Wikileaks reveals identity of Afgan informants

[Myrddraal]

Civilians are killed or wounded by NATO forces all the time; that's okay, but I'm supposed to be all tear-up because 20-something informants are in danger of dying(unless they're already dead or they escape)? Puh-lease.

And might I note that people are also calling for the murder of the people working for WikiLeaks.... But that's okay too, right?

You're supposed to at least show some regret when anyone looses their life. It's not okay for civilians to be killed by NATO forces. It's not okay to murder WikiLeaks people. You know this, but you are being disgracefully callous with the lives of others.

[seireikhaan]

When I said "20-something", I was referring to number, not age. Or in other words; you accept the death of 2000 but object to the death of 20.

That's nice of you to sum up my views of afghanistan and its people for me

Hah!

doesn't this count as flame-baiting or something?

I'm not the one who's, at least, heavily implying that certain people's and their family's deaths would be less tragic than others.

[Andres]

Civilians are killed or wounded by NATO forces all the time; that's okay, but I'm supposed to be all tear-up because 20-something informants are in danger of dying(unless they're already dead or they escape)? Puh-lease.

Ok, so you don't give a damn about an additional 20 victims, not including their families. Fine.

And might I note that people are also calling for the murder of the people working for WikiLeaks.... But that's okay too, right?

Not me. I'm not calling for anyone's dead. But mister Wikileaks deserves a serious spanking.

People who work for one side in a conflict all know that it's very likely that they will have to flee at some point. Gawd, that's a basic fact of life, and something they must have considered when they chose to help NATO. As they still wanted to help NATO, it must mean that they would not object to relocating to another country.

Ehm, are you seriously thinking that the their enemies will now sit and wait for a couple of weeks to give these people and their families a fair chance to flee the country? For all we know, they're already dead as we speak.

[HoreTore]

Also; why is it a given that these people are going to die?

There are thousands and thousands of afghanis working for NATO, why are these people moved to the top of Talibans hit-list, above the governor who supports the troops, the truck driver bringing supplies, the police officer, et etc?

And why is it a given that the Taliban will actually succeed in killing these, as the governor, truck driver and police officer are all still alive?

[Fragony]

And Fragony, you're constantly hammering about the safety of the informants, but when HoreTore mentions the possibility of shipping them over, you talk about 'our sins' as if you already left them there.

Why do you assume they want to be here? Maybe they want to live where they do? Maybe they have a good reason to not like the fundi's? What are the odds of that, someone who doesn't want a flatscreen, call out the hounds a sheep is confused.

[Skullheadhq]

Also; why is it a given that these people are going to die?

There are thousands and thousands of afghanis working for NATO, why are these people moved to the top of Talibans hit-list, above the governor who supports the troops, the truck driver bringing supplies, the police officer, et etc?

And why is it a given that the Taliban will actually succeed in killing these, as the governor, truck driver and police officer are all still alive?

The White House said it, it must be true, they never lied! Not even that time in Iraq, after all they did find WMDs and Saddam worked with Osama, it is proven!

Why do you assume they want to be here?

Because their life is in danger, you said it yourself!

[Andres]

Because their life is in danger, you said it yourself!

Thnx to your glorious absolute freedom of speech, they are now very much in danger indeed.

Not that publishing the names of these people has anything to do with freedom of speech, but let's not start nitpicking...

[Skullheadhq]

Thnx to your glorious absolute freedom of speech, they are now very much in danger indeed.

I should have posted it in brackets, but go ahead, limit freedom. But any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

[Furunculus]

If NATO had been completely open about their operations, then there would be no need for documents like this.

But because they try to cover it up when they screw up and don't give the full, unbiased story when civilians are killed, for example, actions like this is needed. NATO is to blame if any of their informants are whacked because of this. "National security" is nothing but a codeword for "military or political screw-up". It has been corrupted to a degree where there is very little of what is classified that is actually a threat to anything but the careers of military and political officials. Screw 'em.

In order for us to do our democratic duty, we need to know all the facts about what our armed forces are doing. Since they are unwilling to divulge such information themselves, it is fortunate that organizations like Wikileaks exists.

@Andres: Funny, I seem to remember a few embassy's going up in smoke.... But nah, I agree, terrorists have never killed anyone!

