Wikileaks reveals identity of Afgan informants

[Skullheadhq]

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?

No

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

Partially, and no-one in any government has claimed that the info or the reports are false, so what value you give to their credibility doesn't matter, not even the governments doubt it , and it is their info.

[Jolt]

I am scoping out wikileaks. I absolutely love it, and have learned a ton of things which will be immensely valuable for my personal and professional life.

Such as reading the US Special Forces Advisor Guide, especifically on negotiations Modus Operandi. They break down to cultural groups and on how each cultural group reacts throughout the negotiations, and strategies to cope with such.

Wikileaks will probably be my summer school.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Horetore:

You ask what responsibility wikileaks bears in this, what NATO bears, etc.


Clearly, whatever system NATO had in place to protect these materials was insufficient. Obviously security over like materials needs to be made more effective. It is also a good idea to punish the leaker(s) involved so as to generate whatever deterrent effect may thereby be obtained.

Wikileaks is engaged in a journalist enterprise -- whistleblowing/forcing truth from the powers that be. This is a time-honored role for the 4th estate and a hallmark of free speech. However, professional ethicists in journalism have consistently held that journalists should make every effort to protect their sources and wherever possible to protect the "innocents" in their stories. In short, hammering the decision-makers for bad policies or malfeasance is okay, but you protect your sources and blot out the names of those who aren't the legitimate decision-maker targets involved.

The only valid reason for leaving the names in, under that professional rubric, would be if wikileaks actively wished to support the defeat of NATO's efforts in Afghanistan by providing information that would lead to the removal of local "assets" by the opposition and engender a chilling effect on the development of other HUMINT sources.

So which do you think it was, sloppy journalism or active support for the enemy?

[Jolt]

So which do you think it was, sloppy journalism or active support for the enemy?

I think they are on a "All the truth and nothing but the truth, everything revealed. Nothing hidden away."

It has its advantages and disadvantages.

EDIT: Like Buddha said "Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth."

[Crazed Rabbit]

This isn't freedom of speech. That's being able to say whatever you want.

Stealing thousands of secret documents relating to national security is not free speech.

This doesn't have anything to do with exposing a coverup; it's clear the prime aim is to simply reveal all the secrets of the US.

The complete lack of compassion some on the left have is on spectacular display here. Oh, they'll claim to be horrified by human deaths caused by the US. But the people who die because a man wants to stick it to the US and reveal national security secrets? They're not worth caring about.

CR

[Vladimir]

Oh Seamus,

He knows and likely just relishes in the attention. Don't try to reason with someone on either an emotional or unnatural high.

[drone]

[crowded theatre]

FIRE!

[/crowded theatre]

[HoreTore]

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...

If the Taliban was the kind of superduper swat team you're proposing they are, they would've won the war years ago.

But no. 99.99% of all those who cooperate with the enemy(NATO) doesn't get killed. And see absolutely NO reason why on earth these particular collaborators should die, when the thousands of others do not.

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.

.....In other words, these informants are exactly the same as the thousands of truck drivers supplying NATO whom the Taliban has said a billion times that they will kill. The Taliban knows exactly who they are, and yet they still live; I wonder why?

[Skullheadhq]

active support for the enemy?

This is very interesting, what would happen if Wikileaks released it to weaken the position of the NATO is Afghanistan, what would happen?

[HoreTore]

This is very interesting, what would happen if Wikileaks released it to weaken the position of the NATO is Afghanistan, what would happen?

Are we not allowed to vote for the withdrawal of all our troops from Afghanistan too? I believe it is well within our democratic rights to weaken NATO's position. Patriotism is fortunately not mandatory.

BTW, this is the kind of stuff I for one find very interesting... And since the US government won't play with an open hand, I love WikiLeaks.

[Skullheadhq]

Are we not allowed to vote for the withdrawal of all our troops from Afghanistan too? I believe it is well within our democratic rights to weaken NATO's position. Patriotism is fortunately not mandatory.

I know, but America wouldn't be too happy about it.

[HoreTore]

I know, but America wouldn't be too happy about it.

