The Taliban is 'hunting down informants' named on Wikileaks

[bobbyw24]

The Taliban has issued a warning to Afghans whose names might appear on the leaked Afghanistan war logs as informers for the Nato-led coalition.

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said they were studying and investigating the report, adding “If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.”

The warning came as the US military's top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen said that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, may already have blood on his hands following the leak of 92,000 classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan by his website.

"Mr Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family," he said.

Information from the documents could reveal:

* Names and addresses of Afghans cooperating with Nato forces
* Precise GPS locations of Afghans
* Sources and methods of gathering intelligence

The US government has called in the FBI to help hunt those responsible for leaking tens of thousands of secret documents about the Afghanistan war.

Robert Gates, the US Defense Secretary, warned that sources identified in the documents now risked being "targeted for retribution" by insurgents in Afghanistan.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7917955/Wikileaks-Afghanistan-Taliban-hunting-down-informants.html

[constituent]

When you snitch, just know what's comin'.

Simple as that. No different here than Afghanistan.

[Danke]

The warning came as the US military's top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen said that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, may already have blood on his hands following the leak of 92,000 classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan by his website.

"Mr Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family," he said.


Probably not nearly as much blood on his hands as you, Admiral Mike Mullen.

[olehounddog]

The warning came as the US military's top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen said that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, may already have blood on his hands following the leak of 92,000 classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan by his website.

Who has blood on their hands?:confused: With drone attacks having a 15 to 1 civilian to supposed bad guy kill ratio.

[Bruno]

The warning came as the US military's top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen said that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, may already have blood on his hands following the leak of 92,000 classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan by his website.

Who has blood on their hands?:confused: With drone attacks having a 15 to 1 civilian to supposed bad guy kill ratio.


Sshhhh...you're spoiling their diversion

[specsaregood]

the taliban have computers and internet access?

[constituent]

the taliban have computers and internet access?

Actually, there's one guy with a sat. phone, a modem that translates the signal into morse code, and one bad-ass with an abacus.

Sure, it's slow, but it gets the job done!

[UnReconstructed]

Who in the Taliban appointed Zabihullah Mujahid as a spokesman? Petraeus? Gates? Ted Tuner himself?

[charrob]

Friday, July 30, 2010
WikiLeaks vs. The Death Machine

http://www.pressaction.com/images/Gates_Mullen.jpg

It’s a very strange and maddening world in which two men responsible for the deaths of thousands of people can cast blame on others for leaking information about their vicious actions. Yesterday, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, made comments to the news media about WikiLeaks’ release of information related to the U.S. assault on Afghanistan. When Mullen said WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange and WikiLeaks’ source for the documents “might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family,” I assume the press corps covering the press event burst into wild laughter over such an absurd and obscene comment. But I’ve watched some video of the comments by Mullen and Gates, and I couldn’t detect any gasps or guffaws coming from the media contingent.

What happened yesterday at the Pentagon would be comparable to former BP CEO Tony Hayward holding a press conference following the blowout of the Gulf of Mexico well, as the gallons of oil were gushing forth, and then proclaiming the real environmental villains are the motorists who let gasoline spill when topping off their tanks at their local service station. Actually, that’s a bad analogy because motorists should avoid spillage when filling up, and, actually, should eschew driving cars altogether. What WikiLeaks and its source(s) did is heroic. There’s nothing heroic about letting gasoline spill on your shoes when pumping gas.

A better analogy to the Gates-Mullen gag-fest is U.S. federal prosecutors holding a press conference to announce the arrest and planned prosecution of four animal rights activists for engaging in “terrorist” acts by chanting, leafleting, chalking on public sidewalks in front of animal researchers’ homes. Once again, I hope the media contigent gathered for such a prosecutor’s press conference would burst out in laughther in response to such insanity. But, again, I doubt the media dupes would be astute enough to recognize the absurdity of charging activists with “terrorism"-related acts for engaging in peaceful action while researchers across the nation are terrorizing, torturing and killing nonhuman animals on a daily basis. Once again, the activists who are shining light on these despicable acts are the true heroes, while the real “terrorists” are free to ply their trade.

In our modern industrial society, what we have is the operation of an out-of-control, bloodthirsty machine, with a large number of thugs in government and the private sector working hard to fine-tune the machinery.

Through its invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. government has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of people. And now one of the thugs directly responsible for these atrocities has the nerve to claim that someone involved in the heroic release of information about the U.S.-led rampage in Afghanistan might have blood on his hands. Such comments, along with President Barack Obama’s call for an investigation into the document leak rather than an inquiry into the atrocities outlined in the documents, are the height of absurdity.

During the same news conference, Gates said: “The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world.”

In response to the comments, WikiLeaks wrote on Twitter: “Gates, who killed thousands in Iraq, Afg and Iran-Contra says we might have ‘blood on our hands’.”

WikiLeaks is spot-on in its retort. Also, the U.S. government’s reputation has long been in the dirt in “that key part of the world.” And let’s hope the “consequences” are “severe” for the U.S. military and that disclosure of its atrocities compels it to hightail out of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the U.S. machine has a rapacious appetite for death and likely won’t halt its rampage until it’s too late for millions more unfortunate souls.

http://www.pressaction.com/news/weblog/full_article/wikileakshero07302010/

[pcosmar]

Who in the Taliban appointed Zabihullah Mujahid as a spokesman? Petraeus? Gates? Ted Tuner himself?

:confused:
I wonder how much of it is fear mongering speculation. Is there any fact? or just theory?
Though it is possible that there would be retaliation against the traitors in that country,,Tactically, it would be better to use them for disinformation.

[JoshLowry]

The warning came as the US military's top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen said that Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, may already have blood on his hands following the leak of 92,000 classified documents relating to the war in Afghanistan by his website.

Blood on HIS hands!?

:mad:

[tangent4ronpaul]

This is spin and dis-information. They are counting on most people not looking at the documents and the news media pre-chewing their info diet.

As spelled out on the web site, in the press conference and in every interview, WikiLeaks REDACTED peoples names.

-t

[charrob]

They are counting on most people not looking at the documents...
-t

i actually tried downloading the HTML format at: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010 but instead of an HTML file it downloaded an HTML.7z file which i cannot open.

Does anybody know what an HTML.7z file is, and what program can open it?

[fisharmor]

Sshhhh...you're spoiling their diversion

Hey, didn't you get the word?
They're non-American brown people. Plus, they dress funny. That's not really blood, it's concentrated evil. Therefore, the eagle god wants us to terminate those carbon units.

[specsaregood]

i actually tried downloading the HTML format at: http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010 but instead of an HTML file it downloaded an HTML.7z file which i cannot open.

Does anybody know what an HTML.7z file is, and what program can open it?

It says on that page at the bottom:


To decompress the files you will need the program 7zip. A free client for Windows can be downloaded here. Please use your favorite search engine to find clients for other operating systems; these include p7zip for Unix/Linux and EZ7z for Mac.
And includes links to free clients that will extract it.
http://www.7-zip.org/

[tangent4ronpaul]

It says on that page at the bottom:

And includes links to free clients that will extract it.
http://www.7-zip.org/

you can also read it online sorted by category.

-t

[MelissaWV]

Yes, Josh, blood on his hands.

You can rest assured one or two "informants" will turn up dead sooner rather than later. It really won't matter what they died of. It won't matter if they were one of a hundred people who died during a car bomb at a market. It won't matter if they died in a plane crash. It won't matter if they choked on breakfast. It will be blamed on the Taliban!!! They're crafty!!!

Oh and it also won't matter if they were shot by bullets that look curiously like US/UN forces bullets. Nope. It's because of WikiLeaks.

[specsaregood]

It won't matter if they died in a plane crash. It won't matter if they choked on breakfast. It will be blamed on the Taliban!!! They're crafty!!!


If I was an "informant" I'd be crazy paranoid about meeting up with my CIA handler anytime in the near future.

[heavenlyboy34]

interesting thread, thanks.

[charrob]

It says on that page at the bottom:

And includes links to free clients that will extract it.
http://www.7-zip.org/

got it and extracted it! -thanks specsaregood!

[American Nationalist]

:confused:
I wonder how much of it is fear mongering speculation. Is there any fact? or just theory?
Though it is possible that there would be retaliation against the traitors in that country,,Tactically, it would be better to use them for disinformation.

I wouldn't call these people traitors to their country, since when does being an Afghan mean you have to swear an oath to theocratic bullies like the Taliban. If I was an Afghan, I would fight them. Though, as an Americans, it isn't our job to fight every violent theocratic regime, so while I sympathize, I don't think we should break the bank to help every movement we are sympathetic to.

[Stary Hickory]

See this is what I was afraid of. Some innocent people are going to get hurt over this. I don't like secrets any more than the next guy but the names of people or families should not have been leaked.

[specsaregood]

See this is what I was afraid of. Some innocent people are going to get hurt over this. I don't like secrets any more than the next guy but the names of people or families should not have been leaked.

Please provide evidence that the names were actually leaked. A poster earlier in this thread claimed names were redacted.

[acptulsa]

Actually, there's one guy with a sat. phone, a modem that translates the signal into morse code, and one bad-ass with an abacus.

Sure, it's slow, but it gets the job done!

If he can decode redacted names with that abacus, he is a badass!

Well, that's it. We've lost. Combine all the brain cells in the Pentagon into one massive skull and it wouldn't be able to do that...

[South Park Fan]

It's shit like this that makes me more suspicious about whether the Taliban isn't directly paid by the CIA.

[jct74]

As spelled out on the web site, in the press conference and in every interview, WikiLeaks REDACTED peoples names.


Yes, and Assange even reveals on tomorrow's Freedom Watch that he asked the White House for assistance in reviewing the documents to remove infomation that could hurt innocents, but received no response.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=254958
.

[Todd]

See this is what I was afraid of. Some innocent people are going to get hurt over this. I don't like secrets any more than the next guy but the names of people or families should not have been leaked.

Bringing out the truth about this war is one thing, but the fact that others now may die in the process is very bothersome. Some apologists on here suggesting Afghani informants being named is due justice had better do a soul check.

[American Nationalist]

Hopefully this leaker will get the Death Penalty for treason. I may not agree with the war, but he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy by exposing our informants and putting our troops at a heightened security risk.

[specsaregood]

Hopefully this leaker will get the Death Penalty for treason. I may not agree with the war, but he is giving aid and comfort to the enemy by exposing our informants and putting our troops at a heightened security risk.

You should try reading the thread.

[American Nationalist]

You should try reading the thread.

I am aware of what the thread is about, it is about Afghan informants getting killed. IF we adhere strictly to the Constitution and the rule of law, the penalty for this GI is death by hanging. It is a thing I cal Karma.

[acptulsa]

It's shit like this that makes me more suspicious about whether the Taliban isn't directly paid by the CIA.

Don't see why not. What better way for George H.W. Bush to launder money for his son's election?

Did I lose you? Google H.W.'s connections with the CIA and Dubya's election to the post of Texas governor.

[Slutter McGee]

When you snitch, just know what's comin'.

Simple as that. No different here than Afghanistan.

Oh screw off. Yeah, the people deserve to be hunted down and murdered for helping to overthrow theocratic opressors.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[specsaregood]

I am aware of what the thread is about, it is about Afghan informants getting killed. IF we adhere strictly to the Constitution and the rule of law, the penalty for this GI is death by hanging. It is a thing I cal Karma.

You must be aware then that supposedly the names were redacted? In other words: not leaked. So any informants being killed would not be the fault of this supposed "leak".

[Slutter McGee]

I don't mean to say I disagree with the guy who released the information. But I wish you would stop acting like jackasses and wishing death on our allies.

[acptulsa]

Oh screw off. Yeah, the people deserve to be hunted down and murdered for helping to overthrow theocratic opressors.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Nice job taking that out of context, Slutter.

He wasn't siding with anyone. He was merely pointing out the obvious. Now, as far as I can tell, what he said was undeniable by anyone who isn't in an ivory tower surrounded by a moat...

I don't believe the man was speaking theoretically, and I don't know why he should (as you so delicately put it) screw off for that.

[American Nationalist]

You must be aware then that supposedly the names were redacted? In other words: not leaked. So any informants being killed would not be the fault of this supposed "leak".

