Home · Maps · About

Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

(641198)

view threaded

Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban

Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 26 02:40:13 2010

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Funny how they expose that after all the open aid the latter received from the former over the decades.

al-Reuters

Pakistan secretly helping Taliban: report

By Adam Entous and Jonathon Burch
Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:07am EDT
KABUL/WASHINGTON (Reuters) — Pakistan was actively collaborating with the Taliban in Afghanistan while accepting U.S. aid, new U.S. military reports showed, a disclosure likely to increase the pressure on Washington's embattled ally.

The revelations by the organization Wikileaks emerged as Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned of greater NATO casualties in Afghanistan as violence mounts over the summer.

It also came as the Taliban said they were holding captive one of two U.S. servicemen who strayed into insurgent territory, and that the other had been killed. The reported capture will further erode domestic support for America's nine-year war.

Documents leaked by Wikileaks said representatives from Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence met directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize militant networks fighting U.S. soldiers.

The White House condemned the leak, saying it could threaten national security and endanger the lives of Americans. Pakistan said leaking unprocessed reports from the battlefield was irresponsible.

U.S. national security adviser Jim Jones said the leak would not affect "our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan".

The revelations were contained in more than 90,000 classified documents which U.S. officials focused on the period leading to the launch of President Barack Obama's Afghan strategy last December, when he authorized deployment of 30,000 additional troops.

Violence in Afghanistan is at its highest of the 9-year-old war as the thousands of extra U.S. troops step up their campaign to drive insurgents out of their traditional heartland in the south.

"As we continue our force levels and our operations over the summer ... we will likely see further tough casualties and levels of violence," Admiral Mullen told reporters in Kabul on Sunday.

The United States has repeatedly urged Pakistan to hunt down militant groups, including some believed to have been nurtured by the ISI as strategic assets in Afghanistan and against arch rival India. Islamabad says it is doing all it can to fight the militancy, adding it was a victim of terrorism itself.
MISSING US SOLDIERS
Two U.S. servicemen were reported missing on Friday after they failed to return in a vehicle they had taken from their compound in Kabul, the NATO-led force said.

A spokesman for the NATO-led force declined to comment on the Taliban's announcement it was holding one of the men, both from the U.S. Navy.

The Navy described both men as still missing.

"We have the body of the dead soldier and the other one who is alive. We have taken them to a safe place," said Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid by telephone from an undisclosed location.

Rumors circulated in local and international media about the fate of the missing men and how they had managed to stray into an insurgent-controlled area in Logar province, a short but dangerous 100 km (60 miles) drive south of the capital. One provincial official said alcohol was found in their vehicle.

Last month was the deadliest for foreign troops since 2001, with more than 100 killed, and civilian deaths have also risen as ordinary Afghans are increasingly caught in the crossfire.

The only other foreign soldier believed held by the Taliban is Idaho National Guardsman Bowe Bergdahl, whose capture in June last year triggered a massive manhunt. His captors have issued videos of him denouncing the war, in what the U.S. military has called illegal propaganda.

(Additional reporting by Alister Bull in Washington; Writing by Sanjeev Miglani; Editing by Ron Popeski)


Post a New Response

(641263)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban

Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jul 26 09:09:57 2010, in response to Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 26 02:40:13 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Pakistan said leaking unprocessed reports from the battlefield was irresponsible.

Interesting choice of words. Very Yes, Minister.

U.S. national security adviser Jim Jones said the leak would not affect "our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan".

= "we're fucked".

Post a New Response

(641264)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban

Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jul 26 09:12:24 2010, in response to Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 26 02:40:13 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Lives lost. Billions wasted(mostly during the Bush years). Frustrating.

Post a New Response

(641329)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban

Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 26 14:12:00 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jul 26 09:09:57 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Maybe if they'd actually fight, they'd win.

Post a New Response

(641331)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban

Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 26 14:13:30 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by LuchAAA on Mon Jul 26 09:12:24 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Some countries are just not fit to govern themselves.

Post a New Response

(641346)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban

Posted by ClearAspect on Mon Jul 26 14:57:45 2010, in response to Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 26 02:40:13 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
This looks like a job for Captain Obvious....

Ok enough joking, let's be real, I think even the dumbest redneck down in the bayou could tell you that Pakistan at least internally is working on both ends. It works to their benefit to do so. By at least on the surface supporting the US in their fight against the Taliban and having those who hate the taliban in the Military they get the funding for the US, by helping the Taliban they keep instability in the region which for those who want to keep power is a good thing. If Afghanistan were stable and could reap profits from the materials they could grow and mine it could be a problem for Pakistan (and Iran) especially if the Afghani government didn't like Pakistan and forged alliances with not only the US but India.

I always said this, the biggest mistake made when it came to fighting Al Qaeda was we didn't take it seriously enough. What I mean was, we should've never tried to Negotiate with the taliban, we should've struck hard, and with a lot more in terms of troop levels i.e. 500-700K troops. Hit hard, hit fast, and never gave the taliban / Al Qaeda forces time to even get to Pakistan. If we took this war seriously from the outset, we wouldn't be where we are now. Afghanistan was and is more important that Iraq.

