Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

I stand corrected, then. However, Manning didn't "probably" break the law; he definitely broke the law... and military law, at that.

The problem that I have, aside from Assange's penchant for saying he's a "neutral party" while framing what he does to suit his opinions (see: "collateral murder"), is that he threw a lot of Afghans and Iraqis (as well as Manning) under the bus when he published these... and all in the name of what, exactly? Nothing in these papers is anything we didn't either suspect or know, and nothing in these papers is even really strategically relevant anymore.

AiR, I'll make a deal with you: if you can find one leaked document that isn't a subjective report (see: some grunt's field report), decisively influences or reinforces a position on Iraq/Afghanistan, and can survive reasonable scrutiny, I'll admit that what Assange did was worth it.
 
Last edited:
All of them shed light on the situation in Afghanistan (they're not the Iraqi war logs) and thus are of public interest. Whether or not the documents contain anything new is not relevant, Wikileaks right to publish the facts without interference from any outside party is what is important.
 
AiR said:
All of them shed light on the situation in Afghanistan (they're not the Iraqi war logs) and thus are of public interest. Whether or not the documents contain anything new is not relevant, Wikileaks right to publish the facts without interference from any outside party is what is important.
Click to expand...
But that's the thing, and what I'm trying to get you to prove otherwise: they don't actually shed any light on the situation. They don't tell us anything that we didn't already know. However, if the Taliban were to get hold of them, it'll tell them who is helping us, at the very least.

And I fail to see how the documents not containing anything new isn't relevant to shedding light on the situation. If they don't contain anything we don't already know, why do we ultimately care?
 
The value of publishing the War Logs is not the new information, it's the raising of public awareness.

Dogbert said:
They don't tell us anything that we didn't already know. However, if the Taliban were to get hold of them, it'll tell them who is helping us, at the very least.
Click to expand...
You contradict yourself here. The Taliban know at least as much as the US and European public. So if something on the Afghanistan war isn't news to us, it isn't news to them neither. And I agree that it would be a major, probably fatal mistake if sources can be identified from the published documents.
 
DanRoM said:
You contradict yourself here. The Taliban know at least as much as the US and European public. So if something on the Afghanistan war isn't news to us, it isn't news to them neither.
Click to expand...
The only thing that's going to be news to either side are the individual people involved in things, rather than just "the military" or "the population". That's what I meant was going to be damning.

DanRoM said:
And I agree that it would be a major, probably fatal mistake if sources can be identified from the published documents.
Click to expand...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...hanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html
 
Last edited:
DanRoM said:
So? A Taliban spokesman says if they find out names, they will hunt these people down. No surprise, of course they will. The article does not state that there are actually any names in the documents.
Click to expand...
According to Assange, about 15,000 documents were left out of the leak because they included informant names or other information that could directly endanger lives. I'm sure there are still names in there and I think Robert Gates was quite right in saying that any blood resulting from this is on Assange's hands.

I still like what WikiLeaks does, but I wish Assange would quit pretending he and his organization aren't biased. That's bullshit, he's got an agenda just like everyone else. He either needs to acknowledge it or try to run WikiLeaks objectively.
 
Last edited:
In Afghanistan, as in many cultures, a manly embrace is a time-honored tradition for warriors before they go off to face death. Thus, many suicide bombers never even make it out of their training camp or safe house, as the pressure from these group hugs triggers the explosives in suicide vests.
Click to expand...

The Atlantic - The Case for Calling Them Nitwits

"Don't hug me, bro!"
 
tigger said:
According to Assange, about 15,000 documents were left out of the leak because they included informant names or other information that could directly endanger lives. I'm sure there are still names in there
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's why they are not published.

I still like what WikiLeaks does, but I wish Assange would quit pretending he and his organization aren't biased. That's bullshit, he's got an agenda just like everyone else. He either needs to acknowledge it or try to run WikiLeaks objectively.
Click to expand...
But what exactly is the agenda? All we now is their motto "in doubt - publish". And for now I buy that - of course it's practically impossible to be completely unbiased, but I have not seen anything pointing at them being particularly biased ("Collateral Murder" is a brillant play of words on the shameful euphemism "collateral damage", and what the soldiers in that video do is "in doubt - kill": notice the similarity to WikiLeaks' motto).
I don't follow them closely, but from what I have seen I have no reason not to believe what Assange says. But granted, because they tend to piss off big players like mighty nations and big corporations which is by default a good thing, I'm inclined to cut them some slack. The world needs more people like him - people willing to challenge the powerful.
I just ask myself what kind of death wish this guy has. He must be on several dozens of "to kill" lists by now. But for that, publicity and intransparency may be WikiLeaks' best insurance.
 
