Pentagon: Review of WikiLeaks docs finds no danger to security, troops

[spanone]

WASHINGTON, D.C. — An ongoing Pentagon review of the massive flood of secret documents made public by the WikiLeaks website has so far found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field, a Pentagon official told NBC News on Monday.

The initial Pentagon assessment is far less dramatic than initial statements from the Obama White House Sunday night after three major news organizations – The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel — published what was touted as an unprecedented “secret archive” of classified military documents relating to the war in Afghanistan. The documents appear to show, among other matters, close collaboration between elements of the Pakistani intelligence service and the Taliban — an awkward issue that U.S. intelligence officials have strenuously complained about for some time but are loath to talk about publicly.

The news organizations said they received the documents from WikiLeaks, a controversial website that specializes in soliciting and publishing sensitive government documents. No sooner did the stories appear this weekend than U.S. National Security Adviser James Jones “strongly” condemned the WikiLeaks disclosure, saying that the trove of classified documents “could put the lives of American and our partners at risk and threaten our national security.”

But David Lapan, deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations, told NBC News on Monday that a preliminary review by a Pentagon “assessment” team has so far not identified any documents whose release could damage national security. Moreover, he said, none of the documents reviewed so far carries a classification level above “secret” — the lowest category of intelligence material in terms of sensitivity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[Cant trust em]

2. There you have it.

Though just because what has been leaked so far may not be dangerous doesn't mean that something dangerous will never be leaked.

[Orrex]

3. Then, um, why were the documents classified in the first place?

[WonderGrunion]

4. All miltary documents are automatically classified

until they can be properly reviewed.

[Orrex]

13. Yeah, I kind of meant that as a joke.

But, in practice, do they make any effort to subject such documents to "proper review?"

I mean, if they can review 90,000+ documents in a matter of days when they're pushed to it, what possible explanation could there be for a lag during other times?

[moksha]

5. This article in CSM supports that:

WikiLeaks: Why national security isn't Obama's biggest concern

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2010/0726/WikiLeaks-Why-national-security-isn-t-Obama-s-biggest-concern

__________________

I guess this will shut up those who insisted (without evidence) that this would lead to troops being hurt or killed.

[frylock]

7. no..

they'll continue with that line of bullshit. bank it.

[Subdivisions]

8. Unjustified wars lead to troops being hurt or killed. So anyone that says

this information is dangerous and puts the troops at risk is full of shit. Being used as pawns in a fabricated war is detrimental to the troops.

[FiveGoodMen]

6. I'm surprised that they'd actually come out and say that!

[BootinUp]

9. Do we think they are going to tell us

if they find something really damaging? Not likely. At least not for some time.

[WinkyDink]

10. Another instance of the President's speaking hastily?

[Soylent Brice]

11. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

12. Chuckles will not be pleased with the Pentagon.