Post a New Response

(641416)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks also says Iran helping the Taliban

Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 26 18:03:47 2010, in response to Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 26 02:40:13 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
And this is something that some lefties don't believe. The bit about Pakistan they find believable, though. Thanks again, Hauptmann Obvious . . .

AFP via Yahoo News

Iran gives Taliban support: leaked papers

Mon Jul 26, 2:56 am ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Iran is waging a covert campaign against US-led forces in neighboring Afghanistan by providing money, arms, training and safe haven to Taliban insurgents, according to leaked US military intelligence.

Reports from Afghan spies and paid informants, described in papers published on whistleblower website Wikileaks, accuse the Iranian government of directly supporting the insurgents.

These "threat reports" cannot be corroborated, the Guardian newspaper said in a report summarizing the Iran findings, but high-level US diplomatic communications indicate concern over Iran's growing involvement in the country.

"Iran has taken a series of steps to expand and deepen its influence in Afghanistan," reads a summary of a secret cable sourced to the US embassy in Kabul and written by a deputy general.

The cable relayed claims from within the Afghan foreign ministry that Iran was bribing Afghan MPs with millions of US dollars and working to oust reformist ministers.

Tehran, which initially supported the US drive to unseat Afghanistan's Taliban regime, denies it is working against President Hamid Karzai's Western-backed government.

In a document dated March 2009, US military intelligence said a group of more than 100 Afghan and foreign Taliban had travelled from Iran to Afghanistan to launch suicide attacks.

In May the same year, General Stanley McChrystal, then US and NATO commander, said according to the documents: "The training (of insurgents) that we have seen occurs inside Iran with fighters moving inside Iran."

A threat report dated February 2005 alleged Taliban leaders in Iran were planning attacks in Helmand and Uruzgan provinces.

"The leaders travel into Afghanistan to recruit soldiers," said the report.

It added the Iranian government had offered each leader about 1,740 dollars for any Afghan soldier killed and 3,480 dollars for any government official.

Another report from January 2005 said that Iranian intelligence services paid 10 million Afghanis (212,000 dollars) to the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin rebel militia.

A statement sourced to "human intelligence" in June 2006 said Iranian officials were training members of the Taliban and Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin in Birjand, Iran.

Bombs and vehicles for suicide bombers were sent into Afghanistan from there, the same report said, while two other reports also spoke of bomb-making equipment coming from Iran.

One report dated February 2007 said Helmand residents believed Iran had supplied the Taliban with a poison to be slipped into the tea or food of government officials.

At least one document referred to the Afghan government's reluctance to publicize Iran's alleged involvement with its enemies, stressing that Karzai wanted "to avoid additional friction with Afghanistan's neighbors."


Post a New Response

(641539)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban

Posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 26 22:56:17 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by ClearAspect on Mon Jul 26 14:57:45 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
What I mean was, we should've never tried to Negotiate with the taliban, we should've struck hard, and with a lot more in terms of troop levels i.e. 500-700K troops. Hit hard, hit fast,

A Draft takes years to set up. You can't hit them fast under your plan.

If we took this war seriously from the outset, we wouldn't be where we are now.

That I agree with.

Post a New Response

(641586)

view threaded

Wikileaks Julian Assange: Hero or Anti-War Nut?

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 27 02:12:43 2010, in response to Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 26 02:40:13 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Imagine someone like this being around during WWII. His attitude is that all who "wage war" are a danger. So who do you want to win, M. Assange? You'll be increasingly more in danger in a Europe that's growing more militaristic.

Der Spiegel

07/26/2010
WikiLeaks Founder Julian Assange on the 'War Logs'

'I Enjoy Crushing Bastards'

In a SPIEGEL interview, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, 39, discusses his decision to publish the Afghanistan war logs, the difficult balance between the public interest and the need for state secrets and why he believes people who wage war are more dangerous than him.

SPIEGEL: You are about to publish a vast amount of classified data on the war in Afghanistan. What is your motivation?

Assange: These files are the most comprehensive description of a war to be published during the course of a war — in other words, at a time when they still have a chance of doing some good. They cover more than 90,000 different incidents, together with precise geographical locations. They cover the small and the large. A single body of information, they eclipse all that has been previously said about Afghanistan. They will change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars.

SPIEGEL: Do you think that the publication of this data will influence political decision-makers?

Assange: Yes. This material shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war. The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence.

SPIEGEL: Aren't you expecting a little too much?

Assange: There is a mood to end the war in Afghanistan. This information won't do it alone, but it will shift political will in a significant manner.

SPIEGEL: The material contains military secrets and names of sources. By publishing it, aren't you endangering the lives of international troops and their informants in Afghanistan?

Assange: The Kabul files contain no information related to current troop movements. The source went through their own harm-minimization process and instructed us to conduct our usual review to make sure there was not a significant chance of innocents being negatively affected. We understand the importance of protecting confidential sources, and we understand why it is important to protect certain US and ISAF sources.

