Some related news stories:
- Afghan, Pakistani Reactions at Odds Over Leaked US Documents
- US says Afghan Wikileaks ‘could put lives at risk’
- Wikileaks case puts focus on digital security challenges
- WikiLeaks: Group vows to put more documents online
The website known for publishing leaked materials from governments and other organizations has posted online part of more than 90,000 documents it says are secret U.S. military files about the Afghan war. Some of the leaked documents suggest the American military suspects Pakistan’s spy service, the Inter-Services Intelligence, of helping militants.
The website WikiLeaks posted documents that cover the period between January 2004 and December 2009.
The US has condemned the leaks, with the White House saying they could threaten national security and endanger American lives. The source of the leaks has not been confirmed and the Pentagon says it could take days or weeks to assess the damage that has been caused.
The massive release of secret Pentagon documents by Wikileaks highlights the security challenges of the digital age, when gigabytes of stolen data can be shared in one click, analysts said Monday.
Assange has pledged to keep publishing — just as soon as he can get his website reorganized to handle the volume of data rushing in.
The only significant consequence will be a determination by governments to tighten national security procedures and maybe introduce tougher laws against leaking.
Once upon a time we had a major political party that would have vigorously condemned US foreign policy and the way it conducts its perpetual wars. Now that party sends troops to help. Well Paul Howes hearts Israel and we can’t risk upsetting Paul.
Hilariously, the dump of 92,000 documents has been called ‘selective leaking’. And disclosing all this information is a threat to democracy apparently … the only democratic society is one where government can run wars and foreign policy in secret. For example
Ken, the Labor Party, to which you implicitly refer, has never condemned US foreign policy. Some prominent individuals, like Jim Cairns, did, but they were in the minority. The party itself has supported US foreign policy continuously since 1941 if not earlier.
There have no been any people like Cairns in the ALP for a long time. We even have a Defence Minister from the Left, something that would have once unthinkable.
Ken, Yossarian couldn’t have dreamt it up on one of his worst days, could he?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2010/jul/26/afghanistan-war-logs-wikileaks
Shorter Baker:1) “If you’re not with us you’re with the “terrorists.”
2) Any news painting us in a bad light is trafficking on behalf of the enemy.
3) Wikileaks is more dangerous than Ellsberg.
And this arrogant presumption that non Americans can commit treason against the USA.
Bastards, murderers, war criminals. Go Julian Assange and “de-sanitise” the sanitisers.
Methinks the Afghan war will be shortened with this incredible “light” shone into some very dark corners.
Daniel Ellsberg spent months photocopying the Pentagon Papers.
Julian Assange is the most significant Australian since Germaine Greer.
Some prat on the BBC announced that the leak “did not reveal anything that the US government didn’t already know.” Well duh, the US government generated those documents.
The important point about these documents is that they reveal how different branches of the US government lied to each other and to themselves.
Then, naturally, they continued to lie to their citizens and tax payers.
So one revelation is apparently that the Taliban has heat-seeking missiles to take down US aircraft. Could these be the same weapons that were provided to the Afghanis by the US when the Soviet Union was invading?
We need to separate the releasing of inconvenient truths rather than information that could be described as “directly supporting the enemy”. Most of the fuss seems to be about inconventient truths like the killing of innocents.
Has any analysis been done on the breakdown of the information released so far?
Baker is referring to the American(s) in the Pentagon who gave the documents to Wikileaks.
Baker is wrong the principle lesson to be learned from these leaks is the duplicity and self-mystification of branches of the US government.
The duplicitous parties are the real traitors and should be prosecuted.
The self-mystifying parties are merely nincompoops and should be sacked.
Tougher laws against leaking?
I’d be surprised if that Bradley Manning guy sees the light of day again. I think he is facing 50 years in prison.
Thats pretty tough.
And Ken, that article you linked to …
“Openness is our strength so we need tighter secrecy laws and harsher penalties for people who break them.” Or words to that effect.
