Pentagon Demands Return of Leaked Afghanistan Documents 523
Multiple news agencies are reporting that the Pentagon has demanded the return of WikiLeaks' collection of secret documents relating to the war in Afghanistan. Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell said, "The only acceptable course is for WikiLeaks to take steps immediately to return all versions of all of these documents to the US government and permanently delete them from its website, computers and records." According to the BBC, Morrell also "acknowledged the already-leaked documents' viral spread across the internet made it unlikely they could ever be quashed," but hopes to prevent the dissemination of a further 15,000 documents WikiLeaks is reportedly in the process of redacting. "We're looking to have a conversation about how to get these perilous documents off the website as soon as possible, return them to their rightful owners and expunge them from their records." WikiLeaks, predictably, shows no sign of cooperating.
They will make them comply (Score:5, Interesting)
It doesn't matter if Wikileaks complies, Pentagon has made it very clear they will make them comply [theinquirer.net]:
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that not embarrassing the US military was "doing the right thing" and he hoped Wikileaks would "honour our demands".
However, asked what the Pentagon would do next, Morrell told the AP that it was up to the FBI and Justice Department to decide how to proceed.
"If doing the right thing is not good enough for them [Wikileaks], then we will figure out what other alternatives we have to compel them to do the right thing," he added.
Of course the right thing to the US government is always whatever the US military says is the right thing, and as the Wikileaks documents that have recently been released show in brutal detail, the US military has an unusual interpretation of what is 'right'.
It's time (Score:3, Interesting)
Assange responds to Wikileaks attacks (Score:5, Interesting)
link [democracynow.org]
Something I don't understand (Score:3, Interesting)
If these documents are so damaging and endanger so many people, why the fuck has the media talked about it at least a couple of times every single day since the documents were released? Wouldn't ignoring it decrease the chances of people hearing about them and going to read them? Literally millions more people are aware of these documents being leaked thanks to news sources talking about how bad it is that they were leaked.
Stay classy.
Re:I see a little problem here (Score:3, Interesting)
The part of the picture which I think you're missing is this: the copies may be missing information that the originals contain. This is certainly the case if WikiLeaks is editing them (redacting text) before releasing them. If the files have been tampered with, they may not be admissible as evidence in a court, or they may not be as compelling to a jury, even if they are. There are legal standards for admitting digital evidence, and then there are the forensic experts, of course. Telling a court, "here's a file I downloaded from bittorrent, and it looks pretty legit" isn't going to cut it. If the pentagon manages to get the originals back, they might just save Cheney, Powell, Rice, Bush, Wolfowitz, etc. from a public hanging.
Re:War Crimes (Score:2, Interesting)
If there is justice in this world, everyone who's touched the US's dirty wars - from Colin Powell to Barack Obama, will be imprisoned for life (or worse - I'm looking at you Herr Cheney!).
Ha, such naivete, yeah, the big scary Hague will prevent some black ops team from snatching Julian, waterboarding him to disclose his sources and then leaving his corpse at the sight of an auto-accident. That is assuming Julian isn't some patsy for a high level spook looking to embarass his coworkers b/c he got passed over for a job like William Felt.
Re:They will make them comply (Score:3, Interesting)
...of course the last time "Americans demanded and supported it overwhelmingly" also after being told of lies about WMDs, etc. (not that what the gov was doing isn't some reflection of the society anyway)
Look, in my place the military is slightly impotent overall and generally is as an institution where lazy would-be sportsmen (you need to have absolutelly perfect health, when joining, to be a soldier) can live comfortably. At least, perhaps, with not making it too vital, too big, too entrenched in the society via many of its members, too tech & resource thirsty - the policies aren't influenced by what's good for the military.
Re:Too late (Score:5, Interesting)
Considering they've already shared the unedited files with at least three other news agencies.. yeah, this is just the beginning.
Newspapers have sat on much bigger stories just because the government said "please".
Multiple newspapers sat on or killed stories because, then Director of National Intelligence, Negroponte asked them to.