DanRoM said:
But what exactly is the agenda? All we now is their motto "in doubt - publish".
Click to expand...
http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2010...has-an-agenda-he-has-never-claimed-otherwise/

?It was surprising to me that we were seen as such an impartial arbiter of the truth, which may speak well to what we have done? To be completely impartial is to be an idiot. This would mean that we would have to treat the dust in the street the same as the lives of people who have been killed.?

And it's no secret he's against the Afghan war.

DanRoM said:
And for now I buy that - of course it's practically impossible to be completely unbiased, but I have not seen anything pointing at them being particularly biased ("Collateral Murder" is a brillant play of words on the shameful euphemism "collateral damage", and what the soldiers in that video do is "in doubt - kill": notice the similarity to WikiLeaks' motto).
Click to expand...
"Collateral Murder", as we uncovered and discussed, actually turned out to be an entirely biased title to the video.
 
"Collateral damage" has been an accepted term used by western governments for ages. Why was it accepted? I don't know. But it is obviously one that's made to make it look less serious. I don't mind the term "collateral murder" more than I mind "collateral damage". I believe "accidental deaths" sound a lot more neutral, even if there is cases were "reckless deaths" might be more accurate.
 
nomix said:
"Collateral damage" has been an accepted term used by western governments for ages. Why was it accepted? I don't know. But it is obviously one that's made to make it look less serious. I don't mind the term "collateral murder" more than I mind "collateral damage". I believe "accidental deaths" sound a lot more neutral, even if there is cases were "reckless deaths" might be more accurate.
Click to expand...
"Collateral Murder" implied that the two Reuters photographers killed in the video were innocently murdered... when in fact, they were traveling with a group of insurgents who were about to ambush a US convoy. That was why I said it was a "biased" title.
 
Dogbert said:
"Collateral Murder" implied that the two Reuters photographers killed in the video were innocently murdered... when in fact, they were traveling with a group of insurgents who were about to ambush a US convoy. That was why I said it was a "biased" title.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I do realize that, I am after all a journalist, this is a science for us.

What I am trying to say is that collateral damage is just as biased as collateral murder. It goes the other way, But it's still biased, as it attempts to mak it look less like manslaughter. And I understand it. No state wants to agree someone is dead because they were reckless.
 
DanRoM said:
So? A Taliban spokesman says if they find out names, they will hunt these people down. No surprise, of course they will. The article does not state that there are actually any names in the documents.
Click to expand...
From that Wired article AiR posted:
Several media outlets have found the names of Afghan informants in the documents WikiLeaks published, as well as information identifying their location in some instances. A Taliban spokesman told Britain?s Channel 4 news that the group was sifting through the WikiLeaks documents to get the names of suspected informants and would punish anyone found to have collaborated with the United States and its allies.
Click to expand...

Kip_6666 said:
That's your guess, not a fact.
Click to expand...
It's not just my guess, and it's not a guess founded on flimsy evidence, as you remember.
 
DanRoM said:
Yeah, that's why they are not published.
Click to expand...
What I meant is that there are still informant names in some of the documents released. Dogbert pretty well covered the rest.

nomix said:
What I am trying to say is that collateral damage is just as biased as collateral murder. It goes the other way, But it's still biased, as it attempts to mak it look less like manslaughter. And I understand it. No state wants to agree someone is dead because they were reckless.
Click to expand...
Collateral damage is a pretty broad term. It applies to anything "accidentally" destroyed in war, not just lives. To me, the title "Collateral Murder" implies that the US knowingly killed those journalists. But we probably shouldn't get into this again.
 
tigger said:
Collateral damage is a pretty broad term. It applies to anything "accidentally" destroyed in war, not just lives. To me, the title "Collateral Murder" implies that the US knowingly killed those journalists. But we probably shouldn't get into this again.
Click to expand...
Yeah. It's a negative twist on what happens. Collateral damage is a positive twist. It's been used to describe anything from accidentily killing someone walking past a target to taking out a block of houses where dozens of innocent people sleep to take out one man. That's just recklessness. "Collateral damage" sounds like "a broken car" or "a blown up phone booth". People know what it is, but it does tend to make it less human. Think about it, you know it's true.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top