Wikileaks never redacted the names of the Afghan informants, that is bullshit, they never did such a thing. Especially considering the fact that the OP is about the Taliban hunting down the afghan Informants leaked in these documents.

And the PFC looks like an prissy little weasel, I would like to see the terror in this kids eyes before he hangs.

[specsaregood]

Wikileaks never redacted the names of the Afghan informants, that is bullshit, they never did such a thing. Especially considering the fact that the OP is about the Taliban hunting down the afghan Informants leaked in these documents.


Then you information is different than that contained in this thread. Prove it. Please provide an example of an afghan informants name and where you found it. Thanks in advance.

[acptulsa]

Wikileaks never redacted the names of the Afghan informants, that is bullshit, they never did such a thing. Especially considering the fact that the OP is about the Taliban hunting down the afghan Informants leaked in these documents.

And the PFC looks like an prissy little weasel, I would like to see the terror in this kids eyes before he hangs.

I, for one, don't consider the MSM's implied assurances very reassuring. And I, for one, do consider the 'prissy little PFC' innocent until proven guilty.

[Slutter McGee]

Nice job taking that out of context, Slutter.

He wasn't siding with anyone. He was merely pointing out the obvious. Now, as far as I can tell, what he said was undeniable by anyone who isn't in an ivory tower surrounded by a moat...

I don't believe the man was speaking theoretically, and I don't know why he should (as you so delicately put it) screw off for that.

Meaning was implied. I know it. You know it. They know it.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

[Imperial]

While I like Wikileaks and am glad he released all these documents, I think they should have done a better job blacking out sensitive info. The biggest reason to oppose the war is the number of people dying, whether American servicemen or Afghan civilians. It seems pointless for somebody who believes drone strikes are killing excessive numbers of civilians to then post up documentation to facilitate their assassination.

[acptulsa]

Meaning was implied. I know it. You know it. They know it.

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee

Well, for all I know you just batted .667. But I am absolutely certain you batted no better than that.

[American Nationalist]

Then you information is different than that contained in this thread. Prove it. Please provide an example of an afghan informants name and where you found it. Thanks in advance.

The OP proves my case, in which the Taliban says they are tracking down informants. Just because one crackpot poster claims they never gave out the names, doesn't mean they didn't, and doesn't qualify as evidence. You are the one making an argument contrary to the OP, and it is on you to provide evidence to the contrary.

[constituent]

Nice job taking that out of context, Slutter.

He wasn't siding with anyone. He was merely pointing out the obvious. Now, as far as I can tell, what he said was undeniable by anyone who isn't in an ivory tower surrounded by a moat...

I don't believe the man was speaking theoretically, and I don't know why he should (as you so delicately put it) screw off for that.

Thank you acp! Very well said. :)

He's a fox news cheerleader though, so consider his head space. :D

[constituent]

Oh screw off. Yeah, the people deserve to be hunted down and murdered for helping to overthrow theocratic opressors.

What the hell is wrong with you?

Sincerely,

Slutter McGee


edit: meh, I won't feed the troll.

Enjoy beck's show this afternoon, slutter?

[pcosmar]

Traitors and Patriots ?
When we supported and supplied and trained these same people against the Russians, they were patriotic Freedom Fighters. We even taught them to Radicalize Islam to recruit more fighters.
Now that they are fighting yet another foreign invader are they less patriotic?
Someone that aids a foreign invader against his own people is what?

The term "collaborator" comes to mind.
And In the history of mankind, have never been well treated after the fact.

"There is nothing new under the sun."

[charrob]

Please provide evidence that the names were actually leaked. A poster earlier in this thread claimed names were redacted.

-the few i've looked at do not contain any names. They look like records in a database where each record is formatted with identical fields to the next. Here's one:


Understanding the structure of the report

•The message starts with a unique ReportKey; it may be used to find messages and also to reference them.
•The next field is DateOccurred; this provides the date and time of the event or message. See Time and Date formats for details on the used formats.
•Type contains typically a broad classification of the type of event, like Friendly Action, Enemy Action, Non-Combat Event. It can be used to filter for messages of a certain type.
•Category further describes what kind of event the message is about. There are a lot of categories, from propaganda, weapons cache finds to various types of combat activities.
•TrackingNumber Is an internal tracking number.
•Title contains the title of the message.
•Summary is the actual description of the event. Usually it contains the bulk of the message content.
•Region contains the broader region of the event.
•AttackOn contains the information who was attacked during an event.
•ComplexAttack is a flag that signifies that an attack was a larger operation that required more planning, coordination and preparation. This is used as a quick filter criterion to detect events that were out of the ordinary in terms of enemy capabilities.
•ReportingUnit, UnitName, TypeOfUnit contains the information on the military unit that authored the report.
•Wounded and death are listed as numeric values, sorted by affiliation. WIA is the abbreviation for Wounded In Action. KIA is the abbreviation for Killed In Action. The numbers are recorded in the fields FriendlyWIA,FriendlyKIA,HostNationWIA,HostNationKI A,CivilianWIA,CivilianKIA,EnemyWIA,EnemyKIA
•Captured enemies are numbered in the field EnemyDetained.
•The location of events are recorded in the fields MGRS (Military Grid Reference System), Latitude, Longitude.
•The next group of fields contains information on the overall military unit, like ISAF Headquarter, that a message originated from or was updated by. Updates frequently occur when an analysis group, like one that investigated an incident or looked into the makeup of an Improvised Explosive Device added its results to a message.
•OriginatorGroup, UpdatedByGroup
•CCIR Commander's Critical Information Requirements
•If an activity that is reported is deemed "significant", this is noted in the field Sigact. Significant activities are analyzed and evaluated by a special group in the command structure.
•Affiliation describes if the event was of friendly or enemy nature.
•DColor controls the display color of the message in the messaging system and map views. Messages relating to enemy activity have the color Red, those relating to friendly activity are colored Blue.
•Classification contains the classification level of the message, e.g. Secret
Help us extend and defend this work


Reference
AFG20040109n1

ID
RC

Region
EAST

Latitude
33.29138947

Longitude
69.97194672

Date
2004-01-09 00:12

Type
Enemy Action

Category
Indirect Fire

Affiliation
ENEMY

Detained
0

Enemy
Killed in action 0
Wounded in action 0


Friend
Killed in action 0
Wounded in action 0


Civilian
Killed in action 0
Wounded in action 0


Host nation
Killed in action 0
Wounded in action 0


(M) ONE ROCKET IMPACTED NEAR SALERNO AIRFIELD: USSF REPORTS ONE ROCKET FIRED AT SALERNO AIRFIELD AT 09 JAN 04. THE POINT OF ORIGIN WAS IVO 331728.59N 0695819.11E THE POINT OF IMPACT 332211.26N 0695755.93E. AMF FORCE LAUNCHED TO SUSPECTED POINT OF ORIGIN.

Report key: ABB54B0B-C1DA-4A0B-81EB-5BB1F46EA3E6
Tracking number: 2007-033-005031-0502
Attack on: ENEMY
Complex atack: FALSE
Reporting unit: OTHER
Unit name: OTHER
Type of unit: Coalition
Originator group: UNKNOWN
Updated by group: UNKNOWN
MGRS: 42SWB9049784013
CCIR:
Sigact:
DColor: RED

[constituent]

The term "collaborator" comes to mind.
And In the history of mankind, have never been well treated after the fact.

"There is nothing new under the sun."

Exactly. It is what it is.

[American Nationalist]

Traitors and Patriots ?
When we supported and supplied and trained these same people against the Russians, they were patriotic Freedom Fighters. We even taught them to Radicalize Islam to recruit more fighters.
Now that they are fighting yet another foreign invader are they less patriotic?
Someone that aids a foreign invader against his own people is what?

The term "collaborator" comes to mind.
And In the history of mankind, have never been well treated after the fact.

"There is nothing new under the sun."

I wasn't aware the taliban was the government of Afghanistan.:confused:

Treason is defined as betraying your country, your government. Treason is not defined as working a rebel group.

However by your definition, the PFc who leaked the info is a treasonist and collaborator, and as you said, "In the history of mankind, have never been well treated after the fact".

[pcosmar]

I wasn't aware the taliban was the government of Afghanistan.:confused:



They were, after the Russians were defeated and until they were invaded and a puppet government was set up.

And apparently much of the population supports them, or they would simply not exist.

[constituent]

I wasn't aware the taliban was the government of Afghanistan.:confused:

Sure you were, you chanted and cheered "U.S.A.! U.S.A! Remember 9/11!" as G. Bush Jr. and his troops overthrew them.



Treason is defined as betraying your country, your government. Treason is not defined as working a rebel group.

Ok, for clarity, let's use the actual definition of treason.


In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more serious acts of betrayal of one's sovereign or nation. Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife

One's sovereign (government) OR nation (people)

pcosmar is right. :)



However by your definition, the PFc who leaked the info is a treasonist and collaborator, and as you said, "In the history of mankind, have never been well treated after the fact".

No, by pcosmar's definition the individuals who invaded a sovereign nation without a declaration of war
per the "Rule of Law" (read that: U.S. Constitution) are the traitors. (BTW, "treasonist" isn't a word. ;) :D)

[lester1/2jr]

the war couldn't have been going very well if a website can spoil the whole operation

[specsaregood]

The OP proves my case, in which the Taliban says they are tracking down informants. Just because one crackpot poster claims they never gave out the names, doesn't mean they didn't, and doesn't qualify as evidence. You are the one making an argument contrary to the OP, and it is on you to provide evidence to the contrary.

LOL, yes it is completely absurd to imagine the "enemy" lying in order to scare informants into not informing.

[charrob]

The OP proves my case, in which the Taliban says they are tracking down informants. Just because one crackpot poster claims they never gave out the names, doesn't mean they didn't, and doesn't qualify as evidence. You are the one making an argument contrary to the OP, and it is on you to provide evidence to the contrary.

From what I can tell so far, the records do not contain names. Why don't you download the file to look?

[American Nationalist]

LOL, yes it is completely absurd to imagine the "enemy" lying in order to scare informants into not informing.

What is your proof of this?

And when you put "enemy" in quotes, do you mean in sarcastically? Are you suggesting those who inform against the taliban don't consider themselves enemies of the Taliban?:eek:

[Slutter McGee]

edit: meh, I won't feed the troll.

Enjoy beck's show this afternoon, slutter?

Well, I did watch FOX all day, so I absolutely loved it. Extremism in the cause of liberty may not be a vice, but stupidy in the cause of liberty sure as hell is if you ask me. I am not accusing you of being stupid. You have demonstrated by your comments that you are intellectually sound. You have also demonstrated by your comments that you lack the ability to understand the political or social atmosphere we live in.

Here is examples of some of the types comments I make that people like you don't like.

"Glenn Beck might not be Satan"
"Maybe wishing death to our soldiers isn't good"
"Maybe wishing death on police officers isn't good"
"Maybe the Islamic states are just as bad as Israel"
"Maybe they are worse because they want to blow us up"
"Maybe impling that the murder of Aghans who have supported us is justified....maybe doing that is just bullshit"

And I don't watch FOX news. I just try to use common sense. If that makes me a troll in your eyes then so be it.

Sincerley,

Slutter McGee

[American Nationalist]

Sure you were, you chanted and cheered "U.S.A.! U.S.A! Remember 9/11!" as G. Bush Jr. and his troops overthrew them.



Ok, for clarity, let's use the actual definition of treason.



One's sovereign (government) OR nation (people)

pcosmar is right. :)



No, by pcosmar's definition the individuals who invaded a sovereign nation without a declaration of war
per the "Rule of Law" (read that: U.S. Constitution) are the traitors. (BTW, "treasonist" isn't a word. ;) :D)

I think most Americans did, like 90%, Ron Paul supported it to, but unfortunately, we lost focus, went into a quagmire in Iraq and rather than focusing on getting Al Qaeda we got stuck in a nation building mess. But as of right now, not 2001, the Taliban is a rebel force, thus it is not treasonous to support them. They are not betraying their government, thus it cannot be classified as treason. And even with your extended definition, which includes "the people", "the people" of Afghanistan, that is 82% of the population, prefer the current government to the taliban, where as only 4% before the Taliban. So these informants are working on behalf of the nation. It is the taliban, along with this limp-wristed PFC, who are traitors.
http://www.j-n-v.org/AW_briefings/JNV_briefing120_What_Do_Afghans_Want.htm

And treasonist is a word ;)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/treasonist

Article 3 Section 3, talks nothing about the Constitution, and the question of the Constitutionality of the invasion is irrelevant to the discussion of treason in so far as this PFC goes. You can take that up with Ron Paul, but you don't need a declaration of war to go after Al Qaeda, they are a group.
"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

[specsaregood]

What is your proof of this?


