• NATO tells CNN not a single case of Afghans needing protection or moving due to leak
    28 replies, posted
[img]http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/3.0/global/header/intl/hdr-globe-west.gif[/img] [url=http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/10/16/wikileaks.assessment/]Source[/url] [release]Washington (CNN) -- The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said there is still concern Afghans named in the published documents could be retaliated against by the Taliban, though a NATO official said there has been no indication that this has happened. The assessment, revealed in a letter from Gates to the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan), comes after a thorough Pentagon review of the more than 70,000 documents posted to the controversial whistle-blower site in July. The letter, provided to CNN, was written August 16 by Gates in response to a query by the senator regarding the leak of classified information. Gates said the review found most of the information relates to "tactical military operations." "The initial assessment in no way discounts the risk to national security," Gates wrote. "However, the review to date has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure." The defense secretary said that the published documents do contain names of some cooperating Afghans, who could face reprisal by Taliban. But a senior NATO official in Kabul told CNN that there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak. "We assess this risk as likely to cause significant harm or damage to national security interests of the United States and are examining mitigation options," Gates wrote in the letter. "We are working closely with our allies to determine what risks our mission partners may face as a result of the disclosure." Gates also said there is still the possibility of more documents being published, for which the Pentagon is preparing. Over the summer, the Pentagon created a team of more than 100 personnel made up of mostly intelligence analysts from various branches of the Defense Department as well as the FBI, who were involved in the round-the-clock review. WikiLeaks has approximately 15,000 more Afghanistan documents that the site is reviewing because they contain names or other sensitive information. While initially the sitefounder, Julian Assange, had vowed to publish the additional documents after redaction, there is now some question whether that will happen given the intense criticism WikiLeaks came under after Afghan names were found in the already published files. Additionally, WikiLeaks is expected to publish as early as next week about 400,000 military documents from the Iraq war that were leaked to the site. The leaking of the documents raised the immediate ire of military officials although soon after the posting they questioned the documents' significance. Back in July, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, said he was "appalled" by the leak but said the documents were from previous years up to 2009 and "much has changed since then." Despite this, the military warned that the naming of Afghans was a huge concern. Wikileaks has "the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family" on their hands, Mullen said. In addition to the document review, the military has launched a criminal investigation into the leak. Since the initial publication of the documents, military officials consider Army Pfc. Bradley Manning a prime suspect in the leak. Manning is already being held in Quantico, Virginia, charged with leaking video of an Iraq airstrike to WikiLeaks as well as removing classified information from military computers.[/release]
[quote]Wikileaks has "the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family" on their hands[/quote] Yeah, and the private interests and political agendas fueling the war are squeaky clean, I'm sure. If Wikileaks draws more attention to how fucked up the U.S. has been in the war, by all means let them continue. It may even bring the war to a close quicker.
[quote]The online leak of thousands of secret military documents from the war in Afghanistan by the website WikiLeaks did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods, the Department of Defense concluded. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said there is still concern Afghans named in the published documents could be retaliated against by the Taliban, though a NATO official said there has been no indication that this has happened.[/quote]That's what we've been saying this whole time. I'm looking at you TH89, DamagePoint and the likes.
There goes all the idiots going, 'Y U KIL INOCENTZ'
[QUOTE=RayDark;25461335]There goes all the idiots going, 'Y U KIL INOCENTZ'[/QUOTE] I think imperialists are more idiotic.
Anyone else wonder how they get all documents?
US Government has arrested Private First Class Bradley E. Manning as the suspected source of the leaks, though it is unknown if it really is him, or someone else.
[QUOTE=imadaman;25463563]US Government has arrested Private First Class Bradley E. Manning as the suspected source of the leaks, though it is unknown if it really is him, or someone else.[/QUOTE] Of course Manning isn't a him It's a WOMAN, baby!
OH MY GOD WHAT A SURPRISE. I totally didn't see that coming man nope no way
I guess everyone forgot that the adult literacy rate in Afghanistan is only 28%.
[QUOTE=Morphology53;25468004]I guess everyone forgot that the adult literacy rate in Afghanistan is only 28%.[/QUOTE] 34%. 10% for females.
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25468588]34%. 10% for females.[/QUOTE] To be fair, my numbers are from 2008.
So I'll admit that one of my major complaints was foolish and is no longer holds any sort of ground. My others still stand but I'm glad to see no innocent blood was spilled for hastily put together release.
there is a war in the middle east that the US is involved in
[QUOTE=Kalibos;25482174]there is a war in the middle east that the US is involved in[/QUOTE] Really?
