclear attack and being able to pull it off are two vastly different things. Obtaining the stuff and handling it properly and knowing how to use it and smuggling it all require lots of money, organization, training, etc.

Also, my key word was "imminent" meaning any time in not too distant future. If he was actually cozy with Pakistan, it may have been as soon as the upcoming 10 year anniversary. He would have certainly wanted to do something like that.

His being gone simply buys us more time before someone else can fill that same ability.

And it's not like his followers are any better off or more capable or hating us any more because we killed him. That's an absurd argument.

Re:sorry ... what?!

[Opportunist]

It's unlikely that his hard core of supporters could "hate" the US any more, but it's well possible that this could cause some knee-jerk reaction now.

Re:So that's why...

[Dunbal]

A traitor to Al Qaeda for provoking the US government into killing UBL quickly, you mean? I'm confused. How does this betray US interests?

Re:So that's why...

[hinesbrad]

Or the savior of American democracy. I suppose one mans defector is another mans freedom fighter.

Sept 2008 document

[Beerdood]

So uh, why did it take so long to plan an attack if they had a lead for more than 2 years? That's only the age of the document as well, the guy in question here (Libi) was captured way back in 2005.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[geekoid]

You know its not a game, right? They just don't find a document from one guy and then go kill people.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[Brucelet]

"A courier moved to Abbottabad" is a far cry from "Osama is at 101 Terrorist Way, Abbottabad, and we're confident enough that he'll be there and that we can take him down that we're willing to risk going through with the operation even though he might escape and Pakistan might get annoyed that we violated their sovereignty". Getting from point A to point B takes a little while.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[LWATCDR]

It is on Slashdot. After all they believe in Kill them all and let God sort them all then blame it on Bush! As I have gotten older I have discovered that you can never go wrong second guessing. That way you can never be proven wrong.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[Jessified]

But but...Wikileaks is bad! Don't question my 'evidence!'

Re:Sept 2008 document

[Darinbob]

They had a lead only. A lead is not an address or confirmation. They have to find the courier, watch the courier over time, see where he goes, try to find out where he came from, verify that he really is a courier, verify that he's really the right courier, figure out which of the many locations he goes to is the one with Osama, verify that Osama is really there, watch the place to figure out the comings and goings, etc. This was in Pakistan which is an ally and not a country we're at war with, you can't just send in a smart bomb and hope for the best.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[guspasho]

And everyone knew for a long time that the compound was a terrorist hideout, and must have been holding a high-profile terrorist. They knew for over two years, up to 6 years, but failed to act. You can't convince me that the US military waits years for 100% certainty before commencing with an operation, that's just absurd.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[guspasho]

I have a hard time believing the US government, the same one that drops countless bombs on innocents in order to take out low level "militants", would put off an operation for years in order to be 100% sure before it acted. Really, when has it ever dallied on a target for that length of time out of an excess of caution, much less a very slippery and high-value target? The idea is completely absurd.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[misexistentialist]

Seems like they usually drop the bombs on "meetings". This place apparently had no activity except the daily lives of a few families. Would have sucked if they blew it up before the high-value target could move in.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[artor3]

The fact that you would even ask such an obvious question shows that you have no business criticizing them. The fact that you would be modded up for it shows that mods will support any post, no matter how inaccurate, that supports their preconceived notions (information wants to be freeeeee!!!).

To answer, for the millionth time in this thread, knowing the name of a courier doesn't instantly give you OBL's home address. They had to do a shitload of police work tracking him down. But if OBL knew we knew the couriers name, he might get spooked and leave. Honestly, this is common sense. It shouldn't need explaining.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[guspasho]

> They had a lead only. They have to find the courier, watch the courier over time, see where he goes, try to find out where he came from, verify that he really is a courier, verify that he's really the right courier, figure out which of the many locations he goes to is the one with Osama, verify that Osama is really there, watch the place to figure out the comings and goings, etc.

