WikiLeaks

[RainMaker]

Well they got some major coverage for the release of the video of the military killing a journalist and badly injuring some kids.

WikiLeaks (video is probably NSFW)

Can anyone tell me about WikiLeaks? I had heard the name in the past but don't really know what they do. At first I thought some wacky conspiracy theory site but the more I've read they seem to post legit information anonymously. Who are these people?

[Alan T]

Wikileaks first became known a few years ago when they somehow got confidential information that they published on the internet in regards to Chinese oppression. Later they reached probably the height of their notoriety when they were the ones that published the Australian internet black list of sites that you could not connect to from Australia any longer.

I think they are owned by some German or Austrian or something that got in trouble a while back for something they posted, but somehow their site has always stayed up as far as I know.

I don't know what else they have covered as those were the only two things I recall hearing about them in the past.

[SirFozzie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WikiLeaks

[JediKooter]

They are shut down for the moment and only taking donations and submissions. You used to be able to go through and read a ton more articles than what they have up right now. Some of the best were the scientology papers they posted and then gave the scientologist lawyers the double middle fingers when they were threatened by them.

There's cryptome.org that you can visit. They are very much like wikileaks.

[Noop]

I just watched the video and wow I am disappointed in the actions of the soldiers involved. Those men ought to be ashamed of themselves for their actions.

[lighthousekeeper]

fuck fuck fuck i wish i hadn't watched that video

[Scoobz0202]

War sucks.

[illinifan999]

Probably not the best idea to peek a corner with something that can easily be mistaken for an RPG.

[JediKooter]

That doesn't look like an RPG to me. Now, in the heat of battle, I can probably see where that could possibly be mistaken as one and in a life or death moment, you do have to make some pretty quick decisions.

To me, in that still frame, it looks like a camera with a telephoto lens.

[Scoobz0202]

Terrible shame, but if you are standing with armed men in a war zone you know the risk you are taking, right?

There were armed men around, right? I know the RPG is in question, but there were definitely armed men in the group I thought.

[RainMaker]

Yeah, I'm not going to blame them for the initial shooting. It is a war zone and shit happens. And while it's sad that a reporter was killed, it is part of the risk you take covering a war. Shooting the people trying to help him seemed unnecessary although I don't know the rules on war.

I found the commentary disturbing more than anything. Guy sounded like a sociopath.

[Recoil]

a look inside » Blog Archive » WikiLeaks – “Collateral Murder”

Informative blog from a military POV

[Scoobz0202]

Yea. I sent the link to a buddy of mine that is a Marine for his input and basically I said,"

" It's a sad mistake but I could have done without the fucking wisecracks right after eight plus lives were extinguished in a matter of seconds. "

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

Terrible shame, but if you are standing with armed men in a war zone you know the risk you are taking, right?

There were armed men around, right? I know the RPG is in question, but there were definitely armed men in the group I thought.

I watched it and I have to admit, I did not see anything that resembled a weapon. Except for one brief moment where one (1) person appeared to have an AK47, but, never saw it again. It could have been shadows coupled with the angle of the video.

Plus, they were all walking pretty casually for being in the middle of a firefight if you ask me. In addition, you could clearly see two individuals carrying cameras with straps over one of their shoulders. RPGs do not have shoulder straps as far as I know.

What I find inexcusable is the shooting up of the van carrying the kids and shooting of the people trying to carry the wounded guy to the van. Not sure what threat they represented.

[MikeVic]

Playing FPS games, I don't know half the time if a guy is on my team or not, and that's with them wearing different outfits and with a little thing over their head. I can totally see someone shooting someone else by mistake in a battleground.

I didn't watch the video, but that's just my opinion about accidental shootings.

[molson]

If I'm flying in a helicopter over Iraq somewhere, and I'm always being shot at, I've been in combat, I've seen friends die - I'm shooting at pretty much anything that looks like it's carrying a weapon at that point.

Armchair soldiers are the worst kind of armchairs. I mean seriously, how could we have any idea what that's like?

And as for the comments - I think you have to be a little bit of a sociopath to stay sane in war. I've heard vietnam vets talk about that. You have to dehumanize the people you kill. Typical gallows humor stuff.

But ya, it's a good example of how war, and in this one in particular, suck. Don't blame the soldiers though. If you need to blame somebody, blame the people that put them in the position to try to distinguish camera v. weapon, under those conditions, with bad consequences either way if they're wrong once.

