Top military official: WikiLeaks founder may have 'blood' on his hands

[nmbluesky]

Washington (CNN) -- The top U.S. military officer said Thursday that Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, was risking lives to make a political point by publishing thousands of military reports from Afghanistan.
"Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family," Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at a news conference at the Pentagon.
In equally stern comments and at the same session, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the massive leak will have significant impact on troops and allies, giving away techniques and procedures.
"The battlefield consequences of the release of these documents are potentially severe and dangerous for our troops, our allies and Afghan partners, and may well damage our relationships and reputation in that key part of the world," Gates said. "Intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures will become known to our adversaries."
Gates said the United States has been contacted by Afghanistan, Pakistan and "other governments" concerned about the leak. One of the lasting impacts, he said, is rebuilding trust that the U.S. military can keep secrets secret.
Assange has refused to say where his whistle-blower website got about 91,000 United States documents about the war. Some 76,000 of them were posted on the site Sunday in what has been called the biggest leak since the Pentagon Papers about the Vietnam War.
"I spent most of my life in the intelligence business, where the sacrosanct principle is protecting your sources. And that involves your sources trusting you to protect them and to protect their identities," Gates said. "That is one of the worst aspects of this, as far as I'm concerned. Will people trust us? Will people's whose lives are on the line trust us to keep their identities secret? Will other governments trust us to keep their documents and their intelligence secret?"
Gates said he called the FBI director to partner with the Pentagon in investigating the leak.
The defense secretary said the Pentagon is also reviewing procedures for handling classified information, which could affect the flow of valuable information to troops.
"In the wake of this incident, it will be a real challenge to strike the right balance between security and providing our frontline troops the information they need," Gates said. "We want those soldiers in a forward operating base to have all the information they possibly can have that impacts on their own security but also being able to accomplish their mission."
Perhaps surprisingly, the defense secretary said it was "only very recently" that he was made aware of the magnitude of the number of documents" that had been leaked. One of the main suspects in the current document leak investigation, according to military officials, had been arrested back in the spring and eventually charged with downloading thousands of documents and a video of a 2007 airstrike in Iraq that was published earlier this year by WikiLeaks.
Gates said the defense department did not know how many more documents were out there.
"The reality is, at this point, we don't know how many more there are out there ... it could be a substantial additional number of documents, and we have no idea what their content is, either," he said.
For those put at risk by the documents, the defense secretary said the U.S. has a "moral obligation" to protect those whose names appear in the documents.
WikiLeaks' founder has said the organization held back thousands of documents in order to redact information that could put people at risk. But CNN's own review of documents found instances of names of informants and those who cooperated against the Taliban, as well as names of suspected insurgents who were being watched.

[boppers]

1. Pentagon thinks *others* have blood on their hands...

:eyes:

[earthside]

2. My thoughts exactly ...

... look whose talking.

Sigh.

[nmbluesky]

4. Not surprised

N/T

[Whisp]

14. how much blood did the Plame outing case cause.

shhhhh. can't talk about That.

[Xipe Totec]

3. Oh Noes!

[NJmaverick]

5. Glad I didn't donate anything to this guy's operation

[geek tragedy]

6. It's one thing to releas a video.

It's another to do a gigantic dump of documents you don't have a firm grasp of.

[NJmaverick]

7. That's why it's best to leave journalism to the professionals

sadly the power of the press is still capable of getting people killed.

[boppers]

22. That's why he went to the press.

He had three major newspapers do the footwork on the documents.

[ngant17]

8. the pot can't call the kettle black

because in this instance, the founder of WikiLeaks strikes me as somewhat of a pacifist.

However, it's about as illogical as criticizing Pakistan intelligence for working with Taliban. The CIA and the military does this sort of black ops thing on a regular basis, Iran-Contra, the October Surprise, Operation Condor, ect. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

[Exilednight]

9. If this had happened under Bush, we would of been jumping up and down and calling this .............

kid a hero.

This administration should be ashamed of itself for even prosecuting this kid. Kid the kid out of the military if they must, but putting him in jail is not the answer.

And as far as "blood on his hands", it's total bullshit. Every news organization has stated that there is nothing new in these papers that wasn't already known. The only thing is now that we have a little clearer picture of the situation.

[Phx_Dem]

10. Speak for yourself. Leaking classified documents during war

it not a reason to celebrate. I hope they court marital the traitor who leaked it and, at minimum, fine WikiLeaks for "document dumping" of classified information. Wiki is not the press so they should get no "freedom of press" defense.