Proof? I thought we didn't need any stinking proof. Afterall, you haven't provided any that says they outed any informants. Just some silly claims on the internet.



And when you put "enemy" in quotes, do you mean in sarcastically? Are you suggesting those who inform against the taliban don't consider themselves enemies of the Taliban?:eek:

No, I put it in quotes because I'm not so sure we should consider the taliban our enemy. I am of course referring to the claims that the taliban came to us years ago and offered to route out all al-qaeda in afghanistan, capture them and then keep them from ever returning to afghanistan. We turned them down. The taliban never attacked us, they made a mistake by letting al-qaeda remain in their country before 9/11, they offered to remedy that situation after 9/11.

[American Nationalist]

Proof? I thought we didn't need any stinking proof. Afterall, you haven't provided any that says they outed any informants. Just some silly claims on the internet.



No, I put it in quotes because I'm not so sure we should consider the taliban our enemy. I am of course referring to the claims that the taliban came to us years ago and offered to route out all al-qaeda in afghanistan, capture them and then keep them from ever returning to afghanistan. We turned them down. The taliban never attacked us, they made a mistake by letting al-qaeda remain in their country before 9/11, they offered to remedy that situation after 9/11.

Yes you do, I provided the OP, you suggested the Taliban is lying, and that Wikileaks never leaked the names, you made and affirmative argument and need to back it up, that is how a debate works. They aren't just "claims on the internet", what you are doing is making unsubstantiated claims on the internet, not me. It is an established fact they leaked the names.
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/29/karzai-denounces-leaking-of-afghan-informant-names/

Than your quotes are out of context, what we are talking about is Afghans fighting the unpopular rebel group known as the Taliban, we aren't talking about the American-Taliban relationship, or your alleged claims they offered us Al Qaeda.

[JoshLowry]

Than your quotes are out of context, what we are talking about is Afghans fighting the unpopular rebel group known as the Taliban

Unpopular with whom?

There are names in the leaked documents. Specs is saying that it's possible the Taliban quotes are fabricated. They could also be entirely legit.

[specsaregood]

Yes you do, I provided the OP, you suggested the Taliban is lying, and that Wikileaks never leaked the names, you made and affirmative argument and need to back it up, that is how a debate works. They aren't just "claims on the internet", what you are doing is making unsubstantiated claims on the internet, not me. It is an established fact they leaked the names.
http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/29/karzai-denounces-leaking-of-afghan-informant-names/

No they are just claims on the internet; put out by a lying propagandist media. Did the taliban tell you personally they had names from the leaks? No. You only have the word of that same lying media telling you.

But, you have access to all the data that was "leaked". Prove there are names of informants in it. Until then, such claims are unfounded rumors.

[American Nationalist]

Unpopular with whom?

There are names in the leaked documents. Specs is saying that it's possible the Taliban quotes are fabricated. They could also be entirely legit.

With the Afghan people, only 4% of Afghans support the taliban, 82% support the current government. see my link above. I am not providing that as an argument for our continued intervention, we simply cannot afford it. we should focus on small concentrated strikes by special through letters of Marquis and Reprisal in places like Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia, nationbuilding in Afghanistan threatens us more financially than it helps us in the way of national security. We need to focus on killing terrorists, not setting up governments. And I think most people here would agree with me.

At least you admit there are names, he has not admitted that of yet, nor has he provided proof that the quote is fabricated. You can't just make outlandish claims and not back them up, that is not how a debate works.

[American Nationalist]

No they are just claims on the internet; put out by a lying propagandist media. Did the taliban tell you personally they had names from the leaks? No. You only have the word of that same lying media telling you.

But, you have access to all the data that was "leaked". Prove there are names of informants in it. Until then, such claims are unfounded rumors.

What is your proof they are lying about the leaks or about Karzai or the Taliban spokesperson or about Karzai? You cannot debate like this, and make outlandish claims, you have to provide evidence. It is like calling someone a witch, how can they disprove it? You are making an affirmative argument, and need to back it up.

[specsaregood]

What is your proof they are lying about the leaks or about Karzai or the Taliban spokesperson or about Karzai? You cannot debate like this, and make outlandish claims, you have to provide evidence. It is like calling someone a witch, how can they disprove it? You are making an affirmative argument, and need to back it up.

I make no claims, I question their claims.
Here is an example of the media that you trust.
YouTube - CNN Fake Newscast Best Quality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg&feature=related)

[American Nationalist]

I make no claims, I question their claims.
Here is an example of the media that you trust.
YouTube - CNN Fake Newscast Best Quality (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg&feature=related)

Ok, fine, so where is a link to a source where the Taliban deny ever making this claim, or Karzai denying making those claims? Please, I am all ears.

[pcosmar]

Please, I am all ears.

NO, you are not.

from the OP


In an interview with Channel 4 News, Zabihullah Mujahid, a [Alleged] Taliban spokesman, said they were studying and investigating the report, adding “If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.”


you have been asked repeatedly to show proof that there are any informants named.
Link to documents has been provided.
Yet you rely solely on a propaganda piece as definitive evidence.

What's up with that?

[American Nationalist]

NO, you are not.

from the OP



you have been asked repeatedly to show proof that there are any informants named.
Link to documents has been provided.
Yet you rely solely on a propaganda piece as definitive evidence.

What's up with that?
I am all years, but the fact is, you have yet to back up a single one of your claims.

What is your proof he is not a spokesman? Do you have a link to the taliban denying this claim?

I don't need to show the primary documents, because there is no one saying, other than you, they didn't leak the afghan names. You are making an affirmative argument that they are lying, thus you need to provide proof of your claims.

And the fact is, Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, does not deny they leaked names, he even admits it.
http://www.registan.net/index.php/2010/07/30/taliban-use-wikileaks-to-hunt-murder-named-afghans/comment-page-1/

So what is your proof that the founder of wikileaks is lying about the afghan name leaks?

[pcosmar]

I am all years, but the fact is, you have yet to back up a single one of your claims.

What is your proof he is not a spokesman? Do you have a link to the taliban denying this claim?

I don't need to show the primary documents, because there is no one saying, other than you, they didn't leak the afghan names. You are making an affirmative argument that they are lying, thus you need to provide proof of your claims.

And the fact is, Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, does not deny they leaked names, he even admits it.
http://www.registan.net/index.php/2010/07/30/taliban-use-wikileaks-to-hunt-murder-named-afghans/comment-page-1/

So what is your proof that the founder of wikileaks is lying about the afghan name leaks?

From your link. as a point.



Yesterday the account of Mr [X]’s meeting was accessible to anyone on the internet with the thousands of others published by WikiLeaks. When The Times sought to track down Mr [X] to ask his response, he was found to be dead.

He was killed by the Taleban two years ago after being suspected of spying for American forces. Twenty-eight other named Afghan individuals in just a few hundred files examined in detail by The Times on the site are, however, thought to be alive.

That is clearly not Wikileaks’ fault. But it does demonstrate the extreme risk many Afghans took in choosing to oppose the Taliban domination of their homes.


So they posted the name of a man that had been dead for 2 years.

And you ignore this,
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/26/opinion/la-ed-wikileaks-20100727

That is not to say classified material should be published in haste or with indifference. Thankfully, WikiLeaks and its media colleagues appear to have behaved thoughtfully in their handling of these documents. The New York Times sought and received guidance from the Obama administration on especially sensitive materials, and even WikiLeaks redacted thousands of pages that included names of people whose safety might be jeopardized. Those are the actions of responsible journalists.

Fact is, The important issue, is being overlooked.
The FACT that we have been lied to and are not even close to "winning" the war, is being out weighed by the hype over the release of the truth.

[American Nationalist]

You don't even bother giving context to that excerpt, way to be dishonest. What they were saying is that wikileaks is not to blame for the murder of a informant in 2006, they did not alleviate blame from wikileaks for the leaks of informants who are alive and now in danger.

And so the fuck what? They redacted after severe scrutiny. But we have this fucking amazing thing called a printer, and you can do still frames of webpages(technology is amazing though). And they did too little too late and now those people's lives are in more danger than the already were.

[charrob]

Wikileaks never redacted the names of the Afghan informants, that is bullshit, they never did such a thing. Especially considering the fact that the OP is about the Taliban hunting down the afghan Informants leaked in these documents.

And the PFC looks like an prissy little weasel, I would like to see the terror in this kids eyes before he hangs.

From what i can tell so far by manually looking through the records:


the database seems to only hold one record type.

there is only one field in the record type that could hold names of informants, and that would be the "Summary" field. The definition for the summary field is as follows: "Summary is the actual description of the event. Usually it contains the bulk of the message content."


So it seems the only record type field that could hold an informant's name would be the 'Summary' field, which is apparently a string/text type field. If this is true, there would be no way of automating the search to find informants names. Which leaves the Taliban having to manually read through 76,000 records. I find that unlikely, particularly since most of the records are hurried, low-level field reporting, that are generally short in description and without any names mentioned.

Here's an example of one of the longest summary fields i could find:


At 011039Z, BG QRF deployed and exploited the IED. The IED was placed under a concrete slab on RRS. CW was a copper alternator wire. Suspected initiator was a battery of MC that the trigger man was riding. Device was BIP. TET report to follow. NFI att.


***EVENT CLOSED at 011047ZSEP2009***

UPDATE: Task Force Kandahar Counter IED Tactical Exploitation Report media attached:
Summary from Task Force Kandahar Counter IED Tactical Exploitation Report: (S//REL ISAF, NATO) At 010923D* Sept 09, a mentored ANP patrol was traveling WEST on HIGHWAY (HWY) 1, when an ICOM chatter report indicated that the INS were waiting for the patrol before setting off an IED. The ANP patrol was starting to conduct a vulnerable point search (VPS) on the culvert when they came under small arms fire (SAF) from the SOUTH. They returned fire and the INS fled. A motorcycle was heard departing the area. They continued the VPS and saw a copper wire running SOUTH from the open culvert, along the grape field drainage ditch. The culvert grate was lying on its side and the ANA could see jugs inside the culvert. A 10 liner was sent and QRF along with CIED were deployed to the scene and arrived at approx 1041D*. CIED using remote means confirmed that there were four yellow jugs in the culvert at GR 41R QQ 37734 99799. CIED and a security section from force protection deployed to investigate the firing point (FP). The ANA guided the group to where the wire ended. The FP was located at the base of a wall, adjacent to Rte RED STRIPE at GR 41R QQ 37838 99599. From the FP, at a bearing of 5900m, an aiming marker could be seen (Mosque loudspeakers, quite visible). No evidence was found on the FP location. At the CWIED site, EOD found four yellow plastic jugs (1 x 18L, 3 x 10L). They were linked together with two typed of det cord (orange and yellow). Two detonators were used, one was a copper, three crimp commercial electrical det and the second one was an improvised electric det. The jugs, det cord and dets were safely disposed of by EOD. It is suspected that a group of INS using two vehicles (motorcycle and car) installed the IED during the early morning. The car was used to transport the explosives and the motorcycle would have been use at the FP, for their escape.This would explain the sound of the motorcycle heard after the SAF. The INS in the carattempted to ambush the patrol while the INS on the motorcycle was fleeing. The ingress and egress route for the trigger man was Rte RED STRIPE, hidden from view by the wall and compounds, possibly to the EAST. QRF and CIED left the scene at approx 1303D*. And returned to FOB MSG at 1337D*

The database with the extra 15,000 records in it, according to Assange, is the database containing records about intelligence; he said his group was currently looking through these records and may or may not publish them depending on what they find, or they may decide to hold onto these records until deemed a time when they can no longer hurt innocents on the ground. It would seem a database with intelligence information would most likely have a higher likelihood of having informants names than one of just field level reports which is discussed from the OP's article.

[talkingpointes]

You don't even bother giving context to that excerpt, way to be dishonest. What they were saying is that wikileaks is not to blame for the murder of a informant in 2006, they did not alleviate blame from wikileaks for the leaks of informants who are alive and now in danger.