Telecom spying anyone?
Re:I see a little problem here (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Information (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They will make them comply (Score:5, Interesting)
Well if you're going to go that far back, didn't he get his training and seed money from the CIA?
Re:Too late (Score:3, Interesting)
Multiple newspapers sat on or killed stories because, then Director of National Intelligence, Negroponte asked them to.
And the government isn't used to anybody telling them "no". That's the biggest reason they're pissed - because they aren't in control of this situation, Wikileaks is. I watched the full press conference [c-span.org] yesterday where they issued this ultimatum. He looked like such a fool. "Demanding" that Wikileaks "does the right thing". If you ask me, Wikileaks has already done the right thing by asking for assistance from the U.S. Gov't (albiet indirectly) in redacting the documents. Wikileaks should issuea a public statement/open letter to the DoD making it clear that they want to do the right thing by redacting documents and omitting portions of them which could put people in danger. If (more likely when) the DoD refuses, the blood is on their hands.
The only problem here is, Wikileaks is essentially using these 15,000 documents as insurance. They're in somewhat of a stalemate now, since if they release them, they've lost their leverage. Unless they can use the un-redacted versions as insurance after they release the redacted ones.
Re:At first I thought Wikileaks was doing good (Score:3, Interesting)
To expand on my comment, Wikileaks released the initial documents and with-held this additional 15,000 documents BECAUSE they were concerned about the risk that these particular documents may contain some information that should be redacted for safety (in particular, names/locations, etc). As Wikileaks states, they approached the Pentagon and requested their assistance in identifying certain documents or items within these particular 15,000 documents that should be redacted. The Pentagon REFUSED to assist them in doing it.
So if you're going to try and claim that Assange and Wikileaks don't care about people's safety that might be directly impacted by release of these documents, then you MUST also claim the same of the Government. The government is pouting and saying that they would rather tell Wikileaks to eat it than disagree with them AND at least have a chance to promote the safety of those very people they claim to be concerned about.
Re:hmm... the internet doesn't work like MS exchan (Score:2, Interesting)
Did you even bother to read the complete summary? No. Well, let me qoute the relevant part for you: "According to the BBC, Morrell also 'acknowledged the already-leaked documents' viral spread across the internet made it unlikely they could ever be quashed,' but hopes to prevent the dissemination of a further 15,000 documents WikiLeaks is reportedly in the process of redacting."
Idiot indeed but it isn't the Pentagon
Re:They will make them comply (Score:2, Interesting)
Voting for a third party is never wasted, not even in a two-party system. You don't need a majority to get power, you only need the number of votes that is the difference between the two major parties. When you have that number of votes they will start to listen to you because you have the ability to take their power from them and give it to the other side.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." - Paul Atreides
Re:They will make them comply (Score:2, Interesting)
LOL... wikipedia should just laugh and comply. It'll only increase the popularity of what's already been released. Then they'll be free to run off and work on their next leak :P
Re:At first I thought Wikileaks was doing good (Score:3, Interesting)
The claim that Wikileaks redacted identifying information is not mentioned in US mainstream media. I checked the recent NPR stories. I emailed them about this. A google search brings up various conflicting bits of information. See for example:
http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2010/08/03/wikileaks-redacted/ [firedoglake.com]
I really would appreciate reliable coverage of this aspect.
I think Wikileaks should send the files to the Pentagon before publishing, let them do the redaction. I am sure that they will not "overdo" it, but if they do, Wikileaks can call them out on that...
They had insurance (Score:3, Interesting)
Since everybody knows that the US respects no laws and will invade anyone at a drop of a hat, Wikileaks took precautions by putting up a large *encrypted* file called "Insurance". [theregister.co.uk]
Presumably everybody has downloaded it even though nobody has the password.
And if America tries to have the wikileak people assassinated the password is probably set to spread automatically.
Re:They will make them comply (Score:2, Interesting)
>>>It's the military contractors that drive the decisions of the US Government.