Luckily, there are plenty of anti-war demonstrations in the US.

[Fragony]

I know, but America wouldn't be too happy about it.

Wut we just did it, not that I agree but Uruzgan was just handed over to the yanks/ozzies.

[Skullheadhq]

Wut we just did it, not that I agree but Uruzgan was just handed over to the yanks/ozzies.

Party Time! What had the Netherlands to win with going to the 'Graveyard of Empires' to begin with except to please our American overlords anyway?

[Beskar]

In this spirit of openness. I believe HoreTore should post his name, date of birth, his account number, bank sorting code, the number on the card, the name on the card, his address, and the last 3 digits of the cards security number.

Afterall, if you don't, you must be hiding something, like your funding of terrorist groups, and your subscription to "Maths is Sexy".

Freedom of Information, there is surely no negative consequences of you posting this information.

[Skullheadhq]

In this spirit of openness. I believe HoreTore should post his name, date of birth, his account number, bank sorting code, the number on the card, the name on the card, his address, and the last 3 digits of the cards security number.

Afterall, if you don't, you must be hiding something, like your funding of terrorist groups, and your subscription to "Maths is Sexy".

Freedom of Information, there is surely no negative consequences of you posting this information.

This is so terribly on the person.

[Brenus]

Is this information true? Because from “nothing new on these documents we didn’t know yet” it became “oh, the horrible traitor gave secret intelligence to the enemies” thing.

The one I read was just a Operational Report on a successful ambush by the Taliban against a Franco-US-Afghan operation, where the French being spare head suffered heavy casualties… Nothing really special…

Now, I watch numerous documentaries on Afghanistan and the faces of the Allies interlocutors are shown without any problems (not the translators) or the ones of the Afghan Army.
Doctors treating elderly, women, children, all of them are shown…

So, what make the eventual link of names different?

[Vladimir]

So, what make the eventual link of names different?

How about names, name of the father, village they live in...?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is this information true? Because from “nothing new on these documents we didn’t know yet” it became “oh, the horrible traitor gave secret intelligence to the enemies” thing.

The one I read was just a Operational Report on a successful ambush by the Taliban against a Franco-US-Afghan operation, where the French being spare head suffered heavy casualties… Nothing really special…

Now, I watch numerous documentaries on Afghanistan and the faces of the Allies interlocutors are shown without any problems (not the translators) or the ones of the Afghan Army.
Doctors treating elderly, women, children, all of them are shown…

So, what make the eventual link of names different?

Most of the documents will probably be boring after action report stuff. Even with tens of thousands of released documents, the number of names/identifying characteristics divulged will be relatively small.

Horetore:

You'll note that my critique never said they didn't have a right to publish or a right to critique the policy. Both are fundamental to freedom of speech and the role of the 4th estate as a watchdog.

My critique said that 1) NATO has to do a better job of protecting such information, and 2) that I believe wikileaks failed to properly excise the names/characteristics of locals involved with NATO. The latter constitutes, in my mind, either very sloppy journalism (most likely answer here) or an active effort to support the enemy.

The press may well have a duty to oppose policies it believes are against the best interests of its readership or of humanity in general, and to be both active and vociferous in its efforts to expose "cover-ups" and present its viewers with the truth. It does NOT have the duty to aid and abet the enemy at whom the policy is aimed in order to combat that policy. All of our societies have accepted means of peacefully persuading our politicos to do something different -- including the influence of a free press on public opinion. THAT is the appropriate venue for wikileaks efforts.

You, to all appearances, oppose the conflict in Afghanistan. You are free to lobby your government by any legal means to withdraw Norwegian participation in the NATO effort there. If you feel strongly about the issue, it may well be your moral DUTY to do so. Were you to send money to support Taliban fighters in their struggle against NATO forces, you would have gone beyond the pale and acted criminally.

[Brenus]

“How about names, name of the father, village they live in...?”
I haven’t all the documents but I understood it was SITREP, Report on Situation.
So, I can’t imagine somebody giving this kind on info on this kind of communication.