And you, so the fuck what? They redacted after severe scrutiny. But we have this fucking amazing thing called a printer, and you can do still frames of webpages(technology is amazing though). And they did too little too late and now those people's lives are in more danger than the already were.

Correct me if I'm wrong; but I believe you're trying to say pull out, to alleviate the situation and too take our soldiers out of harms way ? Also wouldn't Assange have to be an American for it to be considered "treason" ???

[MelissaWV]

I still say that a few of these informants will die soon, and it'll be blamed on WikiLeaks even if their names were never involved.

[American Nationalist]

Correct me if I'm wrong; but I believe you're trying to say pull out, to alleviate the situation and too take our soldiers out of harms way ?

Just because I support a withdrawal, doesn't mean I support the Taliban, in their efforts to harm our troops or afghan informants/soldiers.

[talkingpointes]

Just because I support a withdrawal, doesn't mean I support the Taliban, in their efforts to harm our troops or afghan informants/soldiers.

Who here does support our troops in harms way?

[American Nationalist]

Who here does support our troops in harms way?

I don't know, but wikileaks support harming our troops and afghan informants, as does PFC Manning, and he should be executed.

[talkingpointes]

I don't know, but wikileaks support harming our troops and afghan informants, as does PFC Manning, and he should be executed.


Few words come to mind when reading this, and deranged is one of them. You should try to put your feet in the soldiers shoes. Do you think there could of been a reason for him to go along with this ? Maybe he did something that has haunted him and now is trying to pick up the pieces and work for the better. Your suggestion to hang or otherwise harm someone when all the facts are not in is rather bothersome.

[Lovecraftian4Paul]

Big Deal. Collaborators have always fared poorly in history after their foreign masters are gone.

[charrob]

And the fact is, Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, does not deny they leaked names, he even admits it.
http://www.registan.net/index.php/2010/07/30/taliban-use-wikileaks-to-hunt-murder-named-afghans/comment-page-1/


The article http://www.registan.net/index.php/2010/07/30/taliban-use-wikileaks-to-hunt-murder-named-afghans/comment-page-1/ has a lie in it:


Speaking by telephone from an undisclosed location, Zabihullah Mujahid told Channel 4 News that the insurgent group will investigate the named individuals before deciding on their fate.

“We are studying the report,” he said, confirming that the insurgent group already has access to the 92,000 intelligence documents and field reports.



The above is a blatent lie; the 92,000 intelligence documents has not yet been released. Only around 76,000 documents were released.

[American Nationalist]

Few words come to mind when reading this, and deranged is one of them. You should try to put your feet in the soldiers shoes. Do you think there could of been a reason for him to go along with this ? Maybe he did something that has haunted him and now is trying to pick up the pieces and work for the better. Your suggestion to hang or otherwise harm someone when all the facts are not in is rather bothersome.

What you call deranged, I call patriotic and in line with what our founders set up in the Constitution.
Here is Article 3 Section 3
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

And in 1790, the Congress set the penalty for treason as death by hanging.
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_4.htm

[daviddee]

...

[talkingpointes]

What you call deranged, I call patriotic and in line with what our founders set up in the Constitution.
Here is Article 3 Section 3
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

And in 1790, the Congress set the penalty for treason as death by hanging.
http://www.constitution.org/cmt/jwh/jwh_treason_4.htm

How is giving leaks that could lead to a withdrawal tantamount to treason? I would think the mission of the Taliban is actually to keep us there, along with blowing us up. Also if you believe that we need to withdrawal as well why wouldn't you agree with this? I'm assuming that your thinking this is somehow aiding and giving -- "comfort" (whatever that is: warm blankets and a cozy bedside reading of the leaks to lull themselves).

[South Park Fan]

http://i246.photobucket.com/albums/gg102/natirips/please-do-not-feed-the-troll.jpg

[Liberty Star]

who in the taliban appointed zabihullah mujahid as a spokesman? Petraeus? Gates? Ted tuner himself?

lolz

[AmericaFyeah92]

I don't know, but wikileaks support harming our troops and afghan informants, as does PFC Manning, and he should be executed.


Too far one way

[AmericaFyeah92]

http://rlv.zcache.com/snitches_get_stitches_tshirt-p235659026925253979t5tr_400.jpg

Too far the other way

[American Nationalist]

How is giving leaks that could lead to a withdrawal tantamount to treason? I would think the mission of the Taliban is actually to keep us there, along with blowing us up. Also if you believe that we need to withdrawal as well why wouldn't you agree with this? I'm assuming that your thinking this is somehow aiding and giving -- "comfort" (whatever that is: warm blankets and a cozy bedside reading of the leaks to lull themselves).

It is treason because they are aiding and abetting the enemy, putting our informants and soldiers at a heightened level of danger.

The mission of the Taliban is to take over Afghanistan, us staying there makes it harder for them to do so, so our presence is counterintuitive to their goals.

Just because I oppose the war, doesn't mean I support the enemy, or having our troops or those Afghans who aid them harmed. I didn't realize people here supported more Americans dying, that is rooting for the death toll to go up, so we get out of there. That is pretty sick, and sadistic, and I doubt it is a position held by the majority of the people on this board, except by maybe some of the nutjob anarchists.

[RM918]

It is treason because they are aiding and abetting the enemy, putting our informants and soldiers at a heightened level of danger.

The mission of the Taliban is to take over Afghanistan, us staying there makes it harder for them to do so, so our presence is counterintuitive to their goals.

Just because I oppose the war, doesn't mean I support the enemy, or having our troops or those Afghans who aid them harmed. I didn't realize people here supported more Americans dying, that is rotting for the death toll to go up, so we get out of there. That is pretty sick, and sadistic, and I doubt it is a position held by the majority of the people on this board, except by maybe some of the nutjob anarchists.

You'd demand someone be executed for trying to shine some light on the shadows surrounding our foreign policy mechanisms, who kill far more innocent people than these documents ever will. Are you any better? Transparency is the only way, throwing out any sort of accountability for the government on the grounds of some barbaric accusation like treason that amounts to little more than daring to spit on our almighty government will just further the suffering for everyone.

[charrob]

You'd demand someone be executed for trying to shine some light on the shadows surrounding our foreign policy mechanisms, who kill far more innocent people than these documents ever will. Are you any better? Transparency is the only way, throwing out any sort of accountability for the government on the grounds of some barbaric accusation like treason that amounts to little more than daring to spit on our almighty government will just further the suffering for everyone.

well said.

[Dr.3D]

It is treason because they are aiding and abetting the enemy, putting our informants and soldiers at a heightened level of danger.

The mission of the Taliban is to take over Afghanistan, us staying there makes it harder for them to do so, so our presence is counterintuitive to their goals.

Just because I oppose the war, doesn't mean I support the enemy, or having our troops or those Afghans who aid them harmed. I didn't realize people here supported more Americans dying, that is rotting for the death toll to go up, so we get out of there. That is pretty sick, and sadistic, and I doubt it is a position held by the majority of the people on this board, except by maybe some of the nutjob anarchists.

Just don't listen to those people AN, they have no clue as to what they are talking about. They don't know what kind of damage can be caused to our military when troop movements, strategies and behind the scenes planning are divulged to the enemy. We might as well tell the enemy exactly what we are planning next so they can get ready for it or even ambush our troops as they execute their mission.

Some folks don't understand the gravity of the situation when secrets are compromised to the enemy. I know these things, because I was in the Vietnam war and held high security clearances. In my opinion, it would be better if the news media were kept out of war areas so as to diminish the possibility to compromising our military activity.

Giving away sensitive information is tantamount to releasing the cryptographic codes, used in communications and letting the enemy know what we are planning on a day to day basis.

It's fine if people don't approve of the war, but when they help the enemy in that situation, they are doing nothing more than helping the enemy kill our troops and that is tantamount to sabotage.

[constituent]

Just don't listen to those people AN, they have no clue as to what they are talking about. They don't know what kind of damage can be caused to our military when troop movements, strategies and behind the scenes planning are divulged to the enemy. We might as well tell the enemy exactly what we are planning next so they can get ready for it or even ambush our troops as they execute their mission.

Remind me again just what the hell it is they're doing there and on what authority. :confused:

"Our" troops?

My troops don't blow up 15 innocents for every "bad guy" they capture or kill.
It saddens me to see that yours do. :(

[Dr.3D]

Remind me again just what the hell it is they're doing there and on what authority. :confused:

"Our" troops?

My troops don't blow up 15 innocents for every "bad guy" they capture or kill.
It saddens me to see that yours do. :(

Well, you either live in another country, or don't pay taxes, if you don't see them as our troops. They are there under the authority of those in our government who have the authority to send them there. If you want to place blame, place it where it belongs, with those who sent them there. Sabotage something other than the lives of those who were sent there to do a job they don't really want to do but have little choice in the matter.

Yeah, yeah... I've heard all of the arguments, that they could refuse to do the job, but those arguments are old and I'm not going to address to them anymore. Those arguments are put forth by people who have never been in the situation of having their lives on the line and thus are just the rambling of kids who don't have a clue about the situation.

If you don't like what is happening over there, get those who sent them over there to stop doing so.

[silverhandorder]

Maybe instead of bitching government should have made this information available them selves vetted not to reveal the informants.

[pcosmar]

Maybe instead of bitching government should have made this information available them selves vetted not to reveal the informants.

Maybe if the government was anything near honest we wouldn't be there at all.

Maybe if
Maybe if,,,

Maybe if we suffered some truly massive defeats (and loss of lives,unfortunately) the people of this country would be outraged enough to demand an end to this madness.

Maybe if,,

[constituent]

Well, you either live in another country, or don't pay taxes, if you don't see them as our troops.

When fedgov starts so much as pretending to follow the constitution, then and only then will they be "our troops," and only when their existence functions as a service to a nation fighting a legitimate, DECLARED war.

I don't remember anyone declaring war on Pakistan, do you?



They are there under the authority of those in our government who have the authority to send them there.

No, they are there of their own volition.

That excuse flew in Korea and Viet Nam.




If you want to place blame, place it where it belongs, with those who sent them there.

The blame belongs on cheerleaders like yourself who help to drive public opinion in favor of war and "supporting the troops" no matter what.

Politicians just give the angry mob what they think the angry mob wants. You are the angry mob. ;)

The blame belongs on the man or woman (the mercenary) who signs up to kill innocent people knowing that they will be sent to kill innocent people.

Personal responsibility, the hallmark of conservative philosophy. :)



Sabotage something other than the lives of those who were sent there to do a job they don't really want to do but have little choice in the matter.

If the duties of your job include killing innocent people for no discernible reason, then it's time for a new job.

They have ALL of the choice in the matter.

If they really didn't want to kill innocent people, they wouldn't.

But it's for the greater good, ya know?

What are 15 innocent people when you get 1 "bad guy," ya know?



Yeah, yeah... I've heard all of the arguments, that they could refuse to do the job, but those arguments are old and I'm not going to address to them anymore.

No older than your tired b.s. excuse.



Those arguments are put forth by people who have never been in the situation of having their lives on the line and thus are just the rambling of kids who don't have a clue about the situation.

You're arguing from ignorance (again).

Watch me feign surprise.
:eek: :cool:



If you don't like what is happening over there, get those who sent them over there to stop doing so.


It starts with you baby. "Rah-rah-rah-sis-boom-bah!"

[acptulsa]

Thank you acp! Very well said. :)

Always a pleasure, and thank you for the compliment.


He's a fox news cheerleader though, so consider his head space. :D

Would that be 'us vs. them' or 'me vs. the world'?

[constituent]

Would that be 'us vs. them' or 'me vs. the world'?

His head space?

More like 'Murica vs. the Evil Doers

[amy31416]

The blame belongs on the man or woman who signs up to kill innocent people knowing that they will be sent to kill innocent people.

Personal responsibility, the hallmark of conservative philosophy. :)



I had a little cognitive dissonance about this when my cousin was sent to Afghanistan, but you're 100% right. I contemplated the military because I had no money for college, but just asked myself once if I could kill another person based on .... what the government told me(?)!

The answer to such a ludicrous question was obviously "no." And that there's not some profound introspection that the average Joe is incapable of (I hope.)