There was absolutely nothing new in these docs, except information about Afganistan people who are working for us and may now be killed. The leaker is a treasonous piece of shit, not a whistle blower and most certainly not a hero.

[Exilednight]

12. Total Bullshit. n/t

[NJmaverick]

13. No it's not

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/world/asia/29wikileaks.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3

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.

[Exilednight]

16. It's Total Bullshit. Smoke and mirrors to make you believe that we are fighting a ................

war on terror.

The taliban already knows who these people are. Who do you thinks gives these informants the information that is later fed to American forces?

If you're really so gullible as to believe that what this guy did caused harm to someone, then I have a toll booth on a bridge in Alaska I would like to sell you.

[BootinUp]

21. I can't figure out how to get to the twilight zone

to look at your bridge.

[Exilednight]

34. It's in the same dimension as the war on terror and this soldier's bloody hands. n/t

[xocet]

50. NYT, Judith Miller and the Iraq War....

Here is a historical look at the role of the NYT:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/23/1079939624187.html

Why trust them now? What has changed?

[earthside]

15. So, Ellsberg is not a hero?

He was, in my opinion.

[Exilednight]

17. They don't like when you hold the mirror up and show them their own reflection. n/t

[NJmaverick]

38. what exactly does that mean?

[BootinUp]

23. Not a very good comparison in reality.

Both certainly portrayed their wars in much grimmer terms than those in power would publicly acknowledge. The Pentagon Papers were quickly seized on by those who questioned and opposed the war; a similar fate seems likely for the Afghan archive.

But there are important differences. The key one is the nature of the documents and the substance of what they reveal. The Pentagon Papers were a complete, three-volume history of the war, a 7,000-page narrative spanning a 22-year period. They relied on some of the highest-level documentation possible: White House memos, military reports, CIA and State Department cables. They disclosed official secrets, such as the covert bombing of Laos and Cambodia, and outright lies, such as Lyndon Johnson's plans to widen the war in 1964 despite an explicit campaign pledge to the contrary.

By contrast, the Afghan documents -- more than 91,000 in all -- are a loosely related collection of material covering nearly six years (early 2004 through late 2009) that leaves out important context. Many of the documents are unedited, firsthand reports by military officials, some of which are routine after-action summaries. What's revealing about the material may be what's missing: classified documents that could shed further light on some of the incidents described in the raw material.


"We . . . need to be a little bit sophisticated about the nature of documents," says Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists' Project on Government Secrecy. "The fact that something is written down and even classified does not make it necessarily interesting or true. Documents can mislead as well as inform. The idea that this disclosure constitutes the true record, as opposed to everything we've learned up to now, is naive and ridiculous. These documents are one more collection of data points from which we have to assemble an understanding of what has gone on."

A further distinction: No single message has emerged from the Afghan documents the way it did from the Pentagon Papers.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/26/AR2010072605410.html

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

49. Heroes usually accomplish something positive.

So tell me, what's been accomplished?

[ngant17]

18. it's a phony war, like Gulf of Tonkin

except it isn't phony when all the innocents are getting killed in the crossfire, courtesy US Army and marines.

Keep on truckin', WikiLeaks!

[NJmaverick]

11. That's incorrect

from the NYT

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/world/asia/29wikileaks.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3

[vaberella]

37. They gave names?! Oh for God's sakes. n/t

[NJmaverick]

40. That's what happens when you have a shameless self promoter playing at journalist

the press still has power and if not used properly innocent people get killed like in this case.

[KingFlorez]

19. It was wrong no matter how you view things

I'm not a supporter of the operations in Afghanistan, but leaking this documents has put many in harm's way. This is a step too far.

[boppers]

20. Tell me who was injured as a *direct result*

Name names.

[KingFlorez]

28. We don't know who will be hurt

It's not like people have already been hurt (not that we know of), but there is high probability of that happening.

[zulchzulu]

24. Sometimes the truth has to come out so that a change in policy drastically begins

What WikiLeaks did with releasing information about the Afghanistan war and the TRUTH about its failures is something the military should embrace.

These documents prove what the military has been loath to admit. It should be seen as a gift to the military so that no more needless blood should be spilled for a corrupt narco-kleptocracy and an ally (Pakistan) that has been taking billions from the US while stabbing us in the back.

[Forkboy]

26. Thank you, double Z.

We rarely seem to agree, but this is heartening to see.