SPIEGEL: So what, specifically, did you do to minimize any possible harm?

Assange: We identified cases where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent. Those records were identified and edited accordingly.

SPIEGEL: Is there anything that you consider to be a legitimate state secret?

Assange: There is a legitimate role for secrecy, and there is a legitimate role for openness. Unfortunately, those who commit abuses against humanity or against the law find abusing legitimate secrecy to conceal their abuse all too easy. People of good conscience have always revealed abuses by ignoring abusive strictures. It is not WikiLeaks that decides to reveal something. It is a whistleblower or a dissident who decides to reveal it. Our job is to make sure that these individuals are protected, the public is informed and the historical record is not denied.

SPIEGEL: But in the end somebody has to decide whether you publish or not. Who determines the criteria? WikiLeaks considers itself to be a trailblazer when it comes to freedom of information, but it lacks transparency in its own publishing decisions.

Assange: This is ridiculous. We are clear about what we will publish and what we will not. We do not have adhoc editorial decisions. We always release the full primary sources to our articles. What other press organization has such exacting standards? Everyone should try to follow our lead.

SPIEGEL: The problem is that it is difficult to hold WikiLeaks accountable. You operate your servers in countries that offer you broad protection. Does WikiLeaks consider itself to be above the law?

Assange: WikiLeaks does not exist in outer space. We are people who exist on Earth, in particular nations, each of which have a particular set of laws. We have been legally challenged in various countries. We have won every challenge. It is courts that decide the law, not corporations or generals. The law, as expressed by constitutions and courts, has been on our side.

SPIEGEL: You have said that there is a correlation between the transparency for which you are fighting and a just society. What do you mean by that?

Assange: Reform can only come about when injustice is exposed. To oppose an unjust plan before it reaches implementation is to stop injustice.

SPIEGEL: During the Vietnam War, US President Richard Nixon once called Daniel Elsberg, the leaker of the Pentagon Papers, the most dangerous man in America. Are you today's most dangerous man or the most endangered?

Assange: The most dangerous men are those who are in charge of war. And they need to be stopped. If that makes me dangerous in their eyes, so be it.

SPIEGEL: You could have started a company in Silicon Valley and lived in a home in Palo Alto with a swimming pool. Why did you decide to do the WikiLeaks project instead?

Assange: We all only live once. So we are obligated to make good use of the time that we have and to do something that is meaningful and satisfying. This is something that I find meaningful and satisfying. That is my temperament. I enjoy creating systems on a grand scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards. So it is enjoyable work.

Interview conducted by John Goetz and Marcel Rosenbach


Post a New Response

(641655)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks Julian Assange: Hero or Anti-War Nut?

Posted by cortelyounext on Tue Jul 27 09:28:59 2010, in response to Wikileaks Julian Assange: Hero or Anti-War Nut?, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 27 02:12:43 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
The source went through their own harm-minimization process and instructed us to conduct our usual review to make sure there was not a significant chance of innocents being negatively affected... We identified cases where there may be a reasonable chance of harm occurring to the innocent.

Non sequitur after non sequitur. Harm minimization process? Significant chance? Reasonable chance? Apparently, this guy can and will rationalize away anything and everything. I understand the need to reveal corruption and incompetence but at what cost? Why can something called WikiLeaks make a unilateral decision to release classified documents. Aside from legality issues, what formal training do these people have to make any determination whatsoever that these documents need not be classified, that they will not compromise sources nor endanger personnel? If some 39 year old computer hacker like Assange can make the decision to release classified documents what is to prevent anyone at anytime for any reason from doing likewise? I truly understand the need for rigorous oversight and real accountability and transparency within the military, something that is lackin and needs to be addressed, but I also understand the reality that safely and successfully accomplishing the mission requires safeguards put in place for just that purpose, one of which is maintaining security in the prosecution of war. Stop playing G-d.

Post a New Response

(641657)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks Julian Assange: Hero or Anti-War Nut?

Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jul 27 09:32:01 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks Julian Assange: Hero or Anti-War Nut?, posted by cortelyounext on Tue Jul 27 09:28:59 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
I heard an idiot on the radio saying the taxpayers have a right to see the documents because it's our money that's paying for the war. I don't agree with that.

Post a New Response

(641687)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks Julian Assange: Hero or Anti-War Nut?

Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 27 12:14:30 2010, in response to Wikileaks Julian Assange: Hero or Anti-War Nut?, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 27 02:12:43 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Nut. His motivation is partisan and dangerous, even if the information he leaked should have been.

Post a New Response

(641700)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban

Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jul 27 13:03:46 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 26 14:12:00 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Fight Pakistan as well?

Post a New Response

(641935)

view threaded

Wikileaks a threat to national security: Pentagon (long)

Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 28 07:32:05 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks Julian Assange: Hero or Anti-War Nut?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Jul 27 12:14:30 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Assange certainly is making enemies in high places. His paranoia evident in this interview reflects that. Wonder how many innocent deaths Assange may be indirectly responsible for, and if he's got an employer.

