Do Wikileaks supporters care that Assange helped murder Afghani informants?

[geek tragedy]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/world/asia/29wikileaks.html?_r=2

A search by The New York Times through a sampling of the documents released by the organization WikiLeaks found reports that gave the names or other identifying features of dozens of Afghan informants, potential defectors and others who were cooperating with American and NATO troops.

The Times and two other publications given access to the documents — the British newspaper The Guardian and the German magazine Der Spiegel — posted online only selected examples from documents that had been redacted to eliminate names and other information that could be used to identify people at risk. The news organizations did this to avoid jeopardizing the lives of informants.

The founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, has said that the organization withheld 15,000 of the approximately 92,000 documents in the archive that was released on Sunday to remove the names of informants in what he called a “harm minimization” process. But the 75,000 documents WikiLeaks put online provide information about possible informants, like their villages and in some cases their fathers’ names.

So, is this guy still a hero? Tell that to widows and orphans of the men he helped the Taliban kill. Not to mention the US troops whose jobs got a lot more dangerous because no one will dare cooperate lest some smarmy nihilist finger them.

[EFerrari]

1. Tell me when you stop beating your wife. n/t

[geek tragedy]

3. I'll put you in the "no, I don't care about murdered informants'

category.

[EFerrari]

8. As if any of your "categories" have any common sense or logic to them.

[geek tragedy]

24. So far no Assange fans are remotely disturbed that he revealed

the name of many informants and local Afghans who were cooperating with the US, put their lives in danger, and actively aided the Taliban.

Let's just say I'm not surprised.

[EFerrari]

31. None of us are surprised by your massive logic fail, either. n/t

[bvar22]

124. I'm not surprised either.

Some things you can just count on.
I'll give points for consistency.

[arcane1]

37. according to your link

he did no such thing.

"the 75,000 documents WikiLeaks put online provide information about possible informants, like their villages and in some cases their fathers’ names."

[Dr.Phool]

110. Even worse, he has the hots for Jane Hamsher.

[jgraz]

200. Shit, who doesn't?

:hide:

[fogonthelake]

202. Luv yah.

[RetroLounge]

2. A most enjoyable unrec

:eyes:

RL

[wuushew]

7. make it a double

-2 :kick:

[geek tragedy]

22. Two more votes for "let the informants die so long as we get

our war porn"

[arcane1]

29. A blatantly false dichotomy

and you probably already know that

[geek tragedy]

38. Nope, not a single wikileaks fan has expressed one iota of concern.

Not one.

They don't care.

Don't care if Afghani informants get their heads chopped off. Don't care if this winds up getting US troops killed because locals will not cooperate.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

55. LOL...way to stay on script!

[sabrina 1]

165. You are a piece of work. I have not seen you post about

the deaths of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, or the plight of the people there, or the thousands of deaths of civilians over the past several years. Many of us have been fighting for years to try to prevent these deaths. Where have you been?

Now, because it looks like this may make your party look bad, you are, all of a sudden, concerned about the people of Afghanistan. You imho, which I believe I am entitled to, are hypocritical.

I have been posting about the danger to the people of Afghanistan since we first went there in the fall of 2001. I have been called a traitor, stupid, naive, unaware of how 'these things work' and much, much worse, including death threats.

Now, YOU, a person I have never seen, although I could have missed it, oppose what is happening there to the people, the children the women, claim to suddenly have concerns about the safety of anyone in that country.

Quit while you can. This latest progaganda coming from none other than Gates, the man who didn't care about the U.S. hostages whose detention he helped lengthen when he betrayed Pres. Carter to make Reagan look like a hero, risking their lives and then going over to Reagan's administration after ensuring that Carter, in whose cabinet he was, would lose the election. He should have been tried for treason.

Just stop spreading Gates lies. That warmonger has been lying, in the case of the hostages, treasonous lies, for decades.

NOTHING he says means anything to many people who are familiar with his record. The only thing I want to know is why Obama made him Sec. of Defense. That I cannot understand.

[quinnox]

179. I think you make some very good points

And they didn't respond at all to your arguments, maybe because they can't answer them.

[sabrina 1]

186. Being that Afghanisan, which for a long time was known

as the forgotten war, was always of interest to me, I am aware of the few people who never stopped reporting on what was actually happening there. I have never seen anything by this OP on the topic of the plight of the people there. As I said, I could have missed it.

This sudden concern, on the part of the Pentagon of all people, for the well-being of anyone in that sad country, the same people who facilitated the kidnapping, and the suffocating deaths in containers, and the years long detentions of innocent Afghans, old shepherds, children as young as 12, who oversaw the torture of those innocents, not to mention the thousands of bombing deaths of innocents, is simply not believable. In fact it is so transparent that I doubt anyone but the most partisan protector of Bush and/or this administration, would give it any credibility at all.

They are responsible for everything that has happened to those people for the last ten years, including any danger that befalls informers. To try to shift the blame to others is reprehensible.

[villager]

4. And your link to the specific instances of Taliban killing those named in Wikileaks is...

...uh, where, exactly?

:shrug:

[geek tragedy]

13. That's what the Taliban do to pro-US informants

and collaborators.

[wuushew]

17. Answer the question

n/t

[geek tragedy]

21. It's going to happen. You can pretend that oh geez maybe the Taliban

will just leave them alone, but that's dishonest and you know it.

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

48. Dude, you should stop while you're behind. Pretending this hasn't happened is pretty weak.

[villager]

25. And your link to the specific instances of Taliban killing those named in Wikileaks is...

...where, exactly?