All I'd add is that the supporting politicians/taxpayers/flag-waving cheerleaders/media/many voters/lying assholes who intentionally misinform are also to blame. And that, unfortunately, includes me and most of us here. Pretty much everyone but the homeless, the "hobos" the entirely self-sufficient, children and insane people are also to blame--at least in part.

We keep paying them, they're going to keep doing it. There will never be a critical mass of moral human beings in political positions--I don't think it's possible.

What is possible is that we refuse to play their game, they can't do it without us.

[pcosmar]

The Taliban is 'hunting down informants'

I wonder if they are hiring.

just a thought from the unemployed. :(

[constituent]

Pretty much everyone but the homeless, the "hobos" the entirely self-sufficient, children and insane people are also to blame--at least in part.

awww... thanks. :D



What is possible is that we refuse to play their game, they can't do it without us.

absolutely. :)

[American Nationalist]

You'd demand someone be executed for trying to shine some light on the shadows surrounding our foreign policy mechanisms, who kill far more innocent people than these documents ever will. Are you any better? Transparency is the only way, throwing out any sort of accountability for the government on the grounds of some barbaric accusation like treason that amounts to little more than daring to spit on our almighty government will just further the suffering for everyone.

Yes, I demand someone be killed for harming our troops and our spies, absolutely. And what they showed, other than the informants, wasn't anything new, and won't change policy, it will only hurt troops, and the reason I oppose the wars is because we are driving up the debt and putting our troops who have families in harm's way in unnecessary wars. I am pretty much anti-war, so it would be hypocritical of me to support the other side, otherwise I wouldn't be anti-war, I would be for war against our troops.

[American Nationalist]

Maybe it is more personal to me because I have a cousin over there, but now he is at a heightened risk of being harmed because of this scumbag.

[MelissaWV]

Maybe it is more personal to me because I have a cousin over there, but now he is at a heightened risk of being harmed because of this scumbag.

No, he's at heightened risk of being harmed because he's over there. Ask yourself why anyone is still over there this long after the start of the war.

Your cousin is not likely to be anyone named in the WikiLeaks documents. Also, I'm no scholar, but "PFC" seems to denote a "scumbag" who was likely "over there" at some point as well, no?

Take a very deep breath, think carefully about what the documents say and why we're over there, and wonder if the first step towards bringing people home (since none of the politicians want to do it on their own) isn't airing out the Government's dirty laundry? There's a very fine line, and no one's ever going to be happy either way. I'd release the documents, personally, but I'd change the names entirely before doing so.

[amy31416]

awww... thanks. :D



You're welcome! I shouldn't flatter you so much though, your ego may explode... :p

[amy31416]

Maybe it is more personal to me because I have a cousin over there, but now he is at a heightened risk of being harmed because of this scumbag.

I had the same situation.

Ask yourself if you'd prefer that your cousin has all the information when he's putting his ass on the line, or if you'd rather that he's deluded into believing that he's fighting for some great cause.

Shouldn't a person know what they're fighting and dying for?

[AmericaFyeah92]

Yes, I demand someone be killed for harming our troops and our spies, absolutely. And what they showed, other than the informants, wasn't anything new, and won't change policy, it will only hurt troops, and the reason I oppose the wars is because we are driving up the debt and putting our troops who have families in harm's way in unnecessary wars. I am pretty much anti-war, so it would be hypocritical of me to support the other side, otherwise I wouldn't be anti-war, I would be for war against our troops.

What information specifically "puts our troops in danger?" Or are you just repeating neocon/White House propaganda?

[charrob]

What information specifically "puts our troops in danger?" Or are you just repeating neocon/White House propaganda?

exactly. -in YouTube - WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange talks to RT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bD5dxkPwibU) video it states that since the material is 7 months old, any tactical planning is outdated-- meaning no threats to U.S. troops.

additionally, 'some' media have published bs about informants names being in the documents that could harm afghan informants; this is pure bs. -Bradley Manning told Assange to withhold 15,000 of the documents until a time when informants would no longer be threatened or until a time when those informants names could be blocked out of the documents; those 15,000 documents have not been published.

[Andrew-Austin]

Yes, I demand someone be killed for harming our troops and our spies, absolutely. And what they showed, other than the informants, wasn't anything new, and won't change policy, it will only hurt troops, and the reason I oppose the wars is because we are driving up the debt and putting our troops who have families in harm's way in unnecessary wars. I am pretty much anti-war, so it would be hypocritical of me to support the other side, otherwise I wouldn't be anti-war, I would be for war against our troops.

So then, do you support the death penalty for all the politicians and generals who have put our troops in harms way? I doubt it, in which case that would make you a hypocrite because the politicians and generals are certainly more guilty of this than any leaker.

[coastie]

^exactly. Just got into heated debate with an in-law over this, I swear people are so fucking stupid and believe anything they hear on the news.

Funny thing is, i got him by saying the following:

"Ya know, it's funny that your generation was telling us as kids growing up to not believe anything thing you see on the news, and now you follow it as gospel...":rolleyes:;)

truly pathetic.

[charrob]

in favor of Bradley Manning:


Washington fears it may have lost even more highly sensitive material including an archive of tens of thousands of cable messages sent by US embassies around the world, reflecting arms deals, trade talks, secret meetings and uncensored opinion of other governments.

...

He described how his job gave him access to two secret networks: the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, SIPRNET, which carries US diplomatic and military intelligence classified "secret"; and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which uses a different security system to carry similar material classified up to "top secret". He said this had allowed him to see "incredible things, awful things … that belong in the public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC … almost criminal political backdealings … the non-PR version of world events and crises."

Bradass87 suggested that "someone I know intimately" had been downloading and compressing and encrypting all this data and uploading it to someone he identified as Julian Assange. At times, he claimed he himself had leaked the material, suggesting that he had taken in blank CDs, labelled as Lady Gaga's music, slotted them into his high-security laptop and lip-synched to nonexistent music to cover his downloading: "i want people to see the truth," he said.

He dwelled on the abundance of the disclosure: "its open diplomacy … its Climategate with a global scope and breathtaking depth … its beautiful and horrifying … It's public data, it belongs in the public domain." At one point, Bradass87 caught himself and said: "i can't believe what im confessing to you." It was too late. Unknown to him, two days into their exchange, on 23 May, Lamo had contacted the US military. On 25 May he met officers from the Pentagon's criminal investigations department in a Starbucks and gave them a printout of Bradass87's online chat.

On 26 May, at US Forward Operating Base Hammer, 25 miles outside Baghdad, a 22-year-old intelligence analyst named Bradley Manning was arrested, shipped across the border to Kuwait and locked up in a military prison.

News of the arrest leaked out slowly, primarily through Wired News, whose senior editor, Kevin Poulsen, is a friend of Lamo's and who published edited extracts from Bradass87's chatlogs. Pressure started to build on Assange: the Pentagon said formally that it would like to find him; Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, said he thought Assange could be in some physical danger; Ellsberg and two other former whistleblowers warned that US agencies would "do all possible to make an example" of the Wikileaks founder. Assange cancelled a planned trip to Las Vegas and went to ground.

...

Today's stories are based on that batch of logs. Wikileaks has simultaneously published much of the raw data. It says it has been careful to weed out material which could jeopardise human sources.

Since the release of the Apache helicopter video, there has been some evidence of low-level attempts to smear Wikileaks. Online stories accuse Assange of spending Wikileaks money on expensive hotels (at a follow-up meeting in Stockholm, he slept on an office floor); of selling data to mainstream media (the subject of money was never mentioned); or charging for media interviews (also never mentioned).

Earlier this year, Wikileaks published a US military document which disclosed a plan to "destroy the centre of gravity" of Wikileaks by attacking its trustworthiness.

Ellsberg has described Manning as "a new hero of mine". In his online chat, Bradass87 looked into the future: "god knows what happens now … hopefully, worldwide discussion, debates and reforms. if not … we're doomed."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/wikileaks-war-logs-back-story


Further evidence that the U.S. Gov't is trying to smear wikileaks was in an article where the MIT Student who met Bradley Manning last January said that Pentagon investigators interviewed him and: "The computer expert also said the Army offered him cash to, in his word, "infiltrate" WikiLeaks. "I turned them down," he said. "I don't want anything to do with this cloak-and-dagger stuff." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/31/AR2010073103058.html

So it's obvious the media (who for all intensive purposes has become just another arm of the Federal Government) as well as the Government itself (the Pentagon, etc.) is doing _everything_ possible to smear both Manning and wikileaks and making claims which simply are not true.

[American Nationalist]

No, he's at heightened risk of being harmed because he's over there. Ask yourself why anyone is still over there this long after the start of the war.

Your cousin is not likely to be anyone named in the WikiLeaks documents. Also, I'm no scholar, but "PFC" seems to denote a "scumbag" who was likely "over there" at some point as well, no?

Take a very deep breath, think carefully about what the documents say and why we're over there, and wonder if the first step towards bringing people home (since none of the politicians want to do it on their own) isn't airing out the Government's dirty laundry? There's a very fine line, and no one's ever going to be happy either way. I'd release the documents, personally, but I'd change the names entirely before doing so.

When did I ever dispute being an Army Ranger isn't a risk, but he is more at risk than he was before. And I don't think we should have a large army over there, just special forces hunting down Al Qaeda in Waziristan. And this Manning f*ggot is putting my cousin in more danger, because the army depends on spies to know the capabilities and positions of the enemy, so as to lower the risk.

[American Nationalist]

So then, do you support the death penalty for all the politicians and generals who have put our troops in harms way? I doubt it, in which case that would make you a hypocrite because the politicians and generals are certainly more guilty of this than any leaker.

No, I do not support the death penalty for those congressmen, because they are not committing treason. Bradley Manning is committing treason, and is putting our armed forces at a heightened risk, and needs to die.

[andrewh817]

See this is what I was afraid of. Some innocent people are going to get hurt over this. I don't like secrets any more than the next guy but the names of people or families should not have been leaked.

If you choose to be an informant, you just entered into the conflict whether you intended to or not. Now I'm aware that people have been tortured to the point where they'd name anyone just to prevent their own suffering, but once again that's not Wikileak's fault. No matter how you look at the situation, Wikileaks is not responsible for any deaths. The Taliban and US military are responsible!!

[chudrockz]

No, I do not support the death penalty for those congressmen, because they are not committing treason. Bradley Manning is committing treason, and is putting our armed forces at a heightened risk, and needs to die.

Might I be the first (?) to humbly suggest that you abandon ronpaulforums. I really feel you'd be much more at home at a site such as

rightwingracistreactionarynutjobs.com

Just a thought.

[heavenlyboy34]

No, I do not support the death penalty for those congressmen, because they are not committing treason. Bradley Manning is committing treason, and is putting our armed forces at a heightened risk, and needs to die.

lolz@ fundamental misunderstanding of treason. :D

[Andrew-Austin]

No, I do not support the death penalty for those congressmen, because they are not committing treason. Bradley Manning is committing treason, and is putting our armed forces at a heightened risk, and needs to die.

Wow you are awfully quick to try and sentence people to death, based on what seems to be mostly assumptions. Hath the judge and jury tried Mr Manning yet? The investigation has been finished already? What a silly charge anyways, "treason" for trying to shed light on a bankrupt war. Yet you are quick to forgive scumbag politicians it seems, who have easily done a million times more harm to the troops than the leakers presumably have (even going by the most hysterical hyperbolic accounts from the Pentagon and media, both who would have an agenda to act in such a way).


But Assange shot back Friday that if the names of any Afghan informants were identified in the WikiLeaks documents, the U.S. military has only itself to blame for what he said would be a “disgraceful” lapse in security by allowing easy accessibility to such material. While declining to identify any of the organizations sources, he said the documents were available through SIPRNET (Secret Internet Protocol Router Network) — the Defense Department’s standard classified Internet network that is widely accessible to “hundreds of thousands” of soldiers and defense contractors around the world.

Even WikiLeaks internally uses “code names” and code words to shield the identities of its sources, he said.

'Sloppy lack of professionalism'
“We treat these allegations seriously,” Assange said of the accusation that the leaked documents contain the names of informants. But “we don’t engage in the kind of sloppy lack of professionalism that the U.S. military appears to have engaged in.” The information posted by WikiLeaks “was available to every member of the U.S. military and every U.S. contractor — not just in Afghanistan — but all over the world. The military has acted in a disgraceful and careless way.”