They had at least that lead, not only that lead. We don't know what else they had. They killed UBL within a week of the Wikileak coming out. So they either a) only just gathered all that information over 3+ years and were slightly more than a week from conducting the assassination raid when Wikileaks leaked the information, b) managed to rapidly jump on the lead and get all the information you mentioned in only a week, or c) had all the other information you mentioned and they were sitting on it. Which of those is actually plausible? I'll tell you that it isn't b).

> This was in Pakistan which is an ally and not a country we're at war with, you can't just send in a smart bomb and hope for the best.

Really? You're going to argue this? That's like arguing that the sky is a sort of brick red color. We drop bombs on Pakistan all the time, enough that it gets headlines on a practically daily basis. I find it hard to believe that you would even attempt this argument.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[guspasho]

They knew from the activities of the courier that the target was already there.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[Rich0]

I doubt they were so much concerned about getting a civilian or two so much as bombing a house important to OBL while missing OBL himself. In doing so they'd drive him to ground since he'd know they were onto him.

Various articles suggest that the US was reluctant to even use drones for surveillance, for fear of tipping OBL off. That suggests to me that they were afraid the Pakistan government was complicit - a drone is essentially undetectable at altitude except by radar, but the Pakistani military would certainly notice one buzzing around in the middle of their country.

The news sites suggest that they really only found out about the place a few months ago, and then they wanted to understand what was going on before striking. I'm still surprised it took this long, but the site is clearly sensitive being in the middle of Pakistan. If it turned out that OBL was hiding in the middle of London the US would be just as reluctant to just bomb the place out without so much as a phone call to the Prime Minister. Of course, the US had much more reason to be skeptical of Pakistani intentions, but they're still going to be careful about mounting an attack.

In fact, according to articles the Pakistani military scrambled jets after the attack, and retreating helicopters aren't really much of a match for even 3rd world fighter jets (and it isn't like the US was going to blast a corridor through Pakistani air traffic and radar for them).

In any case, it is precisely the reasons you suggest that make me think that the US really did act relatively quickly based on the information they had.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[Rich0]

Who knew for two years that the hideout was terrorist-associated? And the idea that Pakistan harbors terrorists is laughable - everybody knows they do (ever hear of Kashmir?). The question was whether they harbored OBL. They're not going to hit some random terrorist training camp in the middle of an allied nation.

I doubt that the US waited years after knowing where OBL was. I suspect that they took action as quickly as they could reasonably do so. The only reason I could see them deliberately holding off is if they thought they had him safely contained and they wanted to gather intel on his network. However, that location seemed anything but contained.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[Vintermann]

There's a rather obvious reason for that: The documents alone are not nearly sufficient for finding BL. However, US intelligence agencies thought they had figured it out, and were thinking about what to do. Then these documents are released.

Now what will OBL&Friends do? They will look over these documents. If they find Abbottabad mentioned, and they're not there, no big deal. However, if that's where they are, they might freak out and try to move, so the CIA reasons. So, they'd better go to that villa in Abbottabad ASAP.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[bentcd]

You know its not a game, right? They just don't find a document from one guy and then go kill people.

On the contrary; it just took them a while to find the blue keycard. :P

Re:Sept 2008 document

[LongearedBat]

It was a powerful card to play, one that would make any US president who played it look good.

As Obama's popularity is sagging, this was the optimal time for him to play that card.

On the other hand, perhaps the pieces just happened to fall into place very recently.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[Pecisk]

Well, it is different administration and President, so yeah, it is different.

Obama itself set catching or killing Bin Laden as an aim. Bush just ran things like "OMG everyone around us a terrorist, kill everyone, bomb everyone". I know, liberals have hard time to accept that Obama can be different from Bush, but in this case it seems so.

Fact that weapon making/copyright/etc. lobbies gets their stuff done whatever administration is in power is bigger problem in political thinking overall. You can't change it overnight with electing new, promising president. He can't change this system on his own - and he even don't know if voters wants that (because high ethics has never been and election issue).

Re:Sept 2008 document

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I think it had more to do with diplomacy. US needs Pakistan's cooperation to stabilize the region, and the terrorists are still active even after Bin Laden is dead.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[Thelasko]

So uh, why did it take so long to plan an attack if they had a lead for more than 2 years?