[SportsDino]

The problem is that the camera guys were among a group which did at least have AK-47's and an RPG. Do you attack pilots for classifying cameras as weapons when they see a number of people that do have weapons right next to them?

This happens in war, as I said in another post, the idiots who are trying to push this idea of a 'clean war' are the criminals here. If you don't want to see mistakes you don't start a war (I'd consider the ones where our troops end up shooting each other by accident far more horrific).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

And as for the comments - I think you have to be a little bit of a sociopath to stay sane in war. I've heard vietnam vets talk about that. You have to dehumanize the people you kill. Typical gallows humor stuff.

But ya, it's a good example of how war, and in this one in particular, suck. Don't blame the soldiers though. If you need to blame somebody, blame the people that put them in the position to try to distinguish camera v. weapon, under those conditions, with bad consequences either way if they're wrong once.

Originally Posted by SportsDino

The problem is that the camera guys were among a group which did at least have AK-47's and an RPG. Do you attack pilots for classifying cameras as weapons when they see a number of people that do have weapons right next to them?

This happens in war, as I said in another post, the idiots who are trying to push this idea of a 'clean war' are the criminals here. If you don't want to see mistakes you don't start a war (I'd consider the ones where our troops end up shooting each other by accident far more horrific).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I found the commentary disturbing more than anything. Guy sounded like a sociopath.

I haven't watched the video but I've read the transcript and while it might be disturbing to some people, it's extremely consistent with the adrenaline fueled commentary I've heard any number of times. It's even consistent with the retellings of similar situations weeks or months later if the adrenaline starts flowing.

Ultimately the only good tango is a dead tango & that's legitimate cause for celebration, particularly if they've been trying to kill you.

[DanGarion]

I'm sure if this video came out, and no knowledge of the event or what/who was on the ground was given few would question the actions because they would think that the pilot was in the clear.

[Scoobz0202]

This whole Wikileaks thing and Julian Assange is just absolutely unreal. I can't even grasp it. This shit happens in movies. Not in real life.

hxxp://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/wikileaks-insurance-file/

hxxp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e92_1280351573&c=1

[jeff061]

I'm torn on it. I like the idea, things like Wikileaks is what makes the internet what it is, something that can fundamentally change humanity by giving power to the masses. It's good to see.

However Assange is just as much a politician as the US government and has his own agenda to boot. So Wikileaks gets all this information, I expect them to release them in such away that the picture they want to be painted is what gets projected.

And this is really before he has any type of power or success, Wikileaks is in it's relative infancy. I don't think I want them to get any more powerful with their current ideology. It's a bad mix.

[jeff061]

On another note, does Wikileaks make anyone think of the international encrypted data bank from Cryptonomicon like me?

[lighthousekeeper]

i wouldn't be surprised if he wins a nobel peace prize

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by jeff061

I'm torn on it. I like the idea, things like Wikileaks is what makes the internet what it is, something that can fundamentally change humanity by giving power to the masses. It's good to see.

However Assange is just as much a politician as the US government and has his own agenda to boot. So Wikileaks gets all this information, I expect them to release them in such away that the picture they want to be painted is what gets projected.

And this is really before he has any type of power or success, Wikileaks is in it's relative infancy. I don't think I want them to get any more powerful with their current ideology. It's a bad mix.

I really don't know where I stand with Assange. On one hand, I feel like Wikileaks may be doing the world a good service. On the other, I fear what the repercutions may be when they release something and don't fully understand what may happen as a result.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Scoobz0202

On one hand, I feel like Wikileaks may be doing the world a good service.

We have to ask ourselves if we, as a nation, as citizens of any nation, are protecting the right information for the right reasons. There is a certain level of trust given to each government. It's up to us as citizens to determine how much we trust our government with defining what is and isn't classified information.

But this level of trust *MUST* be determine proactively, not reactively. Once something is considered classified, it's leak to the public at large is never "a good service".

On the other, I fear what the repercutions may be when they release something and don't fully understand what may happen as a result.