Der Spiegel (if Bertelsmann is watching him this closely, that means that the German elite is as well)

07/27/2010
The Whistleblowers

Is WikiLeaks a Blessing or Curse for Democracy?

By John Goetz and Marcel Rosenbach

The whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks, which posted the Afghanistan war logs this week, has made publishing government secrets its mission. Many see founder Julian Assange as a hero, but others, including the Pentagon, consider him a threat to national security.

He walks in quickly, a spring in his step. Even before greeting anyone in the room, he searches for a power outlet for his small, black computer.

It's a simple, inexpensive notebook, but the world's intelligence agencies would pay a lot of money for the chance to see what's on it.

The man's name is Julian Assange. He has just come from Stockholm, following a brief stay in Brussels. Before that, he was off the radar for a couple of weeks.

Assange is practically a wanted man these days. It's almost as if he were on the run.

Five agents from the United States Department of Homeland Security tried to pay him a visit two weeks ago, just before he was scheduled to speak at a conference in New York. But their efforts were in vain. Assange decided to stay in England after his attorney had told him that various other US government agencies were also very interested in speaking with him. US Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently characterized Assange and his work as "irresponsible."

A Forum for Anonymous Leaks

Assange is the founder of the Internet platform wikileaks.org. Together with a handful of full-time employees and many volunteers, he has operated the site since 2007. WikiLeaks gathers and publishes material that companies and government agencies have designated as secret. The site acts as a forum for whistleblowers and only publishes original documents — in other words, no rumors or material written by the WikiLeaks staff.

In the past, WikiLeaks has published e-mails written by former US vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin, exposés about the corrupt activities of former Kenyan leader Daniel Arap Moi and secret documents from the US detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. At that time, the site was mainly visited by insiders, but it gained international attention in April, when Assange invited a group of journalists to the National Press Club in Washington to watch a video.

The film showed the deadly 2007 attack by an American Apache helicopter on a group of about a dozen civilians in Baghdad, two of them employees of the Reuters news agency. The voices of the helicopter crew were also audible, their cynical comments only adding to the horror of the images on the video. Since the incident, Reuters had tried in vain to obtain a copy of the video. Assange, however, managed to get one. It was his biggest scoop to date.

A Threat to National Security

For some people, Assange and his collaborators are heroes fighting for total freedom of information and against any form of censorship. But for others they are traitors.

From the standpoint of the American authorities, the Australian is a serious threat to national security — something the Pentagon has even put in writing. As early as 2008, the US military classified WikiLeaks as a serious security problem and discussed how best to combat the site. That document was also leaked to Assange — and then published on wikileaks.org.

Since then, some have voiced concerns about his safety, and even his life. But it isn't quite clear whether the man who is now firing up his computer in London is dangerous or in danger. He is certainly conspicuous: a tall, thin man with snow-white hair and skin that seems unnaturally pale for the summer — partly because he has spent the last few weeks preparing his next project and hardly ever going outdoors during the day.

In a room on the fifth floor of the building that houses the offices of the Guardian, he is giving the British daily newspaper, the New York Times and SPIEGEL an early look at a group of more than 90,000 individual reports from the war in Afghanistan, most of which are marked "secret."

'Everyday Brutality'

The publication of this archive, says Assange, will not only change the way the public sees the war, it will also "change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence." According to Assange, the documents "shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war" and will "change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars."

The archive contains intelligence information, assessments and many names, both of military officials and sources. The publication of secret military documentation of a war, which was never intended for the public, raises new questions. Is this journalism, covered by the public's right to information? Is it a legitimate look behind the propaganda machinery of the war? Or is it an act of espionage, and are Assange and his collaborators making themselves guilty of revealing government secrets? And are they ultimately jeopardizing the international troops and the Afghan informants helping them?

Part 2: A Database on a Flash Drive

WikiLeaks and sites like it have already changed the way governments and corporations handle sensitive information.

There have always been whistleblowers, employees of companies or government agencies who leak confidential information to the press to draw attention to undesirable developments and corruption, or to expose abuses of power. But such an extensive database of war, which fits on a single USB flash drive and can thus be easily published on the Internet, is a new phenomenon.

Is WikiLeaks a new beacon of enlightenment? Or does the website pose a threat to democratic nations, because it allows a former hacker and a few close collaborators to decide which piece of explosive information to unveil next — without giving the other side a chance to tell its side of the story or take legal steps to stop the leaks? "These people can put out whatever they want and are never held accountable for it," US Defense Secretary Gates said, in response to the publication of the video of the 2007 helicopter incident. Rarely has a member of a US administration seemed so helpless.

The problem starts with the fact that WikiLeaks, to this day, remains more of a brilliant idea than an organization in the conventional sense. It has no headquarters or even a street address, just an anonymous mailbox at the University of Melbourne. So far Assange and a German colleague, who calls himself Daniel Schmitt, are the only two people involved in WikiLeaks to have shown their faces in public. Otherwise, the operation consists of little more than the website itself, a few email addresses and a Twitter account the organizers use for PR purposes. The servers, which are distributed around the world in places with laws that provide extensive protections for informants, are the core of the operation. Donations cover the annual overhead of about €200,000 ($258,000), and Assange and Schmitt don't even pay themselves salaries.