1. Physically find the courier mentioned in the interrogation. (3-6 months).
2. Put a tail on the courier and figure out where he goes. (1-6 months)
3. Use information from the tail to come up with a hypothetical location for OBL. (2 days)
4. Stake out hypothetical location and confirm. If false, go back to step 2. (1-2 months).
5. Obtain details about construction and layout of compound. (1day-2months, depending on methods used)
6. Obtain data about security protocols used in the compound (number of guards, when they change shifts, etc.) (1 month)
7. Construct an exact replica of the compound. (6-12 months)
8. Develop strategies for storming the compound. (1 week)
9. Test said strategies using the replica created in step 7. (repeat steps 8 and 9 if necessary.) (1 week)
10. Wait for perfect conditions to conduct raid. (New moon, good weather, etc.) (1-2 months)

The military leaves nothing to chance, and that kind of preparation takes time. Even then, things go wrong.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[steelfood]

It certainly seems that way sometimes.

Re:Sept 2008 document

[sakti]

They were waiting as there was no reason to kill him before next years elections. I bet they are pissed they had to move this early, as it will be hard to maintain the popularity boost this will give while the economy still sucks.

Isn't WL supposed to redact....

[Radical Moderate]

sensitive--as opposed to embarrassing-- information? How could they not figure out the name of OBL's courier and his location shouldn't be public knowledge?

Re:Isn't WL supposed to redact....

[MahJongKong]

Well that's a common criticism. However there will always be free speech zealots (and I'm not saying censorship is a good thing)

Re:Isn't WL supposed to redact....

[demonlapin]

Because they're not intelligence analysts - or at least, they're not interested in really clearing these things up. It's remarkable how much information can be gleaned from ostensibly innocuous sources - one example would be discerning the movement of troop trains in WW2 by alterations to the civilian schedules (although I really can't remember whether I saw that in truth or fiction).

Re:Isn't WL supposed to redact....

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they're not intelligence analysts - or at least, they're not interested in really clearing these things up.

I'd say that about sums it up. Wikileaks are not really interested in anything but their own agenda with this entire diplomatic cable document dump. They wouldn't know sensitive information if it bit them in the ass. And saying they asked the U.S. Government to help redact any sensitive information is disingenuous. If the U.S. Government had specified concern about any particular documents as being especially sensitive I'm certain there are those at Wikileaks who, rather than withholding those documents, would have been even more intent on releasing them.

Re:Isn't WL supposed to redact....

[LordLucless]

Peter Wiggin did it in Ender's Game - dunno if it happened in reality as well.

Re:Isn't WL supposed to redact....

[Darinbob]

Wikileaks doesn't care. Or at least not the modern Assange version of Wikileaks. They want to get their name in the news, and they believe "information should be free" regardless of the external costs.

Re:Isn't WL supposed to redact....

[demonlapin]

Fiction it is. That's definitely my source for that technique. (I kept thinking the most likely fictional source was Cryptonomicon, which is why I couldn't find it.)

Bin Laden

[metalmaster]

Im curious to know whether he is/was still relevant. In the NBC broadcast the anchor said something like many al-queda soldiers dont even know who Bin Laden is. I understand that they fight for a cause, rather than fighting for a commander. So.....was the raid on Bin Laden really that important? Revenge and icing on the cake for Obama?

Im all for being Patriotic, but if he's not calling any shots how is he a threat? Even if he was still relevant, shouldnt we be looking for his replacement now?

Re:Bin Laden

[guspasho]

Many al Qaeda soldiers have no idea who bin Laden is? If you believe then perhaps you'd be interested in this bridge I have for sale.

I've no idea whether bin Laden was relevant any more, no one really knows that, but that anchor who said these al Qaeda recruits have never heard of him has to be an idiot.

Re:Bin Laden

[osu-neko]

If it's true what they've been saying about the motherload of intelligence they uncovered after the raid, then bin Laden has been a lot more than a symbolic leader of Al-Qaeda. And this is the person who masterminded a number of successful attacks on the US, one of them quite spectacularly successful. Losing him is a major loss for Al-Qaeda, regardless of what the average soldier is fighting for, if he was at all an effective strategist for them, and it's really, really hard to argue that he wasn't given his track record.