These leaks won’t cost more lives than the war already has, tho it throws light on things like Task Force 373. (Those things should be no surprise anyway, assassination squads have always been used. I knew Australian soldiers who did that work in SE Asia, with US and UK soldiers in different conflicts.) But its the general incompetence that needs to be publicised. The incident with the 7 children being rocketed is appalling for example.
I’d like to think there will be more scrutiny of our role in Afghanistan in response to this, but there won’t be.
And the ISI stuff … well its interesting to see alot of it confirmed via these leaked documents.
Sam @ 3 my comment was badly worded; I did not mean Labor condemned the totality of US foreign policy, only aspects of it. For example, the ALP consistently opposed US involvement in Vietnam.
That’s a big call. What about Pat Rafter?
Significant or not, Mr Assange would be well advised to not to venture to any place where the long arm of the US law can get to him, or he might end up spending quality time here.
Pakistan has been the carbuncle in the throat of the US all along. IMO it still remains the greatest threat re terrorist attacks throughout the west.
Perhaps not Tigtog, however it could be that Milo Minderbender has taken over the Pentagon and writes all the “contracts” for US forces to attack the Talibs and vice versa? (“And everybody in the syndicate has a share”)
Some logic is necessary to explain why American forces persist in Afghanistan:
From the guardian:
Could this leak be a deliberate US provocation? Unlikely, but not beyond the realms of possibility.
The leak may have been motivated by:
1. The ambitions outlined by the above ISI official, or
2. A Pentagon desire to embarrass Obama. The Wingnut noice Machine in the US will go into melt-down mode demanding that Obama hang some
liberalstraitors.But whatever, the leaks reveal just how toxic is the relationship between the US and Pakistan.
When Bush blundered into Afghanistan all those years ago, I predicted that the US would face its nemesis in Pakistan.
Indeed he is Katz but what he said was:
Now with site members (ie Assange) being citizens of nations who are “allies” it would not surprise me if the US government puts pressure on ours to prosecute Assange. Lots of scope for that, per the Cth’s Criminal Code Act 1995:
By exposing military procedures, tactics whatever: that could constitute “indirectly…the assisting…of a terrorist act.”
Otherwise, they could simply declare Wikileaks to be a terrorist organisation by the regulations.
I don’t think that an ALP government would have the stomach for proceeding along those lines, it’s too OTT, but hey waddabout Tony Abbott…?
(I do however have concerns that certain people in the US would very much like to arrange an “accident” for the Wikileaks founder.)
I’ve been really hoping someone leaks those censored internet filter documents to wikileaks!
I stand corrected, PK.
Yes, Baker’s rant against WikiLeaks demonstrates an egregious ignorance of political geography.
And you are correct that the Howard government has constructed a Kafkaesque thicket of penalties in its role of Handmaiden to the Hegemon.
Abbott would be frenetically dedicated to the principle that the first bad piece of military news legally available to citizens and taxpayers must be that about the final collapse of the war effort.
If anything happens to Assange now … at the moment publicity is the best defense he has.
Katz @15 I doubt the leak was in any way authorised by the US govt or the Pentagon.
There’s too much stuff in there that makes them look incompetent and brutal, and America isn’t the only country with troops there.
An acquaintance in Finland told me this leak is already having an effect on the public attitude to the war there. I can’t check that out, but if he’s right then it does imply some interesting decisions ahead for NATO.
I think the Pakistan revelations are as uncomfortable for the US as for Pakistan, more so probably. There are also rumour that wikileaks will release evidence of a US massacre of Afghani civillians in the next little while. Probably video footage.
I remember hearing rumours about this dump of data back when the collatoral murder vid came out, so perhaps there will be something in it.
I find the extraordinary reaction this has gotten a bit surprising. Anybody who’s been following reportage out of Afghanistan knows most of the pertinent bits – Karzai’s regime is rotten to the core, that and collateral damage has alienated the locals, and the ISI and the Taliban are peas in a pod. End result – the Afghanistan conflict is an unwinnable festering sore and a massive human tragedy.