Military contractors don't have that much power. If they did, they wouldn't keep getting fined BY the government for various illegal activities (like mischarging of employee time).
Alex Jones has an interesting theory: Wikileaks is actually a false flag project by the government to (1) leak information and then (2) use that to justify why only people with Internet Licenses should be allowed to have websites.
I think AJ is full of shit too, but it's an interesting thought.
Sounds like something the 1920s-era National Socialists would invent.
Re:WikiLeaks... shows no sign of cooperating. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/transcript/id/600647/n/Inside-WikiLeaks
"REPORTER: Do you lie awake at night wondering if you have found all those?
JULIAN ASSANGE: They have a particular code within the reports. It wasn't too hard. That said, it is possible, there may be a stray report here or stray report there. The choice, again, we are forced to make hard choices and those hard choices are do we do best effort to minimise harm, which we have done with the understanding that this is an extraordinary body of material capable of producing extraordinary reforms. It belongs in the hands of the Afghan people. Give it to them. If the material is of a diplomatic, political, ethical and historical significance and has not been published..."
Re:They will make them comply (Score:3, Interesting)
Thats why they call it a War against Terror instead of a War againt Iraq or Afganistan. We have no declared war with any nation currently, nor did we ever have with Iraq or Afganistan. Bin Laden was the head figure organizer and fundraiser for much of the terroism against the west including 911 which gave Bush the cover to go into Iraq which had nothing to do with 911 or Bin Ladens organization. (the Bin Laden family was visiting the Bush's in Texas I believe when 911 happened and their plane to fly them out of the country was the only plane allowed to fly other than military planes, go figure).
So Bin Laden is the head of an organization that is at war with us, so I think you could say he "started" the war with the first salvo at the Trade Center.
Returned Documents Available Here !!!!!!!!! (Score:1, Interesting)
here [youtube.com].
Have a day.
Yours In Moscow,
K. Trout
Re:They will make them comply (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, it is the business of a military to conduct war. In the case of the US military, it is their job to conduct war when the executive asks them to. And he did. Do you know why he did? Because Americans demanded and supported it overwhelmingly. How is that not the "right" thing for the US military to do?
It has already been proven that most of the people who supported military action also believed that saddam was responsible for 9/11 and a whole bunch of other total bullshit that the then-current administration deliberately led people to believe (with media collusion) specifically to drum up support for the war. Fuck, anyone who's seen Wag the Dog should be capable of seeing through it, let alone anyone who has paid any attention to history at all. Nice to see that the Halliburton shills are still too unpopular to risk logging in, though.
Actually, I disagreed strongly with the decision to start the invasions in Afghanistan and Iraq. That was a decision made by our elected civilian government and ratified by a gigantic majority of US Americans, which means that the government and the majority were who I was disagreeing with.
Not the US military, which (GIVEN the stupid decision to conduct a war in this instance) is only carrying out its intended purpose, and doing so in a way which has been incredibly professional and restrained by historical standards (i.e., those standards set by millennia of abject moral failure in war, topped off by the truly spectacular butchery of this century, and cherry'd by the horrors of the Vietnam War, which butchered and poisoned a high multiple of the number affected by these current wars for no constructive purpose whatsoever).
The time to object to wars is before they start, not after there is a bandwagon. And the people to complain to are the ones who are deciding to make the wars, not the military. We can take it for granted that the military is mostly populated with people who are preparing for wars and who are willing to conduct them, after all that is their job.
You still haven't explained what the military should do when it is asked to go to war. War being inherently horrific, and inherently coming with some measure of personal evil, I guess the "moral" thing is for it never to conduct a war. But then, someone else will conduct a war , whether that is less-principled allies or less-principled enemies. It is immoral to choose the greater of two evils. So I completely disagree with the anti-military sentiment here, even as I perfectly recognize that war is horror and nearly the worst condition for a place to be in.
Your ad hominem is not only irrelevant, it happens to be mistargeted.
Re:Murder (Score:3, Interesting)
Many people keep saying this but nobody, not a single person, has been able to provide any evidence of it.