Re:Bin Laden

[nedlohs]

Given they tracked him via a courier who has a job of passing stuff back and forth, clearly bin Laden is calling some shots. He's been on the run from the world's largest military with a $25 million bounty on his head. You really think he's going to meet with someone he hasn't known for decades in person?

I'm pretty sure most Coca Cola workers have never met Warren Buffet, doesn't mean he has no influence over what they do.

Even if Osama bin Laden isn't really involved in operational stuff he's still a figure head aiding in recruitement. This was good timing in that recent events in the middle east have shown it's possible to stand up to authoratarian rulers without resorting to islamic jihad...

And of course it's embaressing to have a guy evade your military for so long.

Re:Bin Laden

[Relayman]

If you're running for reelection, killing or capturing him is very relevant.

They will try to replace him, but it will not be easy to get someone who is as effective as he was.

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him

[Lysander7]

Don't be an idiot.

Re:So that's why...

[Brucelet]

Are you saying you don't see how it betrays US interests to release information that could have tipped bin Laden off about the attack? The fact that the operation was successful doesn't automatically mean forcing the president's hand was a good thing.

Of course, for all we know they might have been planning the attack for this weekend anyway. Either way, it's insane to say that provoking the military to attack before they're ready doesn't betray US interests.

I hope...

[thestudio_bob]

I hope it isn't true, but I really hope that our elected government weren't waiting to do this at a more convenient time... like election time.

If that's the case, I really am glad that WikiLeaks may have fast-tracked this operation.

Re:I hope...

[guspasho]

> I hope it isn't true, but I really hope that our elected government weren't waiting to do this at a more convenient time... like election time.

Or for some reason wasn't interested in doing it all, which is kind of what it sounded like the first time I heard about it.

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to go that far, then you can say "enhanced interrogation" of al-Libi and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that got him, since that is where the info in the Wikileaks documents came from. Here is the link to ABC News

The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[AK Marc]

So if the first kill from Wikileaks is OBL, shouldn't we be giving them a medal, rather than complaining about them?

Apparently, the US knew where he was for the past 3 years and did nothing until Wikileaks pointed out we knew something about someone who may know something. Where's the line between cautious and negligent? Or have we been tracking him accurately for that long without his knowledge and using that knowledge to dismantle the organization? Though if we were doing that with any efficiency, we should have had much better results than we have had so far.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[blueg3]

The people who originally had the document and the people who made the kill are both the US Military, right? Wikileaks didn't help at all, then.

If I'm wrong and a leak from Wikileaks actually led to finding bin Laden, I'm willing to change my position and say they should be hailed.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[MahJongKong]

It doesn't work like that.

So if the first kill from Wikileaks is OBL, shouldn't we be giving them a medal, rather than complaining about them? Apparently, the US knew where he was for the past 3 years and did nothing until Wikileaks pointed out

How could you know what was exactly going on these last three years?

Where's the line between cautious and negligent? Or have we been tracking him accurately for that long without his knowledge and using that knowledge to dismantle the organization? Though if we were doing that with any efficiency, we should have had much better results than we have had so far.

You sound like an expert at worldwide military and intelligence operations.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[demonlapin]

we should have had much better results than we have had so far.

I'd say the results so far have been pretty good. The worst acts of terrorism in the US in the past nine and half years have been occasional mass shootings.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[AK Marc]

You sound like an expert at worldwide military and intelligence operations.

No, but I play one on TV. I notice you didn't actually say anything, other than toss insults. I guess that means that you are an intelligence expert who could prove me wrong, but if you did, you'd have to kill me and everyone that read your post.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[AK Marc]

The people who originally had the document and the people who made the kill are both the US Military, right? Wikileaks didn't help at all, then.