Here is a fine example. Here we have soldiers that are doing there job and from what I see, they are doing their job well and with the Laws of armed conflict in mind. Proponents are going to praise them for taking care of themselves. It's not easy to determine what is what on the ground...were those AK-47's and RPG? Or were they a bunch of camera's? Turns out it was a mixture of both. In a time of war, and Iraq in 2007 was still a dangerous place to be, it's very clear to me how it was assumed that was an RPG. Better safe than sorry? Non-hostile critics are going to focus on the laughs that occurred after the threat was eliminated. From my POV though, they were just relieved they were no longer under threat of being shot down by enemy forces.

A big problem with the video is how completely out of context it is. Why were the helicopters there? Why were Bradely fighting vehicles and Humvees and masses of US Soldiers so close by? Why were there Iraqi's walking down the street in force, some with AK-47s? The video doesn't explain it, Reuters doesn't explain it, and wikileaks doesn't explain it. But they were there for a reason. The entire purpose of the leak is to focus on Americans killing a journalist and wounding some kids. The truth is that the soldiers had no idea journalists were there or that kids were there.

But the true problem with this video is that it shows American forces killing Iraqi insurgents. Once this video makes its way through Al Qeada recruiting circles, the real damage begins. Many young, impressionable men in the Middle East are going to be more easily swayed to join the fight.

We should never get ourselves into a situation where we praise the leaking of classified information. If we don't agree with the process we need to correct the process, not sabotage it.

In any event, I appreciate the concern, but I don't agree with the concept of wikileaks one bit.

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We have to ask ourselves if we, as a nation, as citizens of any nation, are protecting the right information for the right reasons. There is a certain level of trust given to each government. It's up to us as citizens to determine how much we trust our government with defining what is and isn't classified information.

But this level of trust *MUST* be determine proactively, not reactively. Once something is considered classified, it's leak to the public at large is never "a good service".

Not just the United States, but in regards to "any" nation, what do you base your trust on? Past public information that you know of? Are there any precedents that one can use in determining the potential harm of these leaks? The Pentagon Papers?

A big problem with the video is how completely out of context it is. Why were the helicopters there? Why were Bradely fighting vehicles and Humvees and masses of US Soldiers so close by? Why were there Iraqi's walking down the street in force, some with AK-47s? The video doesn't explain it, Reuters doesn't explain it, and wikileaks doesn't explain it. But they were there for a reason. The entire purpose of the leak is to focus on Americans killing a journalist and wounding some kids. The truth is that the soldiers had no idea journalists were there or that kids were there.

From what I recall hearing there was only rumor from an unnamed source that there was small arms fire leading up to the video. During the entire 28 minute video there is never any mention of the RPG, and other then that, if I recall correctly, there is only one AK-47.

EDIT: I rewatched the video. There is a mention of a possible RPG. The shooting of the group isn't really what my problem is with. It's the lighting up of the van that pulled up. I also read recently that there was video at the end that was not released. From the New Yorker article

In phase three, the helicopter crew radioed a commander to say that at least six armed men had entered a partially constructed building in a dense urban area. Some of the armed men may have walked over from a skirmish with American troops; it is unclear. The crew asked for permission to attack the structure, which they said appeared abandoned. “We can put a missile in it,” a soldier in the Apache suggested, and the go-ahead was quickly given. Moments later, two unarmed people entered the building. Though the soldiers acknowledged them, the attack proceeded: three Hellfire missiles destroyed the building. Passersby were engulfed by clouds of debris.

Later in the article..

. The journalists also found the owner of the building that had been attacked by the Hellfires, who said that families had been living in the structure, and that seven residents had died. The owner, a retired English teacher, had lost his wife and daughter.

END EDIT

But the true problem with this video is that it shows American forces killing Iraqi insurgents. Once this video makes its way through Al Qeada recruiting circles, the real damage begins. Many young, impressionable men in the Middle East are going to be more easily swayed to join the fight.

A few posts ago I stated that I don't know quite where I stand with Wikileaks. I tend to lean in support of it though. This, and the fact that in the Afghan War Logs the afghan civies that have helped the United States did not have their names censored out, is the big reason I am unsure. I wonder if the big picture is important, and if down the road their "service" to the world will be a big enough gain that the lives of a few Afghan insiders was worth it. The possible American soldiers lives that could be lost as a result? That number is unattainable, and it may not even be a real threat, but that is scary as well. Although, what, how many thousands of lives have been lost in this war anyways? But like I said earlier, Assange is a human being. Even if his motives are 100% pure, he is bound to slip up, and underestimate the results of a leak. That makes me nervous.

If we don't agree with the process we need to correct the process, not sabotage it.