I don’t think it is wise to give this kind of information (if they were published) but the newspapers have to do their jobs. As far I understood, the raw documents were sold to 3 main newspapers, so it is up to the journalists to publish and to do what they want to do.

In another hand, I doubt the Taliban being so powerful than they can retaliate with so much efficiency. If they are, it is time to bring the boys back home, man.

[Centurion1]

Some of you make me sick

[Major Robert Dump]

I doubt the Taliban have access to the Internet, luckily.

You are kidding, right?

[Major Robert Dump]

HORETORE:

They get their trucks RPGd on a daily basis, and frequently kidnapped.

Teachers who take a government paycheck are kidnapped and executed. Men on construction road crews are kidnapped and executed.

Anyone who is seen as "cooperating," which can also be actively unwilling to fight NATO or join the Taliban, is a target.

The Taliban doesn't kill more because many of these victims fight back, and because NATO limits their freedom of movement.

[Fragony]

Not to mention the hanging of a 5 year old spy. What planet are some of you from and how did you get here. I keep underestimating the lack of empathy of the left why that gleeful delight, love humanity hate the people huh.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I doubt the Taliban have access to the Internet, luckily.

My usual comment applies: the world has changed.


We are not talking about people with a kalashnikov and a mule or a camel anymore. The entire world has got a mobile phone and a laptop. Do you know there are more mobile phone subscriptions in Africa than there are people in Europe? Africans are not starving people with flies on their faces. They busy themselves text messaging each other over Didier Drogba's shot that went just wide. We passed the five billion mobile phone subscriptions mark earlier this month.

There are a million Islamist websites, in any language you like. One can even buy a ringtone of your favourite Islamist group.

If only I had a time machine to 1967, I would make a futuristic movie entitled '2010' that would blow the audience away! What a world, what times we live in!


Direct Taliban websites are under constant attack, so most of them are dowm most of the time. Try here: http://milnewsca.wordpress.com/tag/www-alemarah-info/.

[PanzerJaeger]

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

Indeed, it is quite amazing to me just how transparent NATO has been, considering this is a war and all. Out of more than 90,000 reports, there is precious little information to be found that wasn't already available. Of course, to some here who are predisposed to anti-American and/or anti-military sentiments, it will never be enough.

HORETORE:

They get their trucks RPGd on a daily basis, and frequently kidnapped.

Teachers who take a government paycheck are kidnapped and executed. Men on construction road crews are kidnapped and executed.

Anyone who is seen as "cooperating," which can also be actively unwilling to fight NATO or join the Taliban, is a target.

The Taliban doesn't kill more because many of these victims fight back, and because NATO limits their freedom of movement.

God help those poor people when we pack it in next year.

[Louis VI the Fat]

God help those poor people when we pack it in next year.

Indeed. The Taliban have announced their new policy is to kill all informants.


One of the Taleban's favourite website seems to be a specialised American War blog, where both sides get a lot of their information from: http://www.longwarjournal.org/

When the Pakistani Taliban claimed credit for the failed Times Square bombing, they did it via an American terrorism blog. John Avlon talks to the guy who both the U.S. military and the terrorists get their news from.

The scoop came straight from the Taliban to a house in southern New Jersey at 2 a.m., where Bill Roggio—the founder of LongWarJournal.org—was sleeping with his wife and three children.

The subject header read: “Qari Hussain Mehsud from Tehreek e Taliban Pakistan accepts the responsibility of recent Attack on Times Square Newyork USA.”
Hours later, a second email was sent from a Gmail account—the text was oddly cordial, even complimentary, in its clipped English introduction to the chilling video clips attached:
“hi
you’re again the first one to see it
share it with as many as you can
I appreciate your site, only few things are confusing to you, rest is clear”

And so Roggio received the first claim of credit for the attempted Times Square bombing, which had been foiled less than four hours before.