The news report was that the military knew where he was and, for whatever reason, hadn't acted yet. But, after notification that their link that lead to his location was compromised, the time table was moved up. Without knowing when it was moved from and what would have happened, it's possible that Osama would have moved before the attack (as has happened before when we had confirmed knowledge of his location and acted too late). I can't help but wonder why we knew where he was and didn't act until a 3rd party indirectly pressed the issue.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[webbiedave]

"Apparently, the US knew where he was for the past 3 years and did nothing"

That is not what the document shows. It states the name of a courier and that a detainee -- who was being groomed to also become a courier -- moved to Abbottabad.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[osu-neko]

Apparently, the US knew where he was for the past 3 years and did nothing until Wikileaks pointed out we knew something about someone who may know something. Where's the line between cautious and negligent?

Negligent would be drawing conclusions like "we know where he is" based on the information we had three years ago, or listening to obviously unqualified idiots who would conclude we've known where he was for the past 3 years based on the couple of scraps of data mentioned, as you just did here.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[Darinbob]

Wikileaks fans don't have to know the fact, they just have to know that they're right and everyone else is lying and covering up.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[AK Marc]

And if that's the case, then why change the entire operation based on the release of one piece of data that's years old?

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[guspasho]

I'd mod him insightful several times over before I considered modding you insightful.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[blueg3]

I've seen this in the news already. We suspected where he might be. There's potentially quite a few places that meet that criterion. Despite what some people say, in general we like to have a good idea of whether or not he's actually there before we send soldiers into Pakistan and start shooting. Sure, in retrospect it's obvious that this particular piece of information was referring to the place that he actually was, but at the time, there's no way of immediately differentiating that from all the other leads that turn out to be wrong.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[AK Marc]

If that is the case, then I would submit that Wikileaks resulted in the death of Osama. Why? Because we have had similar pieces of information, then when we finally acted on them we verified that they were correct at the time they were obtained, but no longer valid by the time we acted. If this moved up the time table such that we acted in a more timely manner, then Wikileaks actually fixed a problem that has been plaguing the US military for years. If we'd waited until we were sure he was there at some point in time, as we have before, then it would be likely he would have moved on before the military action was taken, as has happened multiple times before.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[demonlapin]

Ah, AC shows his youth. First WTC bombing, 1993 I believe.

Re:The first confirmed kill by Wikileaks is Osama?

[Rich0]

Because it turns out that it was true.

I'm sure 3 years ago they were doing everything they could to track this courier without being seen (remember, once he knows he is compromised the last place he will lead you is to OBL). It probably took a while to figure out where OBL was.

Then maybe a few months ago they think they're onto OBL, and they're working on a plan to get him.

Then the name of the courier goes public. While it took the CIA years to follow around that courier, it would only take OBL 15 minutes after somebody noticed that report to realize that the CIA was getting close, and go to ground.

Information can be very asymmetric.

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him

[guspasho]

Except that waterboarding gave us nothing, and it was the tried and true non-coercive interrogation methods that provided us with that information, contrary to what Fox News would have you believe.

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/05/the-republican-spin.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+andrewsullivan/rApM+(The+Daily+Dish)

Re:So that's why...

[blueg3]

If you're referring to Manning, they didn't charge him as a traitor. It's a harder case to make, and it carries a much higher penalty than what he was charged with.

Re:So that's why...

[TaoPhoenix]

I have zero respect for "forcing the gov's hand".

I posted a submission that hasn't been approved yet that Pakistan (and others?) were doing a masterful job of hiding him while sorta pretending to be our friends. This says that if *everybody* involved really wanted him dead, he would have been in short order. Instead, we got our ten year spree of 1984 using this as bait to "stay the course".

"Hai. $100 Million to anyone who hands Osama personally into US forces."

No, wikileaks may not know when to sit on info ...

[perpenso]

... the accumulated cultural wisdom of all citizens which allows them to know when to publish a leaked document to expose corruption and when to sit on it. Oh wait, that's what we've got.

No. **If** wikileaks actually did release info related to Abbottabad then we *do not* have the component where people have the wisdom to know when to not release the info, the wisdom to sit on it as you say.

Wikileaks may be as unskilled as the government with respect to classifying info. They merely may be erring on the opposite end of the spectrum and letting too much out. Wikileaks is a bit like a vigilante organization and our "accumulated cultural wisdom" say that courts and the rule of law (logic) are better than vigilantes (emotion).