Highly Intelligent

At the meeting in London, it quickly becomes clear how dependent WikiLeaks is on individual activists — and, to a large extent, on Assange and his little black laptop. It's also clear that Assange's adversaries have an opponent to be taken seriously in this highly intelligent, self-confident 39-year-old.

Assange is working obsessively on a database with which WikiLeaks intends to make the war in Afghanistan more tangible. He is wearing an odd combination of a wrinkled jacket, a T-shirt, cargo pants and worn-out tennis shoes. He is unshaven and looks as if he hasn't slept for two nights. Well-meaning people close to him say that he urgently needs a couple of weeks of vacation.

Assange disagrees. His fingers fly across the keyboard, and he occasionally pauses to say something. "We need a function that arranges the incidents by their relative importance," he says in his deep, sonorous voice. Before long, he has installed a filter that allows the site's users to search through the thousands of individual incidents according to their "significance." Assange has chosen the number of civilian casualties as one of the primary criteria. The database can also be searched by date and region, and each individual incident is linked to a map view showing exactly where in Afghanistan it occurred. It's war as a multimedia presentation.

"Ha," he says suddenly. "Unbelievable." He has discovered yet another grotesque example of the jargon the military uses to describe reality on the battlefield. The term is: "Vital Signs Absent" — in other words, dead. The language of war fascinates him, which explains why WikiLeaks titled the Baghdad video "Collateral Murder." His purpose in choosing the title, says Assange, was to expose the cynical term "collateral damage" and make it impossible to use.

'Our Criteria Are Crystal-Clear'

When Assange talks about this project — over dinner, for example, during which the Australian orders nothing but two scoops of cardamom ice cream — he is intent on sending the message that WikiLeaks is a radical, carefully conceived project. Assange takes a long time to reflect before answering questions, and he insists on delivering his full response. He doesn't like to be interrupted.

Assange says that he came up with the basic idea in the 1990s, and in 1999 he reserved the domain name leaks.org. For Assange, the fundamental rule in open societies must be that everyone should be able to communicate freely about everything. Experience, he says, shows that wherever there are secrets there is often wrongdoing, because people in positions of power tend to use secrets to their advantage.

If his view is correct, there are probably quite a few powerful people in the world who should be very concerned, because WikiLeaks supposedly has a wealth of still-unpublished material. Who decides what is published, and when?

The source, says Assange. Whenever it receives an anonymous submission, WikiLeaks asks the informant why he or she believes that the material is of political or moral relevance. "Our criteria are crystal clear, and if they are met, we publish," says Assange.

Who is "we?' "In the end, someone has to be in charge, and that's me," says Assange. "And when in doubt, I'll always publish."

Living a Nomad's Life

It's a remarkable position for an organization that doesn't even publish the names of the five paid staff it allegedly employs — and for a man who tries to dodge questions about his own life. A few basic facts, at any rate, seem clear.

Assange was born in 1971 to a family of artists in Queensland, Australia. His parents eventually separated, but when his mother remarried, the relationship also failed. It was so disastrous, in fact, that his mother took Julian and fled from her second husband, even living under a false name for a while.

Even then, he was living a nomad's life, and he reportedly attended almost 40 different schools.

As long ago as the 1980s, the Stone Age of the Internet, when a personal computer was a Commodore 64 and modems were referred to as "acoustic couplers," Assange developed a passion for computers and networks. He later made a name for himself in the Melbourne hacker community, after successfully hacking into corporate and government networks, including American military computers.

"It was God Almighty walking around doing what you like," a prosecuting attorney said a few years later. The group of hackers to which Assange belonged even monitored the Australian federal police investigation of them online. Assange was eventually fined and sentenced to a form of probation. A television report on the case shows Assange in a trenchcoat and sunglasses, his long, brown hair tied into a ponytail. The group of hackers called itself the "International Subversives."

Assange already had a young son when he was sentenced. He was young himself when he became a father, but he soon became embroiled in a bitter custody battle with the child's mother that lasted for several years — and led to renewed run-ins with government agencies.

Part 3: An Attempt to Get Revenge?

Is WikiLeaks merely a way for a hurt hacker and unrecognized computer genius to get revenge? Because of his personal history, is Assange really talking about the government when he talks about the "enemy?"

These are the kinds of questions that journalists typically ask Assange. He hates them with the same passion with which he despises the "secret" stamp on official documents. For him, WikiLeaks is also a project that is about transforming traditional media. He wants users to form their own opinions on the basis of original documents, without any journalistic spin. But with the "Collateral Murder" video, WikiLeaks violated its own principles by adding an editorialized title, for which Assange came in for some criticism.