“I just was sort of blown away,” Roggio told me two days later. “It was surreal and shocking… like, ‘Why the hell are they contacting me?’ I was just very confused, and almost concerned that it was fake.” But a quick check of sources confirmed the email was authentic. Roggio linked to the video on YouTube early Sunday morning, affirming the Pakistani Taliban’s role in at least training the would-be bomber in the attack and establishing that Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud was not dead, as previously reported. While journalists and agents scrambled for information in the hours after the bomb-laden Nissan Pathfinder was found smoking in Times Square, the donation-supported Long War Journal had scooped mainstream news—and even gotten ahead of the U.S. government—because of its Taliban fans.

The radically anti-modern Taliban, it seems, follow their own exploits on Western websites that chronicle the U.S. military’s fight against radical Islam like B-movie actresses scour the gossip page.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-a...orite-website/

[Fragony]

Sometimes you just know you live in a Monthy Pyton sketch

[Brenus]

“They get their trucks RPGd on a daily basis, and frequently kidnapped.
Teachers who take a government paycheck are kidnapped and executed. Men on construction road crews are kidnapped and executed.
Anyone who is seen as "cooperating," which can also be actively unwilling to fight NATO or join the Taliban, is a target.”
So, the Taliban don’t need a list of names. They just watch who do what then kill.

In short, the out rage against Wikileaks seems really build to me. As Major Robert Dump mentioned Taliban don't need Wikileaks to do their killing.

“Out of more than 90,000 reports, there is precious little information to be found that wasn't already available”
I think it good material for future historians.
In term of military intelligence, to know the time of incoming shelves from artillery support or helicopters won’t help the Taliban much as it change each time and they are able to do the count by themselves.

I don’t like the idea of military documents leak to the public without proper time frame.
But the hysteria I see in some comments is out of proportion. Nothing I heard was new to me or others interested in the conflicts.
The implication of Pakistani Secret Service in the development then support of the Taliban is known from the 1980, and was never really questioned and you would be very naïve if you didn’t know the involvement of Special Forces even if only reading regular newspapers (e.g. 2 French KIA of last years were from the 13 Regiment de Dragons Parachutistes, specialised in Long Range Patrols and Deep Recon/Spying/killing (Chuteurs Operationels)).
And this was printed in local newspapers.

In short, as mentioned by Panzer who can’t be suspected of Anti-Americanism or Anti-Patriotism, nothing really damaging for the NATO forces…
So, until somebody come-up with proof that names of very vulnerable informants were leak out of the usual norms used by all (French, Canadian, US or English) documentaries I saw on TV, I will be sceptic of the reality of these leaks.

In my opinion, the documentaries of the Canadian Army Training before to go to Afghanistan was more damaging for NATO forces than 90.000 documents very boring to read.
Of course, Taliban al ready knew it, so it was not really something new…

So, as we say in French, some should dismount from the big horses and use their brain.
Basic training in history teaches to question who, when and why (backgrounds) documents or information are given to the Public.
I know for Wikileaks.
And I think I know for the contra-fire…

“God help those poor people when we pack it in next year”: Yeah. Like the poor former President Daoud, taken from the UN Embassy and hanged, in the World general Indifference

[HoreTore]

HORETORE:

They get their trucks RPGd on a daily basis, and frequently kidnapped.

Teachers who take a government paycheck are kidnapped and executed. Men on construction road crews are kidnapped and executed.

Anyone who is seen as "cooperating," which can also be actively unwilling to fight NATO or join the Taliban, is a target.

The Taliban doesn't kill more because many of these victims fight back, and because NATO limits their freedom of movement.

Yes, of course I bloody well know that. That kinda fits in with my point, you know.

They are now a target. 20 new targets among one million previous targets. I see no reason why they should get top priority on Talibans hit-list, and at any rate, if they are killed, then the Taliban will have to use resources to kill them that they will otherwise have used to kill a construction worker or something.

1-1

In short, the out rage against Wikileaks seems really build to me. As Major Robert Dump mentioned Taliban don't need Wikileaks to do their killing.

With two sentences in his first post, Brenus neatly sums up the point I've tried/failed to convey over dozens of post...

You do realize that I will have to kill you now, right?