:shrug:

[geek tragedy]

39. Common sense.

If you don't think some of them are going to die because of this, you have none.

[villager]

43. Ah, "linking" to your own "common sense" then? Well, who the hell needs corroborating sources

then?

After all, Bush certainly didn't!

[geek tragedy]

56. What part do you deny--that the Taliban will be able to use those

documents to figure out who those guys are, or that upon finding out who they are, that they will torture and kill them?

[villager]

63. "I link to my own conjecture -- and my own conjecture is absolute fact!"

Hmm.. that could be Bush-like, Alice-in-Wonderland-like -- could work a lot of places!

Only, not in a thread where you've claimed something has already happened.

[geek tragedy]

66. The sun will rise tomorrow.

It hasn't happened yet. Are you going to argue that I'm wrong?

[villager]

75. Boy, your inner Louis XIV grows stronger by the minute, doesn't it?

n/t

[AlabamaLibrul]

76. Truths claimed to be self-evident

are often called such because they don't stand up to examination.

[geek tragedy]

80. When folks actually start examining, get back to me.

So far, no one (other than The Magistrate) has been willing to say why it's possibly untrue that the informants have been endangered.

[USArmyParatrooper]

115. Are you being real right now?

The leak JUST HAPPENED. Are you now asking for proof that releasing the identities of Afghan informants is a bad thing?? Wow.

[The Magistrate]

5. The Odds He Revealed Anything Locals Did Not Already Know, Sir, Are Pretty Slim

The chief purpose of government secrecy is to conceal things from its own people; the enemy generally has a pretty good idea of what is going on....

[geek tragedy]

10. So Iran knew who Valerie Plame was? nt

[The Magistrate]

23. She Was Born And Raised In Tehran, Sir, and Resident In The Neighborhood?

You know perfectly well that is an apples and oranges comparison.

The boys on the street-corner generally have a pretty good idea who tipped the police where the stash house was. Just because people are crude and vicious and backward in their spirituality and even ethics does not make them stupid or oblivious to their surroundings....

[geek tragedy]

32. Mob informants have been used for years.

And not with a 100% mortality rate.

Assange did the equivalent of fingering informants to the Gambino crime family.

[The Magistrate]

40. The Rate Is Pretty High, Sir

It strikes me as unlikely these documents increase the danger of having informed on Taliban operations appreciably.

[geek tragedy]

47. We could speculate before.

Now, there is no doubt what their fate is.

[The Magistrate]

52. Or What It Was, Sir: Many Of these Documents Are Years Old

There remains a positive good to informing the populace of the United States, and the world, what is actually going on, and what the military establishment knows is actually going on.

[geek tragedy]

54. That the ISI is helping the Taliban, that there have been

an unacceptable number of civilian casualties--that is old news sir.

Perhaps the wikileaks will inform us next that LeBron James signed with the Miami Heat.

[The Magistrate]

To Aficionados, Sir, It is Certainly Old News

But proof of some of this from U.S. government files puts it in a different league.

There was little new in the Pentagon Papers, to people who had been paying attention, anyway, either.

[The Magistrate]

60. To Aficionados, Sir, It is Certainly Old News

But proof of some of this from U.S. government files puts it in a different league.

There was little new in the Pentagon Papers, to people who had been paying attention, anyway, either.

[geek tragedy]

71. The Pentagon papers proved that the Gulf of Tonkin was a pretext

to justify an escalation.

No such bombshell was in these papers. The biggest bombshell was that the Taliban had heat-seeking SAM's, which is rather unsurprising.

[The Magistrate]

79. By Then, Sir, Many had Considered that a Given Of the Situation For Years

Even conducting infiltration raids into North Vietnam, widely viewed as a shocking revelation then, had been recounted in public print years before.

The ability of people to turn a blind eye unless things are forced on their attention should not be under-estimated.

The fact is, this war is now a luxury we can no longer afford....

[geek tragedy]

82. I would agree.

But the publication of raw intelligence should be done with much less recklessness than has been exhibited by Mr. Assange. The legitimate outlets managed to publish these pieces without endangering anyone's life without or reducing their import.

[The Magistrate]

100. If the 'Legitimate' Outlets Published This Sort Of Thing Nowadays, Sir

We would never have invaded Iraq, and be winding down Afghanistan with some success about now....

[H2O Man]

138. The Pentagon Papers

documented that LBJ had considered using far more US military force, pre-1964's election, including extensive bombings. However, I do not think g.t. is accurate in saying that they proved the Gulf of Tonkin was a pretext -- though it was.

The PPs showed that the US had been a participant in the conflict since 1945, and that this included direct participation beyond anything that Congress had consented to. Both the administrations and the military had gone well beyond the law for decades. This included information such as the attacks on Cambodia and Laos, and along the coast of North Vietnam. One of the most important points was that none of these illegal activities were being reported upon in the mainstream media -- dispite the fact that many journalists knew about these things, and some had attempted to get editors/owners of the media to allow honest reporting.

The terrible truth is that people die in war. This includes participants and innocent people. The goal of the leaks is, I believe, to show the public what is really happening in Afghanistan. Sad to say, our mainstream media is vastly inferior in reporting on "war" today, than the often inaccurate media was in the Vietnam era.

I agree with the points that you make on this thread. Thank you for making a rational case on what is a difficult issue when approached from an emotional standpoint -- as this thread demonstrates.

I suspect that there is a good reason for the issue of a free press to be included in Amendment 1. It isn't always a pleasant thing, but it is essential for democracy.