At least one veteran former U.S. intelligence officer said Friday that Assange “absolutely has a point” that the identities of Afghan informants should never have been so widely accessible in the first place.

“It’s plain sloppy, there is no other interpretation of it,” said Robert Baer, a former CIA clandestine officer in the Mideast. “You never, never, never have the names of informants” in reports that are widely accessible throughout the government. When he was at the CIA, the standard rule was that information about informants was strictly compartmentalized and “stove-piped” so only a handful of supervisors at headquarters would know their real identities, he said.


Whats this, so the military henchman and bureaucrats didn't really give a shit about protecting the Afghan informants in the first place? Oh but I'm sure you don't mind if they only receive a slap on the wrist, and then a second perhaps harder slap on the wrist for unjustly sending the troops in to harms way to begin with.




Navy Capt. John Kirby, a spokesman for Adm. Mullen, said the Pentagon is now “reviewing” its policies and procedures that govern how classified information is made available throughout war theaters. There had been an effort in recent years to make more classified information quickly available to troops in the field for tactical purposes, but that “we are now looking at that” to see if procedures should be tightened.

Aww yeah, thanks, keep up teh good work master chief. Hope more incompetence in the military brings about more leaks.

If anyone gets hurt in Afghanistan its because they are at war, not because someone leaked something. Going in to it the soldiers and the Afghan informants knew the danger. Only those guilty of killing, or of directing the killing are to blame. Cut this treason bullshit, the leakers were doing more of a public service than the criminal politicians and generals ever will in waging the war. Who by the way only care about burying the truth and continuing business as usual.

[angelatc]

You must be aware then that supposedly the names were redacted? In other words: not leaked. So any informants being killed would not be the fault of this supposed "leak".

I actually agree with this. Wikileaks apparently (I haven't read the documents) redacted names, but Manning didn't. He said he knew he could face the death penalty for this, and he did it anyway.

I think doing what he thought was right - fighting enemies from within - makes him a hero.

[MelissaWV]

When did I ever dispute being an Army Ranger isn't a risk, but he is more at risk than he was before. And I don't think we should have a large army over there, just special forces hunting down Al Qaeda in Waziristan. And this Manning f*ggot is putting my cousin in more danger, because the army depends on spies to know the capabilities and positions of the enemy, so as to lower the risk.

I wasn't aware Manning was a homosexual. You appear to have intimate knowledge of his sexual habits that the rest of us do not.

*waits for the Gay Resort ad to pop up at the bottom of the page*

[South Park Fan]

Nice to know that the Stormfronter is on the side of the Neocons:

No, I don't think people should be free to come to this country.

I also think America should remain a majority white nation.

[BlackTerrel]

In an interview with Channel 4 News, Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesman, said they were studying and investigating the report, adding “If they are US spies, then we know how to punish them.”

Somebody needs to release a document on Wikileaks saying Zabihullah Mujahid is a US spy. Seems like that would solve some problems.

[BlackTerrel]

Maybe if the government was anything near honest we wouldn't be there at all.

Maybe if
Maybe if,,,

Maybe if we suffered some truly massive defeats (and loss of lives,unfortunately) the people of this country would be outraged enough to demand an end to this madness.

Maybe if,,

Not that you want that of course... you're speaking hypothetically right? You don't want American troops to be killed "for the greater good" right?

[pcosmar]

Not that you want that of course... you're speaking hypothetically right? You don't want American troops to be killed "for the greater good" right?

Of course I don't want it.
I would like our military brought home, then disbanded.

never get what I want anyway, so it's irrelevant. :(

but,,
Would it be better for the US to suffer 100,000 casualties to save the lives of several Million children?
It's a triage thing.

[BlackTerrel]

Of course I don't want it.
I would like our military brought home, then disbanded.

never get what I want anyway, so it's irrelevant. :(

but,,
Would it be better for the US to suffer 100,000 casualties to save the lives of several Million children?
It's a triage thing.

Is that the trade - Either 100,000 Americans die or millions of children die? Is that a non sequitor or you really believe these are the options?

[pcosmar]

Is that the trade - Either 100,000 Americans die or millions of children die? Is that a non sequitor or you really believe these are the options?

Well tell me then,
Just what will it take for the US military to stop killing Millions of Children around the world?

What I said is that a massive defeat of US military might make the people of this country rethink this madness.
Nothing else seems to get through to them.

Given the options.. it would be the lesser evil.

[charrob]

question: along time ago, after 9/11,



the U.S. asked the Taliban to hand over Osama Bin Laden.
the Taliban answered they would hand over Bin Laden provided the U.S. give evidence that Bin Laden was involved in the attacks on the WTC.
the U.S. decided not to hand over the evidence (whatever that may be).


Question1: Why didn't the U.S. hand over the evidence rather than attacking Afghanistan?

Question2: Does anyone know what that evidence is?

Question3: Is there any proof that the Taliban even knew Al Quaeda in Afghanistan was planning an attack on the U.S. (I've read the training camps purpose was in their war with India)? Could they possibly be innocent of having known any of this?

[AmericaFyeah92]

Well tell me then,
Just what will it take for the US military to stop killing Millions of Children around the world?

What I said is that a massive defeat of US military might make the people of this country rethink this madness.
Nothing else seems to get through to them.

Given the options.. it would be the lesser evil.

Word to the wise: try to avoid hyperbole/exaggerations when making these arguments. I agree with the crux of what you're saying, but the "millions," figure is kind of a stretch. Unless you're counting all the American wars since World War 2, and even then I'd have a hard time buying it.

"hundreds of thousands" does the trick just fine

[amy31416]

Word to the wise: try to avoid hyperbole/exaggerations when making these arguments. I agree with the crux of what you're saying, but the "millions," figure is kind of a stretch. Unless you're counting all the American wars since World War 2, and even then I'd have a hard time buying it.

"hundreds of thousands" does the trick just fine

Isn't it common knowledge that over a million Iraqi children died just from our implementation of sanctions alone, much less our actual invasion?

http://reason.com/archives/2002/03/01/the-politics-of-dead-children

[charrob]

Word to the wise: try to avoid hyperbole/exaggerations when making these arguments. I agree with the crux of what you're saying, but the "millions," figure is kind of a stretch. Unless you're counting all the American wars since World War 2, and even then I'd have a hard time buying it.

"hundreds of thousands" does the trick just fine


i've read 2 million iraqi's died from Clinton's sanctions, and that 1 million have died since the war started in their country in 2003.

[pcosmar]

Word to the wise: try to avoid hyperbole/exaggerations when making these arguments. I agree with the crux of what you're saying, but the "millions," figure is kind of a stretch. Unless you're counting all the American wars since World War 2, and even then I'd have a hard time buying it.

"hundreds of thousands" does the trick just fine

Millions is the reality.
One of the things that the leaked documents shows is the discrepancy in reporting civilian casualties. And it is not just the bullets and bombs, but those displaced and starving as a result of "our" actions.
Those that died as a result of sanctions before the war in Iraq was estimated at a million.
It will likely be many years after it is over before even a close estimate can be done. and that is just Iraq.
That does not even get to Afghanistan, Pakistan or any undisclosed actions in surrounding areas.
From the Russian adventure there though,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

Estimates of the Afghan deaths vary from 100,000[85] to 1 million.[86] 5 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, 1/3 of the prewar population of the country. Another 2 million Afghans were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, half of all refugees in the world were Afghan.[87]

Along with fatalities were 1.2 million Afghans disabled (mujahideen, government soldiers and noncombatants) and 3 million maimed or wounded (primarily noncombatants).[88]

As I said. Millions
I do not exaggerate.
:(

and the bottom line, For What Purpose?

[amy31416]

Just struck me how horrible it is that we're nitpicking over the number of children we've killed.

Jesus Christ.

[pcosmar]

Just struck me how horrible it is that we're nitpicking over the number of children we've killed.

Jesus Christ.

I am not picking nits.
I AM thoroughly disgusted.

[amy31416]

I am not picking nits.
I AM thoroughly disgusted.

Yeah. I know.

And I'm sure that "thoroughly disgusted" is putting it mildly.

[AmericaFyeah92]

i've read 2 million iraqi's died from Clinton's sanctions, and that 1 million have died since the war started in their country in 2003.

Though that was an act of war, and disgusting, you're proving my point: sanctions weren't a military operation, and millions of Iraqis died, not necessarily millions of children

[AmericaFyeah92]

Millions is the reality.
One of the things that the leaked documents shows is the discrepancy in reporting civilian casualties. And it is not just the bullets and bombs, but those displaced and starving as a result of "our" actions.
Those that died as a result of sanctions before the war in Iraq was estimated at a million.
It will likely be many years after it is over before even a close estimate can be done. and that is just Iraq.
That does not even get to Afghanistan, Pakistan or any undisclosed actions in surrounding areas.
From the Russian adventure there though,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan


As I said. Millions
I do not exaggerate.
:(

and the bottom line, For What Purpose?

Let's say that the highest estimate, 1 million, is true. In order for your claim to be true, all million of those would have to be kids.

[amy31416]

Though that was an act of war, and disgusting, you're proving my point: sanctions weren't a military operation, and millions of Iraqis died, not necessarily millions of children

Mmm. Okay. Children are more valuable than adults (and more malleable), so it's okay to kill the adults who might have the wherewithal to fight back?

Wait, what's your point?

[amy31416]

Let's say that the highest estimate, 1 million, is true. In order for your claim to be true, all million of those would have to be kids.

What number would make you give a shit that this is being done in our name? 2.5 million? One?

[Danke]

I thought I heard it was only 980,003 dead kids...

[pcosmar]

Let's say that the highest estimate, 1 million, is true. In order for your claim to be true, all million of those would have to be kids.

Despite it pissing me off even more to give it more thought.
And since you seem incapable of it,

The "estimated" Million prior to the second war in Iraq due to the sanctions were mostly children.
Estimates vary, in the years since, 8 years since Shock and Awe, Was there ever and accurate count of civilian body parts after that?
I have heard wide ranging estimates, but 1.5 to 2 million is not on the high side. IF only half of them were"children" there is your million.
Now start adding in Afghanistan, and Pakistan and just how many Wedding parties and Funerals have we bombed?
How many times have the troops dug bullets out of bodies? that they didn't get caught at?
How many Blackhawks shot up how many vans of school children?

It ain't a nice picture.
:mad:

[specsaregood]

Though that was an act of war, and disgusting, you're proving my point: sanctions weren't a military operation,

How exactly do you think sanctions are enforced? They put fuzzy kittens on the border?

[amy31416]

I thought I heard it was only 980,003 dead kids...

Phew! For a while there I thought our government was evil... .......

[pcosmar]

Missing the point.
Folks here.
The MSM
The American people.
Everyone is missing the point of the information that was leaked.
It is being derailed into concerns for the snitches and collaborators, or for the troops that should not even be there.
The point is, The Total Failure Of the Foreign Policy that has us involved.
The other point is, the Utter Incompetence and Tactical Stupidity of those in command.

These points are being overlooked while folks argue over non existent threats to people that put themselves in that position.

[amy31416]

Missing the point.
Folks here.
The MSM
The American people.
Everyone is missing the point of the information that was leaked.
It is being derailed into concerns for the snitches and collaborators, or for the troops that should not even be there.
The point is, The Total Failure Of the Foreign Policy that has us involved.
The other point is, the Utter Incompetence and Tactical Stupidity of those in command.

These points are being overlooked while folks argue over non existent threats to people that put themselves in that position.

The only point for me is that we're dealing with some evil/disgusting folks in our government who are doing these things.

And we're the only ones who can actually end it....

[pcosmar]

The only point for me is that we're dealing with some evil/disgusting folks in our government who are doing these things.

And we're the only ones who can actually end it....

I am more hopeful of that Meteor hitting D.C.
:(

[amy31416]

I am more hopeful of that Meteor hitting D.C.
:(

Yep.

[BlackTerrel]

Well tell me then,
Just what will it take for the US military to stop killing Millions of Children around the world?

What I said is that a massive defeat of US military might make the people of this country rethink this madness.
Nothing else seems to get through to them.

Given the options.. it would be the lesser evil.

So given the options that you believe exist the option you choose is for hundreds of thousands of Americans soldiers to die.