Neither Wikileaks nor Jyllandsposten killed anyone, but people may die because of their actions. I still believe that both had the right to do what they did, however. Free speech is free speech, I want no restrictions on it at all.

disagreed, by failing to redact the names and identifying information of these informants wikileaks assumed the duty of care for them......... and the consequent liability.

[Skullheadhq]

I just read that Julian Assange (Wikileaks 'leader') is in hiding since the 'Collateral Murder' video, America the land of the free my ***.

Wikileaks founder in hiding, fearful of arrest
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has gone into hiding, fearful of arrest by U.S. authorities, an Icelandic parliamentarian confirmed Friday.

“He’s just been following events in the U.S., and State Department press conferences and so forth, and they have been trying to get hold of him," Birgitta Jonsdottir, a close supporter of Assange in the Icelandic Parliament, said. “And obviously Julian Assange does not necessarily want to have a chapter written about any leaks.”

Authorities are interested in locating Assange following reports that an Army intelligence analyst, Bradley Manning, recently transferred a huge volume of classified files to Wikileaks. Manning is now in military custody.

Meanwhile, Assange's whereabouts are “a mystery,” Jonsdottir told ABC World News for a segment to be broadcast Friday night, “but we’re in touch every day.”

Asked whether the Wikileaks founder was fearful of arrest, Jonsdottir said, “Yes, very much so.”

Jonsdottir also added to widespread speculation in recent days that Wikileaks was about to release a new video, this once showing an alleged “massacre” of Afghan civilians in a U.S. airstrike.

She called it “worse than the Iraqi one,” referencing the video Wikileaks previously released showing a U.S. helicopter attack on Iraqi citizens that caused an international uproar.

“Hopefully” it will be released “very soon,” Jonsdottir said. “But for security reasons we choose not to give the exact time when we expect to publish it.”

“We’ll see what happens,” she said, “but something’s coming soon.”

In a recent e-mail to supporters, Assange said “the Garani massacre, which we are still working on, killed over 100 people, mostly children.”

Jonsdottir said the Icelandic Parliament last night “unanimously” passed legislation that would create an “international safe haven” for national security whistleblowers.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-t...e_video_i.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...om-hiding.html

[seireikhaan]

Also; why is it a given that these people are going to die?

There are thousands and thousands of afghanis working for NATO, why are these people moved to the top of Talibans hit-list, above the governor who supports the troops, the truck driver bringing supplies, the police officer, et etc?

And why is it a given that the Taliban will actually succeed in killing these, as the governor, truck driver and police officer are all still alive?

Because these informants are, in many cases, regular afghans who don't like the taliban, or taliban defectors. One example.

One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.

Informants are either regular folks or turncoats. They live in small villages, big towns, all sorts of places. They don't live in the military camp, or behind the security guards. They live out, in the open. That's how being an informant works. The point is to blend in, be the last person you'd expect to be working for NATO.NATO doesn't send Johnny American as a spy against the Taliban- that'd just succeed in getting him shot on sight.

So, if you really do care about the lives of Afghans, you'd be quite concerned about this report. IMO.

[Fragony]

I should have posted it in brackets, but go ahead, limit freedom. But any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Freedom of speech is simply protection from the government, so there is none of it here as the Amsterdam court decided to prosecute Wilders (and Nekschot). They will have to answer for it but not now.

[Skullheadhq]

Freedom of speech is simply protection from the government, so there is none of it here as the Amsterdam court decided to prosecute Wilders (and Nekschot). They will have to answer for it but not now.

Wilders shouldn't be prosecuted as well, discrimination is not an exception to freedom of speech and Article 1 should be removed, I only don't agree with the substitute Wilders has, that the Judeo-Christian culture is dominant. That is almost as abstract and worthless as the current.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What's the purpose of a site such as wikileaks? What's the origin of its function? My impression is that the function of "whistleblowing" derives from an ethical standard- the concept that accountability breeds more responsible behavior. To say they(and by extension other citizens) have a duty to keep governments and their respective military responsible is to imply an ethical standard. To publish, not just the names, but the families, of informants is exceedingly likely to lead to their deaths. Did these informants accept risk as a part of their job? Yes. Did the families accept this responsibility? Did their grandmother, or daughter, or son, or wife? I'm with Andres- there was no need to name names. At best, it was grossly negligent, and at worst, it was outright malicious. Given the comments to Dierspiegle, I'd venture to say the latter.