[Owl]

112. Exactly right, Sir.

[saracat]

94. You are absolutely correct Sir!

[saracat]

96. Indeed . It is a specious comparison.The OP clearly does not have

any respect for the intelligence of the Afghans on either side of this issue. It is arrogant and a common mistake made when underestimating foreign peoples by ill informed Americans.

[USArmyParatrooper]

118. That copout of all copouts

If the Taliban could so easily get the identities of all of our informants we wouldn't have informants.

No matter WHAT potentially harmful revelations come of these leaks, "Oh, well they probably know that anyway"

Tell me then, should nothing be classified since the Taliban are omnipotent and their intelligence capabilities dwarf that of the KGB of old?

[The Magistrate]

132. Most Classification, Sir, Is To Conceal Cock-Ups, and Otherwise Mislead the Public

It is not aimed at the enemy, but at the domestic political process. So, no, very little should be classified, and were very little classified, it would be easier to keep secret that which really ought to be: the best way to keep secrets is to eb so honest and open about so many things that the things one does not speak of are not even suspected to exist.

No great intelligence bureaucracy is required for the Taliban and other elements of the resistance to the United States in Afghanistan. The society is a tribal one, riven with feuds. If something bad happens to someone, local people know pretty much off the top of their heads who would have good reason to see it happen. It is also a poor society, and people who are receiving payment stand out. Find both things over-lapping and you generally have the man you want. It is not a thing of great complexity. Of course, the thing takes off in other directions: we are dependent on translators, for instance, but cannot be certain all are actually on our side, and the same applies to office staff, drivers, all the myriad local contracts involved. A further layer is added by intrigue within the Afghan governments, local and national, and then there is the Pakistani service, which is definitely not on our side, either, but speaks the language, can pass for native, has close contacts with parties on all sides of the conflict....

We are out of our depth here, Sir, and bluster will not cover that over.

[USArmyParatrooper]

137. So in your opinion it's OK to publish the identities of Afgans cooperating with NATO forces?

[The Magistrate]

157. An Informed Citizenry, Sir, Is Essential To a Democracy

It is important that the body of information in these documents is available to the public in the United States. It matters that our government is fully cognizant of Pakistani government collaboration with the resistance to the U.S. in Afghanistan, that most of the cover stories given out when civilians were killed in our operations were known to be false by our military authorities: these are things the public should know, and take into account in future. We are being asked to mortgage our financial future to this exercise; every few months another thirty billions of dollars or so are diverted into it, away from pressing and immediate needs of our people and our country: people need to know what is going on, and what our government knows to be going on. The question becomes, on consideration, what is this great public good, essential to the functioning of a democratic polity, worth? Warfare, you will be prepared to admit, is essentially an exercise in balancing goods against costs; the crest of the ridge against a number of lives, the transport of a tonnage of fuel against a number of lives and dollar value of equipment. It may be that making this information available to the public of the United States costs some lives; there are always costs for things of any value.

[USArmyParatrooper]

177. You dodged the question

In your view leaking the identities of Afghan informants shouldn't be protected? Yes or No.

[The Magistrate]

181. You Just Do Not Like The Answer You Got, Sir: That Is Neither My Problem Nor My Concern

[USArmyParatrooper]

182. You mean your LACK of an answer

You said the greater good on the OFF chance that it somehow shortens the war, etc.

So in your view outing Afghan informants to the Taliban is essential to shortening the war?

[The Magistrate]

185. You Skitter About Like Spit On A Griddle, Sir

Your question was, first, do you think it is a good or bad thing; second, do you think it should be protected; and now is, do you think it essential to shortening the war. Yet throughout all these permutations, you cry out, answer the question, and accuse me of not answering the question, as if there was only one, and as if the matter was defined by the stringently limited concerns you express.

It is essential to the functioning of a democracy that the citizens be fully informed; people who do not know essential elements of a situation can hardly make informed and sensible decisions concerning it. These leaked documents have provided a great deal of valuable information to the populace of the country, that should be of help to our functioning as a democracy. That is valuable to me; it ought to be valuable to you.

[USArmyParatrooper]

188. No, the question has always been the same.

"Your question was, first, do you think it is a good or bad thing; second, do you think it should be protected; and now is, do you think it essential to shortening the war."

I asked if it's OK to out the name of Afghan informants. The "first" and "second" you posted are the SAME question asked different ways.

YOU are the one who said it can "save" lives in the end by shortening the war, I was expanding on that. These are closed ended question which means they can be answered with a YES or a NO, which you won't do. So, the SAME question.

DO YOU THINK IT'S OK TO OUT AFGHAN INFORMANTS TO THE TALIBAN?

Yes or No? <======

[The Magistrate]

189. Sloppy Language, Sir, Generally Indicates Sloppy Thinking

Whether something is good or bad is a separate question from whether it should or should not be protected. None of my comments referenced saving lives, they merely pointed out that warfare is an exercise in calculating whether certain things are worth a certain quantity of lives. You would seem to be wrestling with a phantom in your mind, rather than with me.

You are trying to focus discussion of this matter on a peripheral facet of the business, in order to avoid engaging the largest question the matter brings to the fore, namely, should the people of the United States have had this information available to it over the previous several years, and is it better or worse for our democratic political processes that this information is now available to us.

[USArmyParatrooper]

190. "is it better or worse for our democratic political processes that this information is now available

"this information" that we're discussing is the identities of Afghan informants. There is absolutely NO need for the American people to have that information, or can any good come of it.