Yeah I'm going to disagree with you strongly. Considering a number of those hundreds of thousands are friends and family of mine I value their lives quite highly. And if this guy put them at risk then he needs to be tried for treason.

BTW this is precisely one of the reasons why this movement stays relatively small.

[pcosmar]

So given the options that you believe exist the option you choose is for hundreds of thousands of Americans soldiers to die.

Yeah I'm going to disagree with you strongly. Considering a number of those hundreds of thousands are friends and family of mine I value their lives quite highly. And if this guy put them at risk then he needs to be tried for treason.

BTW this is precisely one of the reasons why this movement stays relatively small.

I am saying that it would be the lesser of two evils. Yes.
I would rather see them brought home yesterday.

Though that Blackhawk pilot, piece of shit, I would love to see blown from the sky and scattered to the four winds.
There are no doubt more like him that would be best NOT to have around.

[farrar]

You know I have family who have been and are deployed abroad, and any compromise of their security ought to be tried with charges of treason. However, I, like few others arguing here, have read and continue to read the reports and there apears to be no security compromise what so ever. Its mostly as I predicted when I first heard of the leaks. (here is an abridged mock sample) If you want the real deal you know where to go:

Date: June 18th, 2007
Killed Wounded

0 US 1 US
6 Taliban 0 Taliban
4 Civilians 12 Civilians
0 Allies 0 Allies

coordinates: x,y

Summary:
There was a fray in the streets, multiple civilians caught in crossfire. Targets neutralized.
____________________________

believe it or not, the above doesn't really compromise security any more than google earth or the general media to begin with. Many more are even less revealing than that, reporting grafiti or propoganda posted on a mosque... thats not much of a security compromise either. I truley believe, that unless your amoung the federal beurocracy or military operation leaders saving face, anyone who reads these documents will release how silly it is to assume any true security risk to our soldiers.

[AmericaFyeah92]

What number would make you give a shit that this is being done in our name? 2.5 million? One?

I care as much as anyone. I despise our foreign policy.

But pulling numbers out of your ass, throwing "millions" around as if the U.S. is commiting a holocaust every month, gets us nowhere. Not to mention it's inaccurate. You don't have to exaggerate...the real numbers are horrific enough

[pcosmar]

You know I have family who have been and are deployed abroad, and any compromise of their security ought to be tried with charges of treason. However, I, like few others arguing here, have read and continue to read the reports and there apears to be no security compromise what so ever. Its mostly as I predicted when I first heard of the leaks. (here is an abridged mock sample) If you want the real deal you know where to go:

Date: June 18th, 2007
Killed Wounded

0 US 1 US
6 Taliban 0 Taliban
4 Civilians 12 Civilians
0 Allies 0 Allies

coordinates: x,y

Summary:
There was a fray in the streets, multiple civilians caught in crossfire. Targets neutralized.
____________________________

believe it or not, the above doesn't really compromise security any more than google earth or the general media to begin with. Many more are even less revealing than that, reporting grafiti or propoganda posted on a mosque... thats not much of a security compromise either. I truley believe, that unless your amoung the federal beurocracy or military operation leaders saving face, anyone who reads these documents will release how silly it is to assume any true security risk to our soldiers.

Well the Civilian casualties ARE the issue, but was that an action involving the Task Force 373?
And just how are "Taliban" Identified ? do they have a uniform? dog tags?
How can you tell them from say, a local militia? or other private citizens protecting their interests?

That was one of the issues of interest that Julian spoke of in a recent interview.

[amy31416]

I care as much as anyone. I despise our foreign policy.

But pulling numbers out of your ass, throwing "millions" around as if the U.S. is commiting a holocaust every month, gets us nowhere. Not to mention it's inaccurate. You don't have to exaggerate...the real numbers are horrific enough

I did not "pull numbers out of my ass," it was sourced.

You need more sources? There's thousands out there. Learn how to fucking use google.

[American Nationalist]

Might I be the first (?) to humbly suggest that you abandon ronpaulforums. I really feel you'd be much more at home at a site such as

rightwingracistreactionarynutjobs.com

Just a thought.

I didn't realize that the all of RonPaulForums supported Treasonists, and just because you are, doesn't make the rest of the people so. You don't get to speak for everyone. And I support Ron Paul because I love my country and want a strong military, I want to preserve the country I love, not hurt my cousin and all those serving us

[American Nationalist]

lolz@ fundamental misunderstanding of treason. :D

You are such a prick, and a pseudo-intellectual snob. Just because you support a traitor, doesn't make you smarter than me. I suggest you read Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution, because you clearly haven't read it.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

[American Nationalist]

Nice to know that the Stormfronter is on the side of the Neocons:

Immigration is an entirely different issue, and has nothing to do with PFC Manning committing Treason. And believe me, my immigration view is not just a stormfront view, it is one held by most Americans, including me, who are not members of stormfront. If you want to make America Mexico City or Kandahar, how about you move to those places instead?

[specsaregood]

I didn't realize that the all of RonPaulForums supported Treasonists, and just because you are, doesn't make the rest of the people so.

This country was founded by people committing treason. I take it you would be one of the people rooting for the british.

[RM918]

It does seem rather curious the Taliban would say something like this. I mean, don't they want us to leave? That's kind of the point, so why would they deliberately say something that would harm groups that are exposing information so as to try to get us out? Isn't that rather stupid of them? I mean, even if it were true, Wikileaks 'helped' them so why would they say something so obviously targeted to damage that organization? I don't think you survive a decade against the strongest military power in the world by being a complete and utter idiot.

[AmericaFyeah92]

You are such a prick, and a pseudo-intellectual snob. Just because you support a traitor, doesn't make you smarter than me. I suggest you read Article 3 Section 3 of the Constitution, because you clearly haven't read it.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Would you not agree that this would only apply to properly declared, constitutional wars?

[RM918]

Would you not agree that this would only apply to properly declared, constitutional wars?

Exactly. If this guy were exposing sensitive intelligence about wars that were actually necessary to the defense of this nation, I'd see where the anger can come from. It's the people providing aide and comfort to the greatest threat America has, the U.S. government, that ought to be called traitors.

[AmericaFyeah92]

[QUOTE=RM918;2821086]It does seem rather curious the Taliban would say something like this. I mean, don't they want us to leave? That's kind of the point, so why would they deliberately say something that would harm groups that are exposing information so as to try to get us out? Isn't that rather stupid of them? I mean, even if it were true, Wikileaks 'helped' them so why would they say something so obviously targeted to damage that organization? I don't think you survive a decade against the strongest military power in the world by being a complete and utter

Also, why would they warn the informants ahead of time?

[chudrockz]

Immigration is an entirely different issue, and has nothing to do with PFC Manning committing Treason. And believe me, my immigration view is not just a stormfront view, it is one held by most Americans, including me, who are not members of stormfront. If you want to make America Mexico City or Kandahar, how about you move to those places instead?

:rolleyes:

[LibertyEagle]

This whole conversation has turned into something rather perverse. Personally, I don't want any of our soldiers killed; nor do I want children killed. But, I do realize that both will happen in a war.

If someone pulled a Jane Fonda and put our soldiers in harm's way, well, I'm not too fond of them. Regardless of whether I agree with this war or not and of course, I do not. Wishing harm upon our soldiers is rather repulsive, not to mention it's not the way to stop this war. It also reflects very badly upon Ron Paul and the principles upon which I thought most of us stood.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

I want our troops in harms way. A nice bullet to the brain might teach someone not to go running around in another man's country like he owns the place.

[pcosmar]

This whole conversation has turned into something rather perverse. Personally, I don't want any of our soldiers killed; nor do I want children killed. But, I do realize that both will happen in a war.

If someone pulled a Jane Fonda and put our soldiers in harm's way, well, I'm not too fond of them. Regardless of whether I agree with this war or not and of course, I do not. Wishing harm upon our soldiers is rather repulsive, not to mention it's not the way to stop this war. It also reflects very badly upon Ron Paul and the principles upon which I thought most of us stood.

No the issue is people twisting what was said into something completely different.
The fact of the matter is that NO Names were released, No security has been jeopardized.
But, The official story and Propaganda line has been hurt.
The civilian deaths and Political Assassination Squads are are public. Therefore the Govt. Spin is working overtime to downplay that, and to create another false BoggieMan.

And the Media is complicit, just as they were when covering up the Civilian Casualties, or lack of any purpose for even being in the country at all.

What WILL it take to get us out of there?
:(

This whole conversation turned"Perverse", when some took exception to this post. #92
Made in some frustration, after dealing with obtuse trolls.



Maybe instead of bitching government should have made this information available them selves vetted not to reveal the informants.

Maybe if the government was anything near honest we wouldn't be there at all.

Maybe if
Maybe if,,,

Maybe if we suffered some truly massive defeats (and loss of lives,unfortunately) the people of this country would be outraged enough to demand an end to this madness.

Maybe if,,

[farrar]

Well the Civilian casualties ARE the issue, but was that an action involving the Task Force 373?
And just how are "Taliban" Identified ? do they have a uniform? dog tags?
How can you tell them from say, a local militia? or other private citizens protecting their interests?

That was one of the issues of interest that Julian spoke of in a recent interview.

Ahhh, yes, the reports don't actually outline taliban but enemy. And that is an interesting and very valid point, not everyone with a gun is part of the taliban. That issue however was really more my own short falling than the actual reports. I suspect they count everyone but themselves who is dead with a weapon apart of the enemy category.

[MelissaWV]

Pete,

While you're speaking in what might happen (without "wishing" a darned thing), the thread really has gone downhill.

Consider:


I want our troops in harms way. A nice bullet to the brain might teach someone not to go running around in another man's country like he owns the place.

As for many of the other posts, reading them carefully shows that the very vast majority of people aren't wishing the troops would die, or even cheering those deaths that have happened. There is an acknowledging, though, of the fact that troops are in harm's way already merely by being there, and that if the unfortunate inevitability of MORE deaths continues... that there might be more backlash. Other than getting out today, right now, there is no real way to prevent these deaths; it is inevitable that someone is going to be killed in Iraq/Afghanistan very shortly, if not during the time it took me to type this.

[pcosmar]

Pete,

While you're speaking in what might happen (without "wishing" a darned thing), the thread really has gone downhill.

Consider:


Yeah, I know.
What is frustrating is that the point (lies/incompetence) is being missed, and the Propaganda is being promoted. Official Lies are being repeated here as if they were true.
Afghanistan was screwed up before the Russians were there, and we should have observed and learned from their mistakes. But here we are doing the same STUPID thing. And causing more harm to both the Afghans and Ourselves.

[BlackTerrel]

This whole conversation has turned into something rather perverse. Personally, I don't want any of our soldiers killed; nor do I want children killed. But, I do realize that both will happen in a war.

If someone pulled a Jane Fonda and put our soldiers in harm's way, well, I'm not too fond of them. Regardless of whether I agree with this war or not and of course, I do not. Wishing harm upon our soldiers is rather repulsive, not to mention it's not the way to stop this war. It also reflects very badly upon Ron Paul and the principles upon which I thought most of us stood.

+1


I want our troops in harms way. A nice bullet to the brain might teach someone not to go running around in another man's country like he owns the place.

Yeah see this is what I'm talking about. I have friends and family over there. You wishing Americans to get a bullet to the side of the head maybe sounds cool here but not only does this make you a douche but it reflects very poorly on the "Ron Paul movement" and will make you look like a kook to 90% of Americans.

[chudrockz]

+1



Yeah see this is what I'm talking about. I have friends and family over there. You wishing Americans to get a bullet to the side of the head maybe sounds cool here but not only does this make you a douche but it reflects very poorly on the "Ron Paul movement" and will make you look like a kook to 90% of Americans.

I take great pride in the fact that I look like a kook to 90% of Americans. That's because 90% of Americans are zombified, brain-dead SHEEP who, when they "think" at all, parrot the party line... when they're not too busy watching American Idol or some steroid-infused New Jersey boneheads.