They have lost their credibility, at least to me. Their job is one rooted in ethical conduct. And they gave a death sentence to innocent people.

We need a wiki-leaks for wiki-leaks. They oughtta release their files--at least their informants will just be arrested

[miotas]

How did he get the information in the first place? If the military has lax security and lets out sensitive information, aren't they just as much to blame? This Julian bloke is just a journalist who got hold of a good story.

[Vladimir]

How did he get the information in the first place? If the military has lax security and lets out sensitive information, aren't they just as much to blame? This Julian bloke is just a journalist who got hold of a good story.

The military is as much to blame as is the law enforcement agency that has someone killed under its jurisdiction.

Think it through.

[Fragony]

Wilders shouldn't be prosecuted as well, discrimination is not an exception to freedom of speech and Article 1 should be removed, I only don't agree with the substitute Wilders has, that the Judeo-Christian culture is dominant. That is almost as abstract and worthless as the current.

It doesn't really matter what you think, enough playtime pappa is very tired.

[Skullheadhq]

The military is as much to blame as is the law enforcement agency that has someone killed under its jurisdiction.

Think it through.

That's bull**** and you know it, it is the same as the military having a crappy security system and your employees leak classified info to an Australian journalist who is almost placed on par with the Taliban in the backroom.

It doesn't really matter what you think, enough playtime pappa is very tired.

What is the Judeo-Christian culture? But keep believing in the trash your blond prophet throws around, you almost use as much ad-hominems as your blond prophet, I guess he's proud now.
Even Glenn Beck (!!!) calls him a fascist, when that happens you're truely a Mussolini, not a good sign for him.

[Andres]

How did he get the information in the first place? If the military has lax security and lets out sensitive information, aren't they just as much to blame? This Julian bloke is just a journalist who got hold of a good story.

Even journalists should take some responsibility, like blotting out names before publishing them so that people and their families don't get killed.

Of course, the military has a leak and that's not good. Of course, a journalist has every right to take advantage of it to publish a good story and to bring out "the truth". But he has to do so with responsibility. That is all. His neglect (or did he do it on purpose? It's not that hard to replace a name with X. And it doesn't take more than 2 brain cells to realise that publishing those names might bring those people in danger.) brings the lives of people in danger.

And he doesn't even say "sorry". Au contraire...

[miotas]

The military is as much to blame as is the law enforcement agency that has someone killed under its jurisdiction.

Think it through.

The informant situation is probably more like if the police have an informant but they let it get out and the informant is killed. Who's to blame?

Even journalists should take some responsibility, like blotting out names before publishing them so that people and their families don't get killed.

Of course, the military has a leak and that's not good. Of course, a journalist has every right to take advantage of it to publish a good story and to bring out "the truth". But he has to do so with responsibility. That is all. His neglect (or did he do it on purpose? It's not that hard to replace a name with X. And it doesn't take more than 2 brain cells to realise that publishing those names might bring those people in danger.) brings the lives of people in danger.

And he doesn't even say "sorry". Au contraire...

Just passing the buck, if anyone is to blame I say it is the original source, not the end result. The government is pissed and they want a scapegoat.

[Skullheadhq]

The informant situation is probably more like if the police have an informant but they let it get out and the informant is killed. Who's to blame?

Wikileaks of course!

[Andres]

The informant situation is probably more like if the police have an informant but they let it get out and the informant is killed. Who's to blame?

Your analogy doesn't work. It would be better if you said "a police officer told the story to a journalist. The journalist then published a very juicy story, but he forgot to leave out the name of the informant, who is now dead."

Who's to blame? The police officer leaking the information? Yes, he carries part of the blame. But is the journalist innocent? He could have published his juicy story without publishing the name of the informant who is now dead. Don't you agree that he carries at least part of the blame?

Surely, it's not too difficult to understand where exactly wikileaks made a mistake?

[Skullheadhq]

Surely, it's not too difficult to understand where exactly wikileaks made a mistake?