It has no bearing on our Democratic process.

[The Magistrate]

191. The Information In the Leaked Documents, Sir

Includes such items as confirmation of Pakistani government assistance to the resistance to U.S troops in Afghanistan, and that our government knew of this, as well as confirmation that the cover stories given out over instances where civilians were killed in quantity were not only false, but known to be false by our government even as they were peddled to the press. These, and similar items, strike me as matters or some importance. The element you have fixated upon does not seem too important to me, when the matter is viewed in the round, as a whole. Should you choose to widen your focus, it would be possible to form some opinion of why you have fixed on the particular element you have....

[Duer 157099]

6. How many widows and orphans have the military created?

all without any help from Assange?

[sabrina 1]

9. Unrec for faux concern about Afghans,

Iraqis or anyone else we send our military to kill.

Over one million dead human beings, mostly referred to by the U.S. as 'ragheads, camel jockies' and compared to 'dogs' by some of our Generals, and this is the first time the U.S. has shown any concern for a single person in either of our two currently occupied countries.

Julian Assange may very well contribute to the saving of many lives. So long as people do not fall for the false concerns of the very people who are daily killing innocent civilians for nothing. It's kind of hard to believe they care all of a sudden.

[msongs]

11. if the us military was not there occupying Afghanistan illegally NONE of this would be happening nt

[geek tragedy]

16. That makes helping the Taliban assassinate informers okay? nt

[sabrina 1]

28. Have seen any of the photos of the remnants of the bodies

of mostly women and children, with their loved ones searching among the body parts to try to find their babies, wives, husbands, after one of our drone attacks?

How come the sudden concern for the lives of Afghans when for years, many of us have been demandking that they stop killing civilians?

Did you know that some of those 'informers' are who the U.S. rely on to target villages and homes and are responsible for many of the civilian deaths?

We don't belong there, not in the role we have played, killing and torturing and imprisoning people in their land.

Anyone who works with an invading army of their own country, knows the risks. The occupying forces are responsible for anything that happens to them.

[geek tragedy]

36. So, you think the informants are bad guys who deserve to die?

Not anti-war, just the other side.

[sabrina 1]

57. If I thought people deserved to die, I would, like you

be supporting this travesty.

I will repeat for your benefit. We are the aggressors in Afghanistan now. The occupying force. Every death of either civilians or informers, is caused by us until we stop killing people there.

Without our presence there, there would be no informers that are our responsibility.

Do facts not register with you? Informers when they make a decision to inform on their fellow citizens to a foreign occupying force, whatever the reasons, know the risks. So do those who turn them into informers and place them at risk.

Now they are our responsibility. If their names are known, then they can be removed to safety.?

I doubt we'll bother protecting them, Afghan lives are cheap as far as the U.S. is concerned. Right now they make for good propaganda and for the purpose of propagandists, it would suit their purposes not to protect them. Why are people so easily fooled?

The right thing to do was to immediately remove them from danger, quietly. Instead they are yelling with the loudest megaphone 'look, see the informers'! BS, all of it and way past time to end it.

[geek tragedy]

74. This is not like French collaborators siding with the Nazis.

The Taliban are not freedom fighters, but rather barbaric theocrats.

[sabrina 1]

166. Can you point us to some of your own concerns for the safety

of the people of Afghanistan over the course of this invasion? This is the first time I have seen you show any concern for the lives of the people of Afghanistan.

As for informants many have already been killed over the years, but of course if you have just suddenly developed an interest in their plight, you would not know that.

Our own allies, the War Lords have killed informants to the Taliban. The Taliban has killed informants to the Allied forces. Informants have been dying in Afghanistan since the war began. NOW you are concerned? Where have you been all this time?

The chances are that those are false names. Did that occur to you? And if they are not, then shame on the military for not taking that precaution. It shows how little they cared about them, doesn't it? And how easy it has been for the Taliban to find them ...

Your outrage is severely misguided. And way, way too late for those thousands of innocent Afghans who are already dead.

[sendero]

147. Perhaps not.

... but the hundreds of thousands of civilians who have died at our hands didn't "deserve" it either. Please stop acting like you are standing on some kind of moral high ground, the flood waters are lapping at your feet.

Idiot.

[lob1]

12. Is it better to die for the truth or die for a lie?

The damned Viet Nam war might still be going on if not for the Pentagon Papers.

[geek tragedy]

14. The Pentagon papers didn't name informants

who were certain to be assassinated if their names were revealed.

[lob1]

34. I don't know if the Pentagon Papers named names or

not. But we lost around 58,000 men in Nam. Releasing the papers kept that number from being 60,000 or 70,000 or 80,000. I care less about the informants than our own troops, and we can best protect them is by getting out before more die.

[arcane1]

46. Neither did Wikileaks "name informants"

read your own link.

[geek tragedy]

49. Reading:

"A search by The New York Times through a sampling of the documents released by the organization WikiLeaks found reports that gave the names or other identifying features of dozens of Afghan informants, potential defectors and others who were cooperating with American and NATO troops."

More:

"Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, has said that his organization chose not to publish 15,000 of the more than 90,000 documents in order to protect the names of Afghan informants. But such information is easily found in the documents that were posted online."

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

15. Doesn't look like it.

Given the responses.

[geek tragedy]

19. Nope. But they swear they support our troops and value

the lives over in Afghanistan.

[YOY]

198. They're unpatrioitic and not real Americans!!!

Thank GAWD you're Democrats to point that out!!!