[BlackTerrel]

Thank you for proving the point I made in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=254164


Q: Soccer still isn't going anywhere in America for this reason: People like me, who only watch soccer whenever the World Cup is on, are hated by actual soccer fans. They would rather have us not watch soccer at all rather than start watching soccer and rooting for the U.S. during the World Cup. It kills them to see people watching who don't normally. I have heard people say things to other people along the lines of "you don't even know the rules" and "if you don't know what's going on then don't watch." Ironically, diehard soccer fans here are actually hurting soccer's progress here in the U.S..
-- Brandon P, Zanesville, Ohio

A: You just introduced a premise called "The Cult of Status Quo." Sometimes when people become die-hard fans of something that isn't mainstream -- a writer, a band, a player, a TV show, a sport or whatever -- they want to keep that thing the way it is over seeing that thing take off. Why? Because it's cooler to like something that isn't mainstream popular. Because mainstream popularity begets bandwagon fans and people who aren't as sophisticated about that product. Because it's more fun to love something before it takes off than after it takes off.

Hence, it's easier for original fans to dump on newer fans over tolerating them and hoping they advance the cause of whatever they like. I notice this every time I mention the UFC or poker -- there's this bizarre (and totally dismissive backlash), as if I'm not allowed to watch those sports or even mention them because I'm not a real fan. Well, how do you become a real fan? By liking a sport without disliking the core people who like it. So it's a self-perpetuating cycle, and as weird as this sounds, the original fans like it that way. It maintains their ownership of the product. When the product outgrows them (specifically in the case of a creative entity), that's when the core fans start throwing around phrases like "jumped the shark" and "sold out," mostly because they're bitter it's not just them and the product any more.

You want to be on the outside looking in. You want to remain fringe so that you can keep this thing on the sidelines and continue to bitch on the internet without actually having to do anything. And you take an attitude that will ensure you will remain on the fringe and never assume any real power.

Why else would you "take great pride in the fact that you look like a kook to 90% of Americans"? That is a terrible terrible attitude that will never effect any positive change. You would rather bitch on the internet than take steps to help Ron Paul and politicians like him to effect real change. Fantastic :rolleyes:

[chudrockz]

Thank you for proving the point I made in this thread:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=254164



You want to be on the outside looking in. You want to remain fringe so that you can keep this thing on the sidelines and continue to bitch on the internet without actually having to do anything. And you take an attitude that will ensure you will remain on the fringe and never assume any real power.

Why else would you "take great pride in the fact that you look like a kook to 90% of Americans"? That is a terrible terrible attitude that will never effect any positive change. You would rather bitch on the internet than take steps to help Ron Paul and politicians like him to effect real change. Fantastic :rolleyes:

That last part's not even close to the truth, but feel free to believe whatever you like.

Also, RON PAUL is (or rather was, until recently) considered a kook by at least 90% of Americans... if they had even heard of him at all. In case you never noticed, these forums bear his name.

[MelissaWV]

If any of you are studying logical fallacies in school, consider clipping this thread to keep for a term paper. It's a goldmine.

Go ahead and emulate someone who is popularly considered a kook merely based on that fact. You're proving BT's point. You think it's cool to be in the minority, but do you apply that everywhere?

Let's see...

A minority of people enjoy sexual activity with people of their same gender.
A minority of people have no electricity or running water in their home by choice.
A minority of people have bomb shelters in their backyard.
A minority of people speak Esperanto.
A minority of people can name a dozen Smurfs.
A minority of people think Charles Manson ISN'T a kook (so he must be one of your heroes).
A minority of people hear divine (or demonic) voices.
A minority of people eat dirt.
A minority of people live in homes made of aluminum cans.

Those minorities I described above are considered kooky by the majority, to varying degrees. Will you run out and make yourself a member on the basis of the fact that being in the minority makes you awesome?

[chudrockz]

Now that's silly. Sorry. In NO WAY do I "label myself a kook" for any reason. (Other than being a big fan of Star Trek, perhaps.)

My point was that SOCIETY by and large labels Ron Paul a kook. That doesn't make him wrong, nor does it make him kooky.

If none of us wanted to be labeled as such, we should all just shut up about ALL of our issues (being kooky) and throw our support behind such stalwarts as John McCain and Barack Obama.

It's not what I'm gonna do, though.

[RM918]

It's very easy to make grossly inflammatory comments about people 'deserving to die' on an internet forum, with there being no repercussions. I'd wager the willingness to do so when those people are in the same room with you and everyone's armed will make you decidedly less eager to be an asshole.

[American Nationalist]

This country was founded by people committing treason. I take it you would be one of the people rooting for the british.

No, the founders fully accepted the consequences of their treason, they knew the penalty for treason was death and they were risking their lives. They themselves made the punishment for treason the death penalty in 1790 with an act of Congress.

and I can't believe you are comparing this person with severe mental issues to the founding fathers, that is an insult to our founders, and it is absurd to suggest they would take actions which threaten the lives of our armed forces.

[chudrockz]

Then allow me humbly to be the first to propose amending the Constitution as follows:

1.) There shall be NO federal death penalty, and

2.) There shall be NO federal crime and punishment statutes whatsoever.

[BlackTerrel]

Now that's silly. Sorry. In NO WAY do I "label myself a kook" for any reason. (Other than being a big fan of Star Trek, perhaps.)

My point was that SOCIETY by and large labels Ron Paul a kook. That doesn't make him wrong, nor does it make him kooky.

If none of us wanted to be labeled as such, we should all just shut up about ALL of our issues (being kooky) and throw our support behind such stalwarts as John McCain and Barack Obama.

It's not what I'm gonna do, though.

This is a logical fallacy. There are many legitimate arguments you can use to be anti-war. Even the vast majority of the group that disagrees with you will disagree with you rationally (excluding the kooks on the pro-war side). You can argue that it:

1. Does not promote US interests

2. Leads to the loss of US life and wealth

3. Leads to death and destruction on the other side - and in turn creates more enemies.

etc...

That is the most effective way to make the argument and the most effective way to actually make a solid anti-war case and bring the troops home (if that's what you really want). The worst case to make is that you want American troops to die - that's idiotic and sabotaging your own side. Of course some people (consciously or subconsciously) want to sabotage their own side.

[AmericaFyeah92]

No, the founders fully accepted the consequences of their treason, they knew the penalty for treason was death and they were risking their lives. They themselves made the punishment for treason the death penalty in 1790 with an act of Congress.

and I can't believe you are comparing this person with severe mental issues to the founding fathers, that is an insult to our founders, and it is absurd to suggest they would take actions which threaten the lives of our armed forces.

Are you aware that the guy responsible for "turning in" Manning, Adrian Lamo, has been diagnosed with several mental illnesses and is a "rehabilitated" criminal?

Also, the founders waged a war against their own "armed forces" - the Red Coats - who were the acting military of the Crown at the time.

[AmericaFyeah92]

No, the founders fully accepted the consequences of their treason, they knew the penalty for treason was death and they were risking their lives. They themselves made the punishment for treason the death penalty in 1790 with an act of Congress.

and I can't believe you are comparing this person with severe mental issues to the founding fathers, that is an insult to our founders, and it is absurd to suggest they would take actions which threaten the lives of our armed forces.

Are you aware that the guy responsible for "turning in" Manning, Adrian Lamo, has been diagnosed with several mental illnesses and is a "rehabilitated" criminal?

Also, the founders waged a war against their own "armed forces" - the Red Coats - who were the acting military of the Crown at the time.

[charrob]

Are you aware that the guy responsible for "turning in" Manning, Adrian Lamo, has been diagnosed with several mental illnesses and is a "rehabilitated" criminal?



i thought something was wrong with the guy. on 3 different videos he sounds like he's totally drugged: he's definitely not normal.

[ghengis86]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/10/16/wikileaks.assessment/index.html?hpt=T1

"However, the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure."

The defense secretary said that the published documents do contain names of some cooperating Afghans, who could face reprisal by Taliban.

But a senior NATO official in Kabul told CNN that there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak.

....
Despite this, the military warned that the naming of Afghans was a huge concern. Wikileaks has "the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family" on their hands, Mullen said.




Some of the worst writing/'journalism' can be found on CNN.com. The comments on this article aren't as dreadful as usual, though still leaving much to be desired

[fj45lvr]

Who in the Taliban appointed Zabihullah Mujahid as a spokesman? Petraeus? Gates? Ted Tuner himself?

haha

no kidding

[Kludge]

USG has now admitted their representation of impact was bullshit used to bolster legal campaign against Assange.

"US Government Officials Admit That They Lied About Actual Impact Of Wikileaks To Bolster Legal Effort

You may recall that when Wikileaks released those thousands of documents on the Afghan war, the official US government position was that it should be shamed for putting lives in danger and "compromising intelligence sources and methods." It was only months later that Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted no such thing was true. We're now seeing the same thing with the State Department cable leak. A number of grandstanding officials such as Rep. Peter King and Senator Joe Lieberman have argued that these leaks have seriously harmed US diplomacy. In fact, we heard how Wikileaks should be designated a terrorist organization for all the "harm" it's done to US interests. This was also a common refrain in our comments -- especially when it came to stories about the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning. Over and over we were told he deserves no mercy for harming American interests.

So... it seems rather interesting to see that US officials are now admitting that no serious "harm" has been caused by the leaks. In fact, the White House has admitted privately that it purposely lied about the supposed impact " in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers.""

Full story @ http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/14280012733/us-government-officials-admit-that-they-lied-about-actual-impact-wikileaks-to-bolster-legal-effort.shtml

[pcosmar]

USG has now admitted their representation of impact was bullshit used to bolster legal campaign against Assange.

"US Government Officials Admit That They Lied About Actual Impact Of Wikileaks To Bolster Legal Effort

You may recall that when Wikileaks released those thousands of documents on the Afghan war, the official US government position was that it should be shamed for putting lives in danger and "compromising intelligence sources and methods." It was only months later that Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted no such thing was true. We're now seeing the same thing with the State Department cable leak. A number of grandstanding officials such as Rep. Peter King and Senator Joe Lieberman have argued that these leaks have seriously harmed US diplomacy. In fact, we heard how Wikileaks should be designated a terrorist organization for all the "harm" it's done to US interests. This was also a common refrain in our comments -- especially when it came to stories about the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning. Over and over we were told he deserves no mercy for harming American interests.

So... it seems rather interesting to see that US officials are now admitting that no serious "harm" has been caused by the leaks. In fact, the White House has admitted privately that it purposely lied about the supposed impact " in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers.""

Full story @ http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/14280012733/us-government-officials-admit-that-they-lied-about-actual-impact-wikileaks-to-bolster-legal-effort.shtml

This comes as a surprise?


Well, it does surprise me that they would admit it.

[sailingaway]

And, in any event, which unnamed news organization reported this and didn't redact names?

I'm not for or against 'wikileaks' per se, but I think they should be treated like any other news organization. I AM for the first amendment.

and the fact that it is admitted they did this should get MUCH more press. It is a mindset that the end justifies the means, which is the exact opposite of 'due process'.

[speciallyblend]

wasn't the us gov /fbi asked to go thru the documents but they refused?? so actually the only blood on anyones hands is the fbi/cia/us gov since they refused to redact? the documents which wiki offered to them for that very purpose! they should list the us gov and fbi along with the taliban!

[jmdrake]

USG has now admitted their representation of impact was bullshit used to bolster legal campaign against Assange.

"US Government Officials Admit That They Lied About Actual Impact Of Wikileaks To Bolster Legal Effort

You may recall that when Wikileaks released those thousands of documents on the Afghan war, the official US government position was that it should be shamed for putting lives in danger and "compromising intelligence sources and methods." It was only months later that Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted no such thing was true. We're now seeing the same thing with the State Department cable leak. A number of grandstanding officials such as Rep. Peter King and Senator Joe Lieberman have argued that these leaks have seriously harmed US diplomacy. In fact, we heard how Wikileaks should be designated a terrorist organization for all the "harm" it's done to US interests. This was also a common refrain in our comments -- especially when it came to stories about the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning. Over and over we were told he deserves no mercy for harming American interests.

So... it seems rather interesting to see that US officials are now admitting that no serious "harm" has been caused by the leaks. In fact, the White House has admitted privately that it purposely lied about the supposed impact " in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers.""

Full story @ http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110119/14280012733/us-government-officials-admit-that-they-lied-about-actual-impact-wikileaks-to-bolster-legal-effort.shtml

See that's why outfits like Wikileaks are needed. The government even lies about the leaks themselves even as they are being put in the public domain where anybody could fact check them. :(