The part where they didn't went through 91000(!) pages to blot out all the name while not releasing 15000 (!) where there are more names.
The documents are benificial for society who was served lies and propaganda about the Afghanistan War since 2001, a few more days and the Netherlands is out of the ****hole that is Afghanistan. This sheds a whole new light to our national political debate where we can debate about the facts instead of about the lies from Washington. Luckily that Dutch Labour part let the cabinet fall for this massacre that is Afganistan, and now we finally know it was justified.

[Andres]

Just passing the buck, if anyone is to blame I say it is the original source, not the end result. The government is pissed and they want a scapegoat.

Fair enough.

Both are to blame.

[Andres]

The part where they didn't went through 91000(!) pages to blot out all the name while not releasing 15000 (!) where there are more names.

How did they know what was in those documents if they didn't read it themselves first?



Aren't journalists supposed to read the information they gather before publishing it, let alone writing conclusions based on the information they gathered?

EDIT: so, if I would give wikileaks a list of my groceries and tell them it's evidence that there have never been men on the moon, they would publish a big conspiracy story with my grocery list in attachement as "evidence"?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The documents are benificial for society who was served lies and propaganda about the Afghanistan War since 2001, a few more days and the Netherlands is out of the ****hole that is Afghanistan. This sheds a whole new light to our national political debate where we can debate about the facts instead of about the lies from Washington.

What did you learn from the documents that wasn't available elsewhere? How many have you read so far?

[Skullheadhq]

What did you learn from the documents that wasn't available elsewhere? How many have you read so far?

That Dutch soldiers shot down 12 civilians and killed 4, that's what has been found so far. Don't forget that they are there for an 'Opbouwmissie (Constuctionmission)' for aid to the country, we're not at war, and this debunks this.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That Dutch soldiers shot down 12 civilians and killed 4, that's what has been found so far. Don't forget that they are there for an 'Opbouwmissie (Constuctionmission)' for aid to the country, we're not at war, and this debunks this.

from a quick check of wiki:

Since NATO-ISAF took over command of the south on 31 July 2006, British, Dutch, Canadian and Danish ISAF soldiers in the provinces of Helmand, Uruzgan and Kandahar have come under almost daily attack. British commanders say the fighting for them is the fiercest since the Korean War, fifty years ago. BBC reporter Alistair Leithead, embedded with the British forces, called it in an article "Deployed to Afghanistan's hell"[20]

Because of the security situation in the south, NATO-ISAF commanders have asked member countries to send more troops. On 19 October, for example, the Dutch government decided to send more troops, because of the many attacks by suspected Taliban on their Task Force Uruzgan, which makes it very difficult to complete the reconstruction work they came to accomplish.

...

Dutch ISAF forces have, for example, used military force to protect eradication units that came under attack.

During June 2007 a Taliban offensive and a Dutch counterattack proved to be the heaviest fighting in Uruzgan province since ISAF extended its Area of Responsibility to the south of Afghanistan. A large part of Task Force Uruzgan's battlegroup took part in the Battle of Chora.

So, what did you learn from the documents that wasn't available elsewhere? How many have you read so far?

[Skullheadhq]

It was common knowledge it wasn't a reconstruction mission but a military intervention, only the politicians desperatly clinged on that they were constructing, doing good! The fact that they murdered 4 civilians will only increase political opposition so next sunday we'll be out, permanently.

The Dutch army (Landmacht and KNIL) has a huge track record of killing civilians, only this time they couldn't outsource it to the Serbs.

[Andres]

That Dutch soldiers shot down 12 civilians and killed 4, that's what has been found so far. Don't forget that they are there for an 'Opbouwmissie (Constuctionmission)' for aid to the country, we're not at war, and this debunks this.

a) To inform the Dutch people about that event, was it necessary to publish the names of the Afghan informants and bring their lives in danger?

b) my previous question: did wikileaks read their own information before publishing it or not?

- if the answer is yes, then they brought the lives of those people in danger on purpose. Nobody in his sane mind believes they "forgot" to blot those names out before publishing or that they "were not aware of the possible danger" this could cause for the individuals involved;

- if the answer is no, then wikileaks' credibility is worth zero. No journalist worthy of the name journalist publishes stuff he hasn't checked and doublechecked for himself first.