Slashdot Mirror
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."
Indeed, it would be better to live in perpetual ignorance. We can trust the Government and Corporations to rule us fairly.
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?
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
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!
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?
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.
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.
I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
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.
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
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.
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.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
You would rather Osama get away to lead more terrorist attacks than that you not know the name of his courier?
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)
At least big media gives you the reach around!
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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...
Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
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...
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.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
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.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
>>>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.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
"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
>>>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.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
wikileaks grows up and realizes they are endangering lives
The only life they seem to have endangered to date is Ossama Bin Laden's.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
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.
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.
Our government can obviously be trusted to never endanger lives through its recklessness.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
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.
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.
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
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.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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".
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
There is no -1 disagree
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?
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.
"...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.)