Re:So that's why...

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

And why the soldier who keeps his mouth shut at all times is a True Patriot(TM).

Compromised mission or not

[GodfatherofSoul]

Our government lost the benefit of the doubt by lying us into Iraq.

Re:Compromised mission or not

[goodmanj]

To be fair (okay, not to be fair at all), they were such shitty lies that the only people who believed them were those who'd already drunk the Kool-Aid. The root problem was blind patriotism and equating mistrust of government with treason. The lies were almost superfluous. George Bush could have told the American public that the War Against Terror required us to invade Canada, and just over half of us would have immediately started to march on the border.

Re:2003 huh?

[nedlohs]

I take it you can't read.

Re:So that's why...

[Opportunist]

Because it took a good while and two skyscrapers to build up this boogeyman! Now they had to axe him because those damn geeks released the docs and it would have been a PR disaster if he got away.

Now we have to build up a new terror czar! Dammit, that's expensive!

Re:Keep your enemy closer

[mywhitewolf]

and if OBL had thought "as the worlds most wanted man, perhaps i shouldn't stay in the same location for 7 years".

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him

[Runaway1956]

Superb link. But, the bloodthirsty will ignore it, or argue it, or try to discredit anyone who contributes to spreading the word.

Accelerated?

[koan]

It's been 10 fucking years...

30 days hath september, April...

[rossdee]

"they planned to raid Osama's hideout on April 31"

I am sure that would have been a surprise for Osama - nobody expects to be raided on April 31

Re:So that's why...

[Brucelet]

That doesn't change the fact that forcing the military to act before they're ready is generally a bad idea.

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him

[guspasho]

Do you think they will drill far enough down to find this link that shows that Donald Rumsfeld himself admits the same?

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/05/02/rumsfeld-bin-laden-gitmo/

Re:No, wikileaks may not know when to sit on info

[sumdumass]

Well, I for one don't mind this careless release getting someone killed.

So long to Assange claiming no one harmed

[JimWise]

Looks like Julian Assange can no longer claim that no one has been killed due to documents released by WikiLeaks.

Re:So long to Assange claiming no one harmed

[zigfreed]

But unlike William Randolph Hurst, his publications aren't yellow.

Re:naivete

[Runaway1956]

A little isolationism wouldn't hurt us today. Or, self sufficiency. Look at the trade balance, and all the debt we are running up that our great-great-great grandchildren won't be able to pay off.

Dude, we're doing something very, very WRONG!!!

Re:niggers man

[oldhack]

What the fuck...?! :-)

Mod parent UP please!

[Burz]

I for one am glad that someone forced the government to actually go after bin Laden instead of keeping him around as a convenient boogeyman.

You better believe they're corrupt!

Re:naivete

[victorhooi]

heya,

Lol, obviously the last 100 years of economics theory, or globalisation have passed you by...

Please scurry back to the 1500's and the Age of Merceantalism from which you came.

You might as well leave your computer, internet connection, cellphone, and all those other devices you undoubtedly take for granted, without any understanding of the modern world or how economics works.

Cheers,
Victor

There is no news in this:

[bussdriver]

1)
  the leaks were vetted with the press and the white house; anything getting out is the fault of all the parties involved - obviously, the US gov is to blame for not being reasonable or making the mistake to not get something important blocked (as opposed to only insisting in NO leaks and trumping up criminal charges against wikileaks.)

2)
Who cares if some people are named, even if they have regular contact you must FIND THEM before you can follow them to anybody else. We know Bin Ladden's name and it took a decade to do something with that name.

3)
It is not confirmed that names leaked by wikileaks was involved (and given how upset the state dept is would you trust them in saying that?? without proof?)

4)
It has not been reported exactly how they found him.

5)
The possible "actionable intelligence" from gitmo could be part of the info gathered by LEGAL means just because it may have come from our prisoners does not mean we broke the law in getting that-- that is, assuming any of these theories about how things played out are correct.