The problem, says the Australian, arises in the head of the reporter. He prefers scientific journals, with their footnotes and lists of references. Although he describes himself as an investigative journalist, his work is in fact more like that of an archivist and librarian. It isn't an accident that he has registered WikiLeaks as a library in Australia.

Assange and his colleagues can be very pleased with the development of WikiLeaks at the moment. A few days ago, the Australian gave a talk to investigative journalists in London, while his German collaborator Daniel Schmitt spoke in Hamburg — both to enthusiastic applause. They were awarded Amnesty International's media prize last year.

Under a Shadow

But the project has been under a shadow since May 29. On that day, Bradley Manning, a 22-year-old US soldier, was arrested at the Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq and taken to a military prison at Camp Arifjan in Kuwait.

The US military has since made public its charges against Manning, a former military analyst. It claims that between Nov. 19, 2009 and the spring of this year, he downloaded the Baghdad video published by WikiLeaks, as well as 150,000 secret diplomatic cables by the US State Department and a secret PowerPoint presentation.

The US military accuses Manning of having passed on the video and 50 of the wire reports to a "person not entitled to receive them." According to a US Army spokesman, Manning could face up to 52 years in prison if convicted.

It appears that Manning blew his own cover. On May 21, he apparently began a series of Internet chats with an American hacker named Adrian Lamo. The US magazine Wired has published excerpts of the chats.

Lip-Syncing to Lady Gaga

One of the parties to the correspondence, who US authorities believe is Manning, poured his heart out to Lamo, a complete stranger to him until then. He described how he was able to access the SIPRNET and JWICS secret networks through two work computers, and that he also found unprotected material on a US Central Command (CENTCOM) computer. "I can't believe what I'm confessing to you," he added.

In the chats, he even revealed how he supposedly smuggled the material out of his workplace. He said that he inserted blank CDs into his work computers in Iraq, which he had previously labeled "Lady Gaga," so as to create the impression that he was taking home music CDs. According to the chat logs, Manning said that he "listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga's 'Telephone' while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history."

The chatter made several references to WikiLeaks and Assange, with whom he claimed he was in contact. He also suggested that he was motivated by a deep dissatisfaction with the local situation and the US military.

Lamo informed the FBI and turned over his chat logs. In interviews with the US media, he sought to justify his actions by saying he was concerned that national security was at threat. Manning was arrested a short time later.

Outing the Whistleblowers

The Manning case turned into delicate situation for WikiLeaks and Assange. It bears an uncanny resemblance to a scenario aimed at harming WikiLeaks that the US military concocted in a secret document in 2008. According to the scenario, successful identification, prosecution and outing of individuals who pass on information to WikiLeaks would damage and possibly even destroy the site, and deter others from taking similar steps.

How does the WikiLeaks founder feel about the US soldier's supposed self-incrimination?

"If we are to believe the allegation, Manning was betrayed by a US journalist/computer hacker who had nothing to do with WikiLeaks," Assange says. "We can't save people from themselves, unfortunately."

Part 4: 'We Have No Idea if Manning Was Our Source'

Could Manning also have been the source of the Afghanistan material, as some observers are now speculating? "We have no idea if he was our source," Assange claims. "We structure our system so that we do not know the identity of our sources."

And why does WikiLeaks want to provide Manning with legal assistance, if WikiLeaks has indeed installed technical safeguards to make it impossible for it to know who submitted the material?

"We have to assist all our alleged sources," says Assange. "We should remember that regardless of whether Mr. Manning was the source for the 'Collateral Murder' video or whether he was directly or incidentally involved in any of the materials we have published, he is a young man who is detained in Kuwait as a result of an allegation that he is our source."

Staying with Supporters Around the World

After Manning's arrest, Assange also disappeared for a few weeks, and his attorneys advised him to avoid traveling to the United States. "One of our contacts informed me that there was consideration being given as to whether I could be charged as a co-conspirator to commit espionage," he says.

That's the reason he checked into a London hotel under a false name and then made a quick disappearance to stay with one of his supporters, as has so often been the case in the past few years. He has stayed in places all around the world, from Kenya to Iceland, where he and a team of volunteers prepared to publish the Baghdad video.

The precautions apply to everyone in his group. When Jacob Appelbaum, a well-known programmer in the Internet community, stood in for Assange at a hackers' convention in New York two weekends ago, he even hired a double to pose as him after he had given his talk. Appelbaum himself went directly to the airport, carrying only his passport, some cash and a copy of the US Bill of Rights, and took a flight overseas.

Increasingly Cautious

Daniel Schmitt, the German representative of WikiLeaks who is, next to Assange, the second most important voice of WikiLeaks, has also become more cautious.

During a meeting with SPIEGEL in a Berlin café, Schmitt looks around to see if anyone is listening to the conversation. He also says that he doesn't want photographs taken in his presence.

Germany is one of the most important sites for WikiLeaks, acting as one of the pillars of the relatively loose-knit organization. WikiLeaks receives many submissions in German, it gets technical assistance from people associated with the Chaos Computer Club, an influential German hacker organization, and German supporters are responsible for a large share of its donations.