[Forkboy]

30. Figures.

:freak:

[RetroLounge]

142. and the circle jerk begins...

:puke:

RL

[gratuitous]

18. Really? Who got killed?

Do you have a name? When did it happen? And where? Who did the killing? Your post seems awfully sure that this has happened, but is a bit short on details.

[geek tragedy]

20. The Taliban have a policy of beheading informers.

And they have web access.

It takes some serious denial to think lives will not be lost over this.

[xultar]

44. I'm sure the government new about the leak before we did...

with that said i don't think anyone has been beheaded yet.

[USArmyParatrooper]

119. YET

So are you on record as saying it's OK to disclose the identities of Afghan informants?

[xultar]

192. Where the fuckity fuck fuck did you pull that shit from. You need to get a fuck in grip!

[Forkboy]

26. FFS

[LAGC]

27. Unrec for grandstanding.

If Julian Assange helps bring these illegal occupations to an end sooner by exposing those who enable the war effort, then more power to him.

GET US THE FUCK OUT NOW!

[geek tragedy]

33. Another vote for 'let the informants die.' nt

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LAGC]

45. Informants?! They're traitors to their own country!

By supporting an illegal foreign occupier, they've lost any credibility they may have had.

That's the risk you take when you collaborate with a foreign power.

I'd hate to think if the U.S. was ever invaded by a foreign power that there would be much concern over the "poor informants" who helped the enemy subdue and conquer the country by betraying their own American people.

What part of illegal occupation don't you understand?

[geek tragedy]

51. Holy shit, you're rooting for the Taliban.

You do realize that the Taliban are not a legitimate resistance group, right?

[LAGC]

69. I've always rooted for the legitimate resistance in Afghanistan.

Not the Taliban.

If we are ever going to see true change happen in Afghanistan, it has to come from within. A groundswell of popular resistance against the Taliban from the indigenous people who live there and have to suffer under the oppressive weight of theocracy.

We can't force change on the Afghan people from above, history has shown time and time again it just doesn't work that way.

I would have been completely for meddling in Afghanistan's affairs if the CIA had sowed dissent and helped the resistance overthrow the Taliban leadership from within. But not through a top-down foreign invasion!

I just hope we learn from our mistakes, and that if Iran's theocracy is to be overthrown, it is done by supporting the natives on the ground, not through airstrikes and foreign military aggression from above.

You've got to look at the long-term consequences of what we're doing over there. We can't force our form of government on the Afghan people, the people have got to want it for themselves. We should enable them, not oppress them ourselves!

[Forkboy]

42. The OP is posing. It reflects on Obama, that's the real concern.

It sure as shit isn't about the soldiers over there.

[geek tragedy]

53. Several people in this thread have said that Afghans who help

the US against the Taliban deserve to die and that they're traitors.

I'd say it has been rather revealing as to the sympathies of a good portion of the "leak at any cost" folks.

[Forkboy]

59. Several people think Saddam was tied to 9/11.

The "several people" argument doesn't impress, much like your simplistic and moronic OP.

[geek tragedy]

62. Does it bother you at all--even a little--that Assange

may have helped identify dozens of informants?

[Forkboy]

67. Does it bother you at all...even a little...that thousands have died already?

We can all play this guilt trip game, compadre.

[geek tragedy]

86. Yes, and I think we should begin withdrawing from Afghanistan.

Your turn. Does the possiblity that informants were put at risk bother you?

[Forkboy]

87. A little, but not as much as wasting life after life in a pointless dick swinging contest does.

[geek tragedy]

88. We agree on both counts then. nt

[Forkboy]

91. Well that's no fun.

:silly:

[The Magistrate]

64. On What Basis Do You say 'A Good Portion Of'. Sir?

Several people strike a hard-boiled radical pose on a message board: this is a good portion of people who welcome the exposure of this trove of documents to public scrutiny?

[geek tragedy]

78. Let us put it this way, Sir:

No one--with the notable exception of yourself--has even acknowledged the possibility that this could be a severely bad thing.

There have been statements that such informants are 'traitors' and statements noting that such informants are themselves responsible for the deaths of their fellow citizens.

[saracat]

93. +10000 Spot on.

[RetroLounge]

144. +1

RL

[Swamp Rat]

58. Channeling your inner Charles Krauthammer?

[Forkboy]

61. Read any of his posts. Not much "inner" about it.

It's been pretty obvious all along. This OP is hardly surprising from the geekster.

[geek tragedy]

65. So, the revealing of those informants doesn't bother you? nt

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[geek tragedy]

84. Projection, sir. nt

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[QC]

81. Inner? n/t

[L0oniX]

101. LOL ...gawd I hate that asscarrot ass hammer.

[Swamp Rat]

105. I guess someone did not like my pic of Ann Coulter and JJ Walker

WAAAAAA!!!! :cry:

[asdjrocky]

111. Rat.... that is gooooood.

Am I the only one here who would put Swamp Rats stuff on my walls?

I can not be alone in this.

[stray cat]

72. No - most on either side of the issue don't give a damn about Afghanis

The Afghans to most are non-entities meant to be used to score political points and not human.

[Lindablue]

73. Were informants murdered?

I missed that news.

[USArmyParatrooper]

127. Not yet. Does posting their identities put their lives at risk?

[Lindablue]

133. If "not yet," then "helped murder" is false

Because none has been murdered.

[USArmyParatrooper]

139. That we know of, yet. Is publishing their identities a bad thing?

[hay rick]

77. Unrec for pseudo-patriotic posturing.

I'm sure you also express your concern every time one of our drones takes out a wedding party.