Jules #10. Trouble is Bradley Manning was never in Afghanistan, only in Iraq. There has to be more leaking than just him I would think.
Its nice to have some documentation tho Robert…
(Or really annoying depending on your POV.)
Also
“Anybody who’s been following reportage out of Afghanistan..”
Thats about what? – 0.5% of the population?
Yep. This is what Conroy’s filter is all about. Wikileaks and looking to head off the possibility of other such sites. I’ll just point out that under Australian laws and procedures Assange is not protected against covert arrest, detention without representation and “rendition” by which of course is meant torture in a foreign nation. Heads up mate.
The other element that suggests a guiding hand on these leaks is that the leaks appear to terminate with the accession of Obama to the presidency.
Funny, that.
I think what’s extraordinary Robert is that unlike the Pentagon Papers, this material is available to people all over the world at the click of a mouse. The devil is in the “available” details so to speak.
Now you’re just being cynical, Katz
How safe is the WikiLeaks founder from U.S. persecution?
Robert @ 20 it’s one thing to believe the whole situation is a shambles on the basis of news reports; it’s quite another to have it confirmed by the principal antagonist’s own intelligence reports. It totally gives the lie to those who pretend governments know lots more than we ordinary mortals do and we must therefore trust them to do what is right.
Well Paul, the first consideration has to be Mao’s dictum:
For dirty tricks, rendition torture etc the USA has form and this could never be ruled out, completely. Even with Obama in charge they could even pull that shit off without Obama knowing.
If you meant prosecution, undoubtedly if he went to the US they could formulate some charge as with Daniel Ellsberg ie theft and conspiracy. I rather doubt however that Assange would be going to the US anytime soon.
Another possible danger that Assange faces is if Tony Abbott is elected in which case he could theoretically be charged under our Commonwealth Criminal Code but even that is unlikely given the way Amnesty, journalist organisations, human rights people inclusive of international jurists would scream from the rooftops (and rightly so.) I don’t think even the Mad Monk would have the stomach for it, but you never know with Howardistas.
In other words, the threat of US “persecution” by way of illegal rendition or “disappearance” is more likely than “prosecution” but given the odium in which the world regards the US these days in its wars and illegal conduct, and the disaster of PR if Assange “disappeared” my best bet is he’s fairly safe. (We could be sure of one thing, his colleagues at Wikileaks would still be there doing their stuff.)
It is interesting (or predictable) to see how quiet the ALP is on the war on Afghanistan. What is even more concerning though is how the left lets the ALP off the hook for its support for US wars despite ongoing civilian deaths.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikileaks-head-attacked-by-ada-20100728-10vpn.html?autostart=1
ADA, Australian Defence Association says:
Not deliberate or institutional policy? Have these people at ADA read any of the material, or specifically (ie above) where US Marines shot up unarmed civilians???
Oh yes, let’s tighten the law for “traitors” and while we’re at it, pass laws on “responsible journalism” ie
Responsible Journalism (Reckless Traitors & Enemies of the State) Act 2010
Knee jerk militarism at play here. Report military crimes of our allies and we’ll have you charged.
Unleashed: The dichotomy of Wikileaks – Chris Berg argues that Julian Assange’s social activism gets in the way of Wikileak’s integrity/credibility.
Chris Berg is an idiot.
If he were a journo he’d be asking about the implications of this:
http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/afg/event/2009/11/AFG20091122n2337.html
Neocons in the US are now openly advocating that the CIA dirty tricks guys should abduct Assange and bring him to the US for processing under the anti-terror laws.
All together now:
“Home of the brave
Land of the free ……..”
Well if he ever needs a place to hide out in the hills there are plenty round here.
Australian Defence Association:
On the facts, no intelligent jury could arrive at that verdict. These leaks expose the duplicity and counter-productiveness of Coalition strategy and tactics in Afghanistan.
In fact, these leaks demonstrate that the greatest assistants of the enemy in Afghanistan are the Coalition’s political, intelligence and military leaders.
It is they, and not Assange, who merit prosecution for helping the enemy.