Schmitt, a slim, bearded 32-year-old with horn-rimmed glasses, studied computer science and worked in IT security before devoting himself completely to WikiLeaks. He looks almost pedestrian next to the somewhat eccentric Assange, who has been known to walk around in London in his socks and suddenly do a cartwheel.

Just the Beginning

A foundation called "Friends of WikiLeaks" is expected to be launched in Germany this year. Schmitt is working on a brochure designed to encourage people to leak information, which he wants volunteers to hand out in front of the Reichstag, the seat of the German parliament, and the Defense Ministry. He has also considered placing ads in the subway.

The two men, Assange and Schmitt, say that WikiLeaks has a mountain of unpublished documents at its disposal — and that this is just the beginning.

"If we want to use a mountain-climbing metaphor, we're only at the base camp," says Assange.

Then he snaps his little black laptop shut, packs it into his charcoal-gray nylon backpack, and walks out of the room.

Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan


Post a New Response

(641944)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks a threat to national security: Pentagon (long)

Posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jul 28 08:06:04 2010, in response to Wikileaks a threat to national security: Pentagon (long), posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 28 07:32:05 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Ever heard of Freedom of Speech? If he's within his right....why are you bothering?

Post a New Response

(641947)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks a threat to national security: Pentagon (long)

Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 28 08:09:34 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks a threat to national security: Pentagon (long), posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jul 28 08:06:04 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Ever heard of Freedom of Speech?

There is no international freedom of speech. Did you think we have a one-world government or something? And state security is a very serious affair.

Post a New Response

(641949)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks a threat to national security: Pentagon (long)

Posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jul 28 08:11:55 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks a threat to national security: Pentagon (long), posted by streetcarman1 on Wed Jul 28 08:06:04 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Ever hear of "Freedom of Information"? I want to know who is on welfare, food stamps, etc......

If information like this can be made public, then I want to see a list of people on welfare and food stamps. That would be "Freedom of Speech".

Streetie,

Did you hear about the list of illegal aliens being circulated in Utah? Should the people who made up the list be protected by "Freedom of Speech"?

Post a New Response

(641953)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks founder in fear of arrest

Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 28 08:21:24 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks a threat to national security: Pentagon (long), posted by LuchAAA on Wed Jul 28 08:11:55 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Wikileaks is international. Assange is not a US citizen; he's from Australia. I wouldn't argue with someone who acts like we have a one-world government.

BTW, Assange is now saying he's scared that he'll be arrested. He's paranoid that DC is out to get him over saying in der Spiegel that he likes "crushing bastards", claiming that he's got sources in the White House warning him not to go back to the US.

Daily Telegraph

Julian Assange: Wikileaks founder fears he could be arrested

By Amy Willis
Published: 6:30AM BST 28 Jul 2010
Julian Assange, the Australian founder of Wikileaks, has said he has been warned by "inside sources in the White House" not to return to the US as he could be arrested.

The 39 year-old told journalists at the Frontline Club last night that US government insiders had informed him about discussions to charge him as a co-conspirator to espionage.

The discussions were later dropped.

Assange says despite this he still fears he is at risk of being forcefully detained by the US government as a material witness in the prosecution of US intelligence analyst Bradley Manning.

Manning, 22, was arrested in Baghdad in May and charged earlier this month with multiple counts of mishandling and leaking classified data, after a computer hacker turned him in.

In the United States, an authority has the right to detain and hold a material witness for an indefinite period to ensure they give their testimony in a criminal investigation.

The Wikileaks founder said: "Today, the White House put out a private briefing to reporters about Wikileaks and me and it quoted a section from an interview with me in Der Spiegel saying that I enjoy crushing (bastards). Somehow the White House finds that offensive. In terms of returning to the United States I don't know. Our sources advise from inside the US government that there were thoughts of whether I could be charged as a co-conspirator to espionage, which is serious. That doesn't seem to be the thinking within the United States any more however there is the other possibility of being detained as a material witness and being kept either in confinement or not being allowed to leave the country until the Manning case is concluded."

He also claimed that Bradley Manning is being held in a secluded facility in Kuwait, which he says is like "a second Guantanamo Bay". He also accused the US government of doing this to "hide" Manning from effective civil representation.

If convicted, Bradley Manning, who is also awaiting court martial, faces a maximum of 52 years in jail.


Post a New Response

(642000)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban

Posted by ClearAspect on Wed Jul 28 10:42:17 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by SMAZ on Mon Jul 26 22:56:17 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
According to 2008 levels, we have roughly 1.5 mil people on military reserve alone, along with 1.4 mil active, . So if we wanted to really get down and dirty and wanted to play very serious, we could send up to a million troops, even 2 million, is if we needed over 2 million where perhaps would require a draft, in which we have 59 million eligible people.