On the plus side, you get points for coining the phrase "smarmy nihilist."

[Liberation Angel]

83. So far there is NO evidence that any informants have been identified or harmed, BUT...

certainly if they or their families are in danger NATO should protect them and get them the hell out of harm's way.

This is a war and ALL the combatants do what they do knowing they may be killed.

Ending the war and bringing the troops home is the best option asap.

Wikileaks may help prevent future deaths if the information stops the violence.

BUT, I agree that his action may result in "collateral damage: and there is a moral issue here that is honest on the OP's part and legitimate.

The US should protect its sources and informants so if any ARE identified they deserve protection and they need to seek it immediately (and if they ARE readily identifiable - which remains a big IF - then we need to go protect them and their families NOW and not fuck around pointing fingers at whose to blame.

We ALL know who is to blame for the deaths: Bush., Cheney et al. The Taliban and their violent fundamentalism too. And on and on...

But OBAMA inherited this mess and he needs to get our troops the fuck home NOW and out of that killing field.

I support safe zones protected by international troops to protect folks from the Taliban and others (globally). Non combat zones. I support this in Israel/Palestine as well ansd anywhere these issues arise. Folkks who want out of the war zones should be able to get out and survive and be safe, Lets spend our money in humanitarian aid and NOT on war (here and there).

Anyway, I saw this wikileaks dude on msnbc and he said that they are reviewing the claims that informants were identified. For now he says he does not agree that this is the case. And if they were identifiable it is because they were declassified documents anyway, the way I heard him say it and not confidential.

More info and facts are needed to say one way or the other.

But Bush is to blame for the problem.

Obama is to blame if he doesn't fix it too.

[geek tragedy]

85. A brilliant and honest post.

I cannot diagree with even a punctuation mark.

[NJmaverick]

89. This is terrible

[quinnox]

90. Since it hasn't happened yet

no. I always support the truth getting out about wars to the people.

If I hear a report in the future that this happened, then it shows the documents were not inspected thoroughly enough and it would be a mistake that should be corrected in future document releases.

[geek tragedy]

92. The identities have been revealed.

Multiple news orgs have gone through the wikileaks site and found this to be true.

The only question is whether there will be reports of assassinations of names on the list.

[girl gone mad]

98. If there are assassinations, only the government is to blame.

They have the means to protect these informants.

Up above, you compared this to the mob investigations. Well, mob informants frequently lost their cover. The government set up the witness protection program to give outed informants new identities and get them and their families out of dodge.

War is hell. If we haven't prepared for the possibility of informant identities being uncovered, that's the fault of the war perpetrators and no one else. The information obtained solely benefits the war perpetrators, and the protection of the informants should be their obligation, alone.

[Sheepshank]

134. Sure, all informants feel safe to live a long and carefree life

once their identifiers are released and accessible by the murderers they informed on.

Lets all pretend they will be given a freebie...by the Taliban and Al Q.

[superconnected]

95. Do you care that the military murders civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan all the time?

[nosmokes]

97. This thread is a geek tragedy of assumptions and innuendo on the OP's part.

Wake me when you have some info to back up your Breitbart/Fux News-like posting.

[L0oniX]

99. Swallow much? This bull shit is too stupid to be posted.

Do the American people care that their tax dollars are funding the killing of innocent people? DUH!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

102. ".. Assange helped murder Afghani informants?" So, where are the victims he "helped murder"?

Except in your imagination?

"helped" is past tense not future tense.

[quinnox]

113. good point

I have to say since the OP is a well known die-hard supporter of Obama, the motivation for posting this does seem suspect. It seems he cares more about negative political effects to Obama from the wikileaks and less about the safety of Afghans.

[ima_sinnic]

103. so nice of you to care about Afghan lives now

I don't think I've noticed your posts in the past decrying the useless, unwarranted, unnecessary killing of Afghan citizens that's been going on for many years now, first under Bush, now under Obama.

[Swamp Rat]

107. I do not believe the OP really gives 'a fuck about murdered Afghani informants, men, women, children

or their goddamn pets', to quote someone.

This is my opinion, not a statement of fact or name-calling or anything else that is against the the rules at DU, etc.

I simply do not believe anonymous entity that posted this thread really gives a flying fuck about Afghanistan civilians.







*no pic provided*

[Warren Stupidity]

129. no shit

[kgnu_fan]

104. Please read "Winter Soldier Iraq and Afghanistan - Eyewitness accounts of the Occupations"

By Iraq Veterans Against the War and Aaron Glantz

Foreword by Anthony Swofford

Haymarket Books

www.haymarketbooks.org

[asdjrocky]

106. War monger.

We are killing innocent people for profit and it needs to end now

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

109. A "member of the Jones family, living in New York, gave us directions" = Murder?

Logic jump FAIL.

[Oregone]

114. Wouldn't the benevolent US protect them all if they cared?

A whole lot of not-giving-a-shit is going around here if any of them get killed

[Swamp Rat]

122. Thank you

for the pic in your sigline.

:applause:

I had started to do something just like it, but dropped the project.

:yourock:

[flyarm]

116. Will it shock you to know that Wikileaks through the NYTImes offered for this White House to look

through the documents before releasing them..that is a fact and Julian Assange said that in an interview with

Judge Andrew Napolitano to be released on Fox's business network. Julian Assange offered the documents for Review to this White House before ever releasing them to make sure no one was exposed or put in danger..he did this through an intermediary with NYTimes. He got zero ..nada.... reply from this White House.