I don't know if that is even possible (correcting it)

[Scoobz0202]

New Yorker piece on Assange
hxxp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/06/07/100607fa_fact_khatchadourian?currentPage=all

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

i wouldn't be surprised if he wins a nobel peace prize

Nah, they would have given it to him after only six months, not years of work.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

Nah, they would have given it to him after only six months, not years of work.

Yeah I was going to say that he wouldn't win a nobel prize because he didn't choose to escalate a war but I figured this thread was too important to break down to the usual partisan bickering. It's sad how many views this has compared to other threads but I was looking at a national news site and the Jersey shore reality "star" who was arrested had 100 times the number of comments as this story. If it doesn't effect them personally American's just don't care about war. The true sign of an empire I guess.

[molson]

It's always interesting to me that there's more interest in these stories in the opportunists than the leakers.

The leakers are who horrify me. I think you have to assume that the media (or the public, through some kind of media), are going to release anything they get their hands on.

I don't know anything about the extent of criminal liability when it comes to leaking sensitive military documents, but those responsible should be locked up for a long time.

[jeff061]

I'm quite confident they are going to make an example out of Manning in a big way. He's going to be in a cell for a long long time.

I'm more interested if they are able to find anything against wikileaks, not that they could do anything about it.

[SirFozzie]

Funny you should mention that, Jeff:

Today, the Washington Post offered a Op-Ed that the government should indict the founder of WikiLeaks, seal the indictment, and then if Iceland should fail to turn him over, the United States can arrest Assange on their territory without their knowledge or approval.

Marc A. Thiessen - WikiLeaks must be stopped

[SirFozzie]

And my thoughts on this whole thing:

The natural inclination of any government is to hide things that do not reflect well on them or their armed forces. So over-classifying information is a natural action, and this kind of thing is generally a pressure valve.

DOn't want the world learning that your soldiers did things they shouldn't? Take care of things so that people actually get punished for doing the wrong thing. Note: I am for giving our troops every benefit of the doubt, mind you.. there is so much that is going on over there, where our soldiers are fighting for their lives, that we should not Monday Morning QB them.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Funny you should mention that, Jeff:

Today, the Washington Post offered a Op-Ed that the government should indict the founder of WikiLeaks, seal the indictment, and then if Iceland should fail to turn him over, the United States can arrest Assange on their territory without their knowledge or approval.

Marc A. Thiessen - WikiLeaks must be stopped

Heh, there's a pretty big backlash with acts of rendition against no name enemy agents. Imagine what would happen if they did that to Assange, certainly wouldn't be able to sweep it under the rug, denials wouldn't got very far.

And this

Arresting Assange would be a major blow to his organization. But taking him off the streets is not enough; we must also recover the documents he unlawfully possesses and disable the system he has built to illegally disseminate classified information

This is just not accurate. Assange is a figurehead that's already succesfully let the cat out of the bag, I wonder if the author is aware that this site isn't run out of his basement. More importantly Wikileaks exists because of the nature and accessibility of the internet, there is nothing terribly advanced technically about it. If even they could shut down Wikileaks, dozens of others would pop up just as easily.


Anyways, I keep rambling on this topic, but it's one that I find very interesting. The idea that something as grassroots and relatively simple as Wikileaks can change the world, for better or worse.


I agree with and like your comparison to a pressure valve, I just wonder if it will stay that way as Wikileaks grows in stature and power. Or if they will just be content to maintain the status quo.

[JediKooter]

If you don't want your dirty laundry aired, then maybe you should take better steps to protect it or have policies in place to minimize any dirty laundry from happening in the first place.

I see wikileaks as nothing more than a repository and have done nothing illegal.
Morally/responsibly questionable yes. Illegal, no.

[jeff061]

In fact on further reflection, I'd say it would be in the governments best interest to keep Wikileaks intact. It will be easier for them to attack a single polarizing organization than a constant stream of smaller ones that would go up in it's absence.

[jeff061]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

If you don't want your dirty laundry aired, then maybe you should take better steps to protect it or have policies in place to minimize any dirty laundry from happening in the first place.

I see wikileaks as nothing more than a repository and have done nothing illegal.
Morally/responsibly questionable yes. Illegal, no.

In war there will always be dirty laundry when everything is taken out of context. That's the fine line.