Post a New Response

(642343)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban

Posted by SMAZ on Wed Jul 28 21:57:18 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by ClearAspect on Wed Jul 28 10:42:17 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
According to 2008 levels, we have roughly 1.5 mil people on military reserve alone, along with 1.4 mil active, . So if we wanted to really get down and dirty and wanted to play very serious, we could send up to a million troops,

And replace them with what/who when their tour is over? That number includes people on ships, subs and other specialties that are not conducive to a military occupation and counterinsurgency. Do you really want Seaman Snooky, the sub radioman or Ensign Snuffy, the ship nuclear reactor maintanence officer conducting foot patrols in Kandahar?

Your 1.5 million number is meaningless if it cannot be used for the specific mission that we are discussing. We tried that in Vietnam. it didn't work.

Post a New Response

(642346)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban

Posted by ClearAspect on Wed Jul 28 22:04:06 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by SMAZ on Wed Jul 28 21:57:18 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Vietnam ... and this war while similar are different

Post a New Response

(642496)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban

Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Thu Jul 29 11:15:16 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by ClearAspect on Wed Jul 28 10:42:17 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Yeah, let's send millions of Americans to die in Pakistan! What a wonderful election-winning strategy!

Post a New Response

(642556)

view threaded

Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban

Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Jul 29 14:25:06 2010, in response to Re: Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Tue Jul 27 13:03:46 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
You'd be amazed what can be achieved if you actually fight instead of holding back in fear of collateral damage inflicted on a sympathetic (to the enemy) populace.

Post a New Response

(642995)

view threaded

Wikileaks—blood on its hands?

Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jul 30 02:07:11 2010, in response to Wikileaks says Pakistan was secretly helping the Taliban, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 26 02:40:13 2010.

edf40wrjww2msgDetailOT:detailStr
fiogf49gjkf0d
Pentagon says they may. Is this why Assange is afraid?

Reuters

WikiLeaks may have blood on its hands, U.S. says

By Phil Stewart and Adam Entous
Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:56pm EDT
WASHINGTON — The whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks may have blood on its hands, the Pentagon said on Thursday, warning its unprecedented leak of secret U.S. military files could cost lives and damage trust of allies.

An Army intelligence officer, already under arrest, is at the center of an investigation into the leak of more than 90,000 secret records to WikiLeaks, one of the biggest security breaches in U.S. military history, U.S. officials have said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates declined to comment on the probe but said he could not rule out more leaks of classified information. He also announced plans to tighten access to sensitive intelligence data.

"I don't know whether there is anyone else out there that is a party to this," Gates said at the Pentagon in his first public comments since Sunday's publication of the documents.

Admiral Mike Mullen, who as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the top U.S. military officer, lashed out at WikiLeaks' founder Julian Assange, who says he aims to expose corporate and government corruption.

"Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing," Mullen said. "But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family."

Gates said he did not know whether Assange should face criminal prosecution or whether WikiLeaks should be treated like a media organization protected by free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution. "I think that's a question for people who are more expert in the law than I am," he said.

But asked about a possible broadening of the criminal investigation to include WikiLeaks, Gates said he had asked the FBI to assist the Army's probe to ensure that the investigation "can go wherever it needs to go."

President Barack Obama and military top brass have played down any revelations from the leaked documents, which have fanned doubts in Washington about the unpopular and costly nine-year-old war.

June was the deadliest month for foreign troops since the start of the conflict in 2001 and U.S. officials warn they expect casualties will keep rising over the summer.
U.S. CONTACTS AT RISK
Obama met his national security team at the White House on Thursday and officials said the WikiLeaks case was discussed.

Gates, a former CIA director, told reporters his biggest concern was that Afghans and other allies would no longer trust the United States to keep their secrets safe. The documents include intelligence reports and expose names of contacts.

"I spent most of my life in the intelligence business, where the sacrosanct principle is protecting your sources," Gates said.

"It seems to me that, as a result of this massive breach of security, we have considerable repair work to do in terms of reassuring people and rebuilding trust, because they clearly -- people are going to feel at risk."

He said there were technological solutions to tighten security of classified military networks. One defense official suggested possible measures could include deactivating computer functions used to download data onto portable devices, like CDs or thumb-drives.

Beyond exposing U.S. contacts, the leaked documents also threw an uncomfortable spotlight on links between Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency and insurgents who oppose U.S. troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

Mullen acknowledged some ties remained but said Islamabad was "strategically shifting" against insurgents.

"There have been elements of the ISI that have ... a relationship with extremist organizations and that we, you know, we consider that unacceptable. In the long run I think that the ISI has to strategically shift," he said.

"And they are strategically shifting. That doesn't mean that they are through that shift at all."

The Army investigation into the incident has focused on Army specialist Bradley Manning, who was already charged earlier this month with leaking information previously published by WikiLeaks, U.S. defense officials say.

Manning is awaiting trial on charges of leaking a classified video showing a 2007 helicopter attack that killed a dozen people in Iraq, including two Reuters journalists.

Neither Manning nor anyone else has been named as a suspect in the latest leak and investigators are not ruling out the involvement of multiple individuals.

(Editing by Mohammad Zargham)


Post a New Response


[ Return to the Message Index ]