So to now cry foul or say Julian is irresponsible..is quite a laugh..doesn't seem the White House or administration was too worried about anyone before these documents were released!

Enough of the kabuki theater..OP get all the facts..

[Bonobo]

117. I'm trying to recall all your posts grieving for the Afghan civilians WE have killed...

Nope. I don't recall them.

So I guess this OP is just a way for you to post reactionary bullshit.

[USArmyParatrooper]

125. This refutes that naming Afghan informants puts their lives in great danger how?

That's right. It doesn't.

[Bonobo]

145. The point being that we are killing far more innocents than this article.

And have been doing so all along.

Why the sudden concern?

These informants are not angels, you know.

Probably a lot less "innocent" then the wedding party members we shredded into bits of flesh.

[USArmyParatrooper]

148. Got it. So was publishing their identities a bad thing?

[Bonobo]

159. I can't say it was a good thing, no. I dont see a benefit to it. nt

[USArmyParatrooper]

173. Thank you for being the first Wikileaks supporter to at least admit that much

[spoony]

196. Actually that's not what the OP says at all.

It claims those informants have already been murdered, not that they're in danger. And the weeping of chickenhawks would be more convincing if they showed they cared about anyone but their political investments.

[Sheepshank]

120. loose lips sink ships....

...WWII in the UK, was a common meme.

In other words in time of war, shut the hell up.

I think it would have been better served by wikileaks to do the same while there is still a war that the documents refere to.

[flyarm]

121. he offered the documents to the White House for review..they never responded to him! eom

[USArmyParatrooper]

126. Proof?

[flyarm]

156. watch Fox Business this weekend ..the interview will be aired on it!

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/07/29/wikileaks-assange-tells-fnc-s-napolitano-he-offered-docs-white-house-week

[USArmyParatrooper]

172. Your proof is Assange claiming he contacted the WH?

That's not proof, especially considering he'll need to justify putting the lives of US troops and Afghans at risk.

Also, even IF true that does not refute the fact that leaking all of those documents was irresponsible.

[Sheepshank]

130. a link, some verification would be lovely. n/t

[USArmyParatrooper]

123. UNBELIEVABLE. The detractors aren't willing to admit identifying informants is a BAD thing

[Sheepshank]

128. I'm not sure I understand a couple of the previous posts?

do you think some on this thread are saying that leaking informant info is some sort of just desserts because the US killed other people in Afghanistan? These posters nullify leaking out names and other identifiers of informants because the OP hasn't been vocal enough about the negative effects of the war in Afghanistan? Wow.

[USArmyParatrooper]

131. They're called red herrings

They divert the attention away from the topic.

Any reasonable person would at least admit that identifying Afghan nationals cooperating with NATO forces is a bad thing.

[Swamp Rat]

136. Define "Afghan nationals" n/t

[USArmyParatrooper]

140. Natives of Afghanistan. Are you serious?

[Swamp Rat]

149. LOL! You're funny.

:D

[USArmyParatrooper]

150. Your cartoon doesn't remove the fact that it was a stupid question.

[Swamp Rat]

152. LOLOL!!!!

:rofl:

[USArmyParatrooper]

153. Defend Glenn Beck? WTF?

I would loath him if I even remotely took him seriously.

[quinnox]

183. Not true

I did, and said it would be a mistake and should be corrected. I believe a couple others also said it would be bad to put informants lives in danger.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

194. How do you explain THIS?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38417666/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia

Review of WikiLeaks docs sees no smoking gun
Pentagon still reviewing records, but so far finds no threat to U.S. security

[bvar22]

135. If you really gave a shit,

you would know that "Afghani" is the name of the currency of Afghanistan,
and the people of Afghanistan are referred to as "Afghans".

Your faux concern about the "Afghani" informant has been exposed.

[USArmyParatrooper]

143. Since you actually give a shit, is publishing their identities a bad thing?

[bvar22]

154. I gave a shit BEFORE we started dropping bombs on them.

I find it very revealing that some here only found "concern" for the Afghans today.
I've been trying to stop this slaughter since 2001.

[USArmyParatrooper]

155. Since you gave a shit BEFORE, is identifying Afghans cooperating with NATO a bad thing?

[Kalun D]

141. Well We Do Know For Sure

That the people that are upset about Wikileaks Exposing the US warmongers don't really give a damn about any Afghans, informants or otherwise.

In other words, spare us your phony outrage.

[USArmyParatrooper]

146. Actually, the day this happened one of the first concerns I expressed was compromising informants

Should I dig up an old post for you? I know I know, you're going to claim I don't care about them.

Now that the red herring has been answered and YOU care, was publishing their identities a bad thing?

[bvar22]

158. And were you "concerned" about Afghan civilians BEFORE Wikileaks.

Please post your links to the threads where you expressed your "concerns".
Otherwise, you are simply an opportunistic poser.

[Swamp Rat]

160. Yes, we're all waiting... time for the truth to be told.

:)

*whistling and toe-tapping*

[USArmyParatrooper]

174. What are you waiting for?

[Swamp Rat]

176. OMC... Zandor... Cuban_Liberal?

[USArmyParatrooper]

171. So if I didn't post links that means I wasn't conerned?

I've also never posted links about animal cruelty or child abuse. I guess I'm not concerned about those.

Oh, and since I know someone with your high level of integrity would never recklessly post an accusation without evidence, by all means back your claim I'm a poser.

wait for it....

WAIT for it....

WAIT FOR IIIIIITTTTTT...........