[BootinUp]

27. Because everyone thought

we were doing so well before? How can you possibly believe what you just wrote?

[zulchzulu]

36. The WikiLeak document release blows off the cover that the Pentagon messaging machine was doing

As I mentioned, the leak actually should help the military get out of a ridiculous situation and the mission can change.

Otherwise, it's endless press conferences where "we're making advances" and "we're getting things done"...

[Forkboy]

25. LOL...start a war and you're innocent. Call one out and you have blood on your hands,.

America...fuck yeah!!!!

[sabrina 1]

29. Imagine the Pentagon talking about 'blood' on someone's hands.

They are making fools of themselves with this obvious attempt to get the people who have exposed their lies.

They really are throwing a huge temper tantrum. Having told so many lies for so long, who do they think is going to believe them now?

[JVS]

52. LOL

[TheKentuckian]

30. Now, they're worried about lives lost

Fucking hilarious. Huge sackitude on that. How many innocents did we zilch out today?

Motherfuckers crying about informants and calling blown to hell babies collateral damage.

Wikileaks, thank you for your service! I salute and support you.

Please donate to keep this valuable service to our nation and the world going if you can spare it.

[Catherina]

32. +1. Done, donated. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

54. Thank you for you patriotism

[VMI Dem]

31. Me: Obama's War supporters definitely have blood on their hands.

[Catherina]

33. Indeed. n/t

[Exilednight]

35. K&R this statement. n/t

[NJmaverick]

41. The situation is no where near as simplistic as you think it is.

innocent Afghanis would die if there was the immediate withdrawal you call for (butchered at the hands of the conquering Taliban). You need to develop a more complex understanding of the situation.

[VMI Dem]

48. Can't wash that blood off your hands that easy.

It will always be there.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Wikileaks offered us gov chance to review release.

we declined that offer.

[NJmaverick]

42. That is not an excuse for Wiki Leaks getting innocent people killed

Wiki Leaks acted irresponsibly and now innocent people have died or are going to be killed

[Warren Stupidity]

43. eh?

what sort of babble is that? We declined to review these documents. We had an opportunity to have input on what was released and what wasn't. If wikileaks has blood on its hands over this, so do we.

p.s. innocent people are dead all over Afghanistan due to our direct actions.

[NJmaverick]

44. You steal secret documents from the government and when people get killed

because unlike a good journalist who would have put in the time and effort to read them and right a responsible summary article you lazily and recklessly post the whole bunch online then when you are called out for the people you got killed you claim it's the government you stole the documents from is at fault??? Sorry what's next you blame the US for letting Wiki Leaks steal them in the first place?

[Warren Stupidity]

45. again: us government declined offer to review docs.

plus I have no idea what 'wrecklessly' means.

plus what I said was that as we declined the offer we share the blame. 'Share', look it up.

[Sheepshank]

47. he says...without any proof

[xocet]

51. Prove it: otherwise, your reactionary statements are worthless. n/t

[Sheepshank]

46. yeah that piece of drivvel

has already been passed around without any proof.

[vaberella]

56. Please.

If it's true that wikileaks gave out names during a time of war----nothing fuckin' justifies that. Nothing.

[JVS]

53. Ah well, collateral damage, these things happen, what can you do?

[sabrina 1]

55. They don't happen if you care about and value the lives of human

beings. That means, you don't use cowardly drones to kill innocents thousands of miles away eg. And you don't escalate wars that have already killed far too many people for no reason. Who is responsible for the 66 dead U.S. troops this month? Where is the outrage over putting them in 'harm's way'?

I'm overwhelmed by the sudden 'concern' for the lives of Afghans among supporters for this ill-conceived war. I suppose if the release of these documents did nothing else other than to elicit just this small, thugh selective concern for Afghan lives, it is something.

But since I have opposed this war, out of concern for human life, from the beginning, I am amazed now to see people who showed zero concern for those lives before, suddenly develop a conscience.

And Gates, of all people! When did that warmonger ever care about the lives of brown people we routinely kill for profit? Otoh, maybe he too has suddenly become an advocate of human rights. But not enough to stop bombing those people, their families, their homes.

Speaking of human rights. Does this sudden concern for the lives of the people of Afghanistan mean that Gates will now order the closing down of the torture chambers in the hell-on-earth that we are overseeing in Bagram?

[Odin2005]

57. LOL, hypocrites.

[Clear Blue Sky]

58. And who put us into these wars? And keeps us there?

They don't have blood on their hands?