6)
War crimes even if fruitful are still war crimes. period. People die for causes and people go to jail for causes - it doesn't matter how you justify it, punishment for the crime is mandatory. This doesn't change anything even if all those hypotheticals go in this direction.

Re:So that's why...

[Killjoy_NL]

You say that like that's a bad thing?

nope

[obarthelemy]

the doc only states that the detainee moved there in 2003. A couple a lines down it also states he moved away from there a year later.

Basically, it's that randomest and least remarkable mention of the place.

Also he's a figurehead

[Sycraft-fu]

And figureheads are important, we wouldn't have them if they weren't. His death sends many messages to people who would engage in activities like he did things like we will track you down no matter how long it takes, you will not be safe, ever.

It is massively demoralizing for his followers as well. Their figurehead goes out not in a blaze of glory killing infidels, but taken out by a special ops team while hiding in his mansion.

Capturing or killing Bin Laden had a great deal of symbolic value and that is worthwhile.

Ugh.

[twebb72]

I'll just wait for the movie to come out.

Re:naivete

[Runaway1956]

Dude, economics theory today is simply WRONG. And globalisation is just a gimmick for those at the top of the food chain to redistribute the wealth once again, taking the lion's share in the process.

Whatever. You're not going to believe me, because you've had all that "higher education", whereby the masses are indoctrinated to believe and accept whatever the leaders want them to believe. Bottom line is, China has remained at nearly feudal levels until recently, because they refused to adapt. Today, they are adapting, which is commendable. What is not so commendable, is the fact that corporate and political America are busy selling everything we have to China, and at the same time believing that they can exploit China's workforce.

Oh well - tell ya what. We'll all just hang around, and see how all the "intellectual property" nonsense works out. Our people seem to think it's our "ace in the hole" or some such nonsense. But, China respects no one's "intellectual property". At some point in the future, they will make that very clear, and they will leverage all their other economic power to make us agree that our software, our operating systems, our music, and everything else is free for the taking.

And, you know what? I agree with them on the IP thing. We are busy pissing away real wealth, following some moronic dream of growing rich on IP.

We deserve what is coming in another 75 to 250 years, unless we collectively pull our heads out of our asses.

Re:So that's why...

[FhnuZoag]

Yeah, people saying that it's a good thing the operation was brought forward aren't considering the increased probability of failure this means.

Re:So that's why...

[intheshelter]

I guess that depends. Since the military doesn't really make the call on whether to perform a mission, it's a political call, then this didn't force the military to do anything. It may have forced political leaders to move forward on this military action, but if they weren't moving on it already maybe they should have been?

In short, this whole discussion is speculation. Blaming Wikileaks for any motivation in the timeline for this action is speculative at best and is just going to degerate into groups of people who tend to distrust government and those who tend to trust government. The comments are colored by which way each poster leans and really has no relevance to the reality that NO ONE on this site has any evidence whatsoever that Wikileaks had ANY affect on this week's events.

Re:So it wasn't Obama, but Wikileaks that "got him

[intheshelter]

Or he's a patriot to the few that think government should be accountable and honest?

Election timing ruined...

[geekmux]

"...fearing al-Qaida realized their courier may have been tracked and move Osama, the US administration accelerated their plan and attacked the target site over the weekend."

Awww, so sorry Obama. You couldn't perfectly time the killing of OBL to match your re-election and get that popularity vote behind you. (Sorry, but the more I read about how we've known about/tracked his courier for literally years now, the more I question why the hell we waited this damn long to take action if NOT for some other benefit such as re-election timing.)

Re:Election timing ruined...

[chemosh6969]

Considering this info came out when Bush was president, if anyone was going to do something to alter an election, it would have been him trying to keep Obama from winning.

"US may have got Osama bin Laden's Abbottabad clue

[CheerfulMacFanboy]

IOW if it hadn't been for Wikileaks, the US would have waited another 5 years to go after Osama. Just speculating.

Re:niggers man

[overlordofmu]

The tao is what is being talked about. Although, any attemp to describe the tao will fail.

The map is not the territory.

Credit Assange with an Assist

[ElmoGonzo]

If this were volleyball, he'd sure get an assist on the setup for the kill.