Not surprised at all. I was saying this from day one.
[QUOTE=JDK721v5;25486107]Not surprised at all. I was saying this from day one.[/QUOTE] The difference is now there's actually evidence
Yeah well, there never was any evidence pointing the opposite, so... But that's like saying that there was no evidence pointing to this either, so... Yeah, nullified my own point, go me.
[QUOTE=bigbigzubra;25461727]Anyone else wonder how they get all documents?[/QUOTE] It's called whistle-blowing. People inside leak the documents because they feel what they contain needs to be revealed to the general public.
[QUOTE=starpluck;25461279]That's what we've been saying this whole time. I'm looking at you TH89, DamagePoint and the likes.[/QUOTE] I'm glad nobody got hurt. If Wikileaks is able to be more careful with its information in the future, even better.
[QUOTE=Swilly;25480014]So I'll admit that one of my major complaints was foolish and is no longer holds any sort of ground. My others still stand but I'm glad to see no innocent blood was spilled for hastily put together release.[/QUOTE] Why do you continue to insist that it was "hastily put together"? The fact that Wikileaks managed to remove all important names from the documents means that it wasn't hastily put together. [editline]18th October 2010[/editline] [QUOTE=TH89;25490568]I'm glad nobody got hurt. If Wikileaks is able to be more careful with its information in the future, even better.[/QUOTE] Read above
[QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25490609]Read above[/QUOTE] Do you guys have chronic memory problems or what? The FIRST BATCH [url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/human-rights-groups-say-wikileaks-endangered-afghan-civilians]was[/url] [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html]totally[/url] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-hum_n_677048.html]uncensored[/url].
[QUOTE=TH89;25491464]Do you guys have chronic memory problems or what? The FIRST BATCH [url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/human-rights-groups-say-wikileaks-endangered-afghan-civilians]was[/url] [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html]totally[/url] [url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-hum_n_677048.html]uncensored[/url].[/QUOTE] It wasn't censored enough to make Amnesty happy but Assange himself said that Wikileaks editors sat on the documents for a while before hand so they could go through them.
[QUOTE=TH89;25491464]Do you guys have chronic memory problems or what? The FIRST BATCH [URL="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/human-rights-groups-say-wikileaks-endangered-afghan-civilians"]was[/URL] [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html"]totally[/URL] [URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/10/amnesty-international-hum_n_677048.html"]uncensored[/URL].[/QUOTE] The DoD says otherwise: [URL]http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/10/17/170227/DoD-Study-Contradicts-Charges-Against-WikiLeaks[/URL]. No one's identity was given away, and no one was harmed, as a result of the various wikileaks documents.
[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;25494202]The DoD says otherwise: [URL]http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/10/17/170227/DoD-Study-Contradicts-Charges-Against-WikiLeaks[/URL]. No one's identity was given away, and no one was harmed, as a result of the various wikileaks documents.[/QUOTE] Even that includes this: [quote]Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said there is still concern Afghans named in the published documents could be retaliated against by the Taliban[/quote] It's great that nothing bad has come of it so far, that doesn't mean Wikileaks wasn't sloppy. I'm glad they've made an effort to tighten up their releases from here on out. They're doing the right thing.
[QUOTE=TH89;25496129]Even that includes this: It's great that nothing bad has come of it so far, that doesn't mean Wikileaks wasn't sloppy. I'm glad they've made an effort to tighten up their releases from here on out. They're doing the right thing.[/QUOTE] Yes, it's great that they're putting more of an effort in, and perhaps they were sloppy the first time, but they weren't uncensored like you claimed.
Not everything was censored due to the lack of manpower and the deadline.
[QUOTE=imadaman;25496215]Not everything was censored due to the lack of manpower and the deadline.[/QUOTE] Yeah, which is why I admitted to them being sloppy. But it wasn't uncensored. They reached out to Amnesty and the CIA for help censoring but they refused, so you can't claim true negligence here.
[QUOTE=imadaman;25496215]Not everything was censored due to the lack of manpower and the deadline.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ZekeTwo;25496342]Yeah, which is why I admitted to them being sloppy. But it wasn't uncensored. They reached out to Amnesty and the CIA for help censoring but they refused, so you can't claim true negligence here.[/QUOTE] That's silly. Nobody forced them to release the documents. Nobody is under any obligation to do their own job for them. If they don't have the manpower to make sure they're not endangering people by releasing something, they should get more mans or not release it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.