BZZZT! You can't.

BTW, for some strange reason you still haven't said whether publishing the identities of Afghans cooperating with NATO troops is a bad thing. While I'm having lots of fun with your red herrings I'm not letting you off.

[USArmyParatrooper]

178. Also, I'm growing a beard waiting for your evidence that I'm a "poser"

Pretending not to see this and remaining silent is also an answer.

[RetroLounge]

151. Oh, does this make your messiah look bad?

Poor, poor you...

RL

[marmar]

161. Epic bullshit......

[USArmyParatrooper]

175. What's bullshit?

[YOY]

199. Tell you what's BS! People who don't walk around with this tune blaring 24/7!!! That's what!!!

HOO HAA!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGuhZvO1DKg

[Chan790]

162. I've got no use for Julian Assange.

I recognized him immediately for what he really is. A criminal.

[Forkboy]

164. I bet you don't.

[Chan790]

167. Have any use for him?

Yes, I already stated as much.

I don't care about his motivations or the end-results of his actions. Ends do not justify means. He committed a criminal act and he belongs in prison. Instead, he's going to continue to run around like the self-aggrandizing moral-relativist sociopathic cretin he is and let Manning take the fall and go to prison for 52 years.

To that end, I think Assange's fortunate. BushCo never would have bothered with legality or jurisprudence or rule of law, they'd just have assassinated him on that stage at TED where he showed his face for the first time.

[Forkboy]

168. Yes, if only Bush were still around to deal with him.

[H2O Man]

169. There are

apparently some people in America who look at those "Miss Me Yet?" billboards differently than you and I.

[Forkboy]

170. I wish I could laugh at that.

And people wonder why I want to live alone in the Yukon....

[Chan790]

180. More that I think he's got a touch of craven in him...

if he's so morally inflexible and absolute...where was he for 8 years of the most corrupt and evil political administration of our young millennium? Where was he on any one of the 1000's of illegal things Bush or Cheney did? Do you really think they were so brilliant to have not created any evidence of their crimes? Do you think none of that evidence got sent to him? He kept his head down, because he is a coward.

This, by comparison, is a "safe" regime to make allegations against...they're not going to do anything to him. He takes potshots against safe targets and them waits for his plaudits.

Assange's a toad...I've knows assholes like him all my life. I've got more respect for my worst enemy than I'll ever have for Julian Assange.

[Forkboy]

184. "I've knows assholes like him all my life"

You should probably find a new crowd to hang with...

[Chan790]

187. Conceded. n/m

[TheKentuckian]

163. Get off the high horse. People far more removed and innocent of doing harm to a soul

get zilched out every day over there and you ain't bellyaching about it at all.

In my priority list of who I'm worried getting taken out, they honestly rank pretty low but if y'all are worried be sure that we get them and their families out.

In any event, the most important thing is ending this crap and if some eggs get broken that's making the omelet then I'm going to call it collateral damage like all the little children and old people we blow up trying to make our objectives.

Feel free to put me on your cavalier and heartless list, I can totally take it. I don't really think you give two runny shits anyway and if you do you should have been trying to stop the whole shebang and save a whole lot more than informants, many of whom were going to face some heinous shit for what the people already knew about them as soon as they get half a chance.

I'm sure if we don't get them out there will be suffering but that's going to happen no matter what anyone does.

P.S.

Concerned noted.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

193. Did you post this only to personally and directly insult as many posters as possible?

No, no need to answer, that was rhetorical.

[smalll]

195. Hey GT --- looks like you were right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8842349

Kind of sad there are too many people around who assume that:

1) If you're a non-western brown person who is not Christian, you're a "good guy" (even if your religion/culture does things like make you unsure exactly what to do with women -- marry four at once, stop them from going to school, stop them from driving, force them to wear full-body coverings, and/or stone them to death) ---

2) Wherever the U.S. Armed Forces are in action, they are ipso facto the forces of evil, and whoever shoots at them (or at their "collaborators" -- yeah! anti-Taliban Afghans are JUST LIKE VICHY!!!) are the forces of good.

:shrug:

[cynatnite]

197. Honestly, these wikileaks about Afghanistan are very disturbing to me...

We currently have a relative serving there and his safety is very important to us. Not only that, I'm bothered by reports that this may cost lives. Things are bad enough there as it is and I don't see this as helping in any way. Also, and I'm liable to get torched over this...this leak reminds me of Valerie Plame in a way. The RW were minimizing her and the danger to her when she was outed. We all know differently. We cannot minimize the danger to others or their families who might have helped the military.

Most here are against the Afghan war and this is not about that. This is about intelligence being leaked. On one hand I fully support transparency, but on the other there are people whose lives depend on secrecy.

[mdmc]

205. Secrecy: The American Experience (1998)

perhaps what is "classified" should be done for a reason.
When sidewinder missiles are being used against us, is it really necessary to make that information public?

[jgraz]

201. Holy shit, what a clusterfuck of a thread

EPIC FAIL doesn't even begin to cover it. :eyes:

[mdmc]

203. No Snitch!

Don't snitch if ya want to live! <- Straight out of the ghetto's of America..

[GSLevel9]

204. tough case to judge...

On the one side, they're bringing light to the dark area of a dirty business...

And on the other hand they're endangering human lives to get their "story" out there...

I'll lean on the side of prosecuting WL.

[JonLP24]

206. Why is that information on a computer system in the first place

Asange said that if there is informations than most NATO troops and contractors have access to it. Again these had a relatively low level of classification. You don't put those names on paper.