[JPhillips]

I'm very uncomfortable assuming that everything the government wants to keep secret should in fact be kept secret.

I hate that Wikileaks didn't black out the names of the Afghanis as it wouldn't have changed anything other than saving lives. But, we need to face these kinds of wars honestly. This is what happens in an insurgency fight. It isn't that our soldiers are some how more brutal than others, it's just that they are stuck in a highly stressful conflict that doesn't have the same rules as the "good" wars we celebrate in the U.S.

[EagleFan]

Funny how some people think that wars can be won without collateral damage and that we have to know everything...

These idiots would have posted the D-Day plans to the world in 1944 if given the chance because "everyone has a right to know"...

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Funny how some people think that wars can be won without collateral damage and that we have to know everything...

These idiots would have posted the D-Day plans to the world in 1944 if given the chance because "everyone has a right to know"...

No, it would be like posting the D-Day plans in 1955.

[rowech]

It's war folks. I love how people, from the confines of their couches/desks/chairs at their cushy homes can say anything about the soldiers over there fighting. They are going to make mistakes. If I'm over there, I shoot first and ask questions later. Why? Because I want to live.

People want to tread situations during war like everyday living situations. It's baffling to me. It's a completely different world in a war situation...one most of us can't even fathom. To pretend, "I wouldn't have done that" is foolish at best.

These guys on WikiLeaks, as far as this situation is concerned, are slime...as are the people responsible for getting them the information.

[jeff061]

These guys on WikiLeaks, as far as this situation is concerned, are slime...as are the people responsible for getting them the information.

Completely agree with your sentiment about armchair quarterbacking from back home. But you can't discount every bit of information that a site like Wikileaks can uncover with that logic. That's the rub, it has the ability to uncover things that legitimately need to and should be.

But then there is things like the video of the attack against the Reuters reporter. Everyone got up in arms with that, I saw it as war and they thought it was the enemy. Very unfortunate, but if you set foot in a war zone that's the risk you take and I'm sure he knew it.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by jeff061

In war there will always be dirty laundry when everything is taken out of context. That's the fine line.

True. However, I'm all for trying to eliminate incidents like My Lai and if you have to cover something up, then you shouldn't have been doing it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Completely agree with your sentiment about armchair quarterbacking from back home. But you can't discount every bit of information that a site like Wikileaks can uncover with that logic. That's the rub, it has the ability to uncover things that legitimately need to and should be.

But then there is things like the video of the attack against the Reuters reporter. Everyone got up in arms with that, I saw it as war and they thought it was the enemy. Very unfortunate, but if you set foot in a war zone that's the risk you take and I'm sure he knew it.

I'm not blaming the individual soldiers, but as a country we need to understand that these kinds of killings are going to happen in counter insurgencies. We've been so sheltered from both conflicts that we don't understand what the soldiers are going through. These kinds of killings happen and they'll continue to happen as long as we're their without a clear understanding of what victory means and how we're going to achieve it.

We can't get to a place where any conflict is by default the right thing to do.

[rowech]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm not blaming the individual soldiers, but as a country we need to understand that these kinds of killings are going to happen in counter insurgencies. We've been so sheltered from both conflicts that we don't understand what the soldiers are going through. These kinds of killings happen and they'll continue to happen as long as we're their without a clear understanding of what victory means and how we're going to achieve it.

We can't get to a place where any conflict is by default the right thing to do.

Do you believe this kind of stuff didn't happen in WWII? The war's motives were crystal clear there.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Funny you should mention that, Jeff:

Today, the Washington Post offered a Op-Ed that the government should indict the founder of WikiLeaks, seal the indictment, and then if Iceland should fail to turn him over, the United States can arrest Assange on their territory without their knowledge or approval.

Marc A. Thiessen - WikiLeaks must be stopped

After writing the article, Thiessen proceeded to kick Ben Bradlee in the nuts and urinate on Katharine Graham's grave.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by rowech

Do you believe this kind of stuff didn't happen in WWII? The war's motives were crystal clear there.

Not to the extent that it happens in counterinsurgencies. The goals are much clearer and the enemy is more easily identified in conventional warfare.

[JPhillips]

This is interesting. Apparently Wikileaks agreed to work with the DoD to redact Afghani names, but the DoD refused and then lied about the refusal.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/gl...aks/index.html

[panerd]

I enjoy the war threads, I get to be on SteveBollea and JPhillips side!