Pentagon: Wikileaks Has 'Potentially More Explosive' Undisclosed Documents

Washington Post:

Pentagon officials say they are sifting through 15,000 classified Afghanistan war documents for sensitive material that could harm troops or civilians--documents they believe the on-line site WikiLeaks has obtained and might disclose.

The records at issue contain material that is "potentially more explosive, more sensitive" than the information in the 77,000 Afghanistan field reports and assessments WikiLeaks put on-line last month in an effort to shed light on the U.S. military's war in Afghanistan, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[J.C. Convery]

09:50 PM on 08/12/2010

I would suggest that the severity of his actions should require a severe response. Bradly Howard commited treason by releasing these documents. Even the hacker he gave them to was worried about the consequences of dumping these documents. Hackers by and large are not known for thier concern for security but this guy felt releasing this information was too dangerous.

The bare minimum this guy should serve is 20 years hard labor.

[J.C. Convery]

09:45 PM on 08/12/2010

My assumption is that Assange has had an axe to grind with the US ever since he was prosecuted for hacking.

If bringing truth to light is always acceptable then we should probably let people have instant access to all of our financial information and medical records. If all that information were to be exposed then I suppose your truths woudl come to light as well. I'm quite sure thats something you don't want to happen.

Governments do have good reasons to keep secrets. Protecting sources who have put themselves at considerable risk is one of those reasons. Why should anyone ever trust us with actionable intelligence if we would freely expose thier sources.

The principle reason most of this was still a secret is that the commanding officers involved in these situations require authorization to clear it. They're often too busy to deal with this until they're deployment is over

[J.C. Convery]

09:37 PM on 08/12/2010

Bottom line Sylvia. The Taliban have proven themselves to be a threat to the stability of Pakistan and the last thing we want to deal with is a radical Wahabbi state with access to nuclear weapons. At this point it's about pressure. While the Talib are resilient we're hurting them. They won't gain legitimacy when the only people they can really hurt are civilians. It may seem cynical on our part but what we have learned is that we often need to make people stand up for themselves even if that might put them at risk. That is the ugly truth of conflict in the 21st century.

[J.C. Convery]

09:31 PM on 08/12/2010

More like objectiviity. Stating that the Taliban is killing innocent people then doing a document dump focused on US mistakes is hardly objective. Failing to redact Afgan contacts in releasing these documents was criminal. This was not a revelation of fact for the purpose of journalism. There was nothing here that was noteworthy but given in context it was designed to embarrass the US government and in effect give the Taliban a pass.

If this is the journalism you enjoy then I bet Fox news is your favorite news sources because they're just as intellectually dishonest.

[J.C. Convery]

09:24 PM on 08/12/2010

The one compelling piece of information missing from your narrative is that we would have never invaded if Afghanastan had nit posed a security risk to us. This is not Iraq which was by far the worst strategic decision we've made this century. This is a place that embraced Wahabbi extemism and provided comfort and support to criminals who killed nearly 3000 innocent people. To let this place fester and return to what it had been was unacceptable.

The principle difference between us and the other nations that became part of the Afghanastan quagmire is that we want to leave. We have no territorial ambitions in Afghanastan nor will we ever. The goal is to create some security apparatus that we can work with to mitigate threats to our security.

[Alex Borland]

02:57 PM on 08/12/2010

I think the Pentagon already knows what Wikileaks has, and they REALLY don't want them to release it. It would be nice to be able to see what was really going without having the media, Pentagon, and WikiLeaks itself filter it for us.

[netzwerg]

02:46 PM on 08/12/2010

Every time someone on this thread makes another garbage filled post on the Wikileaks topic I'm going to donate another 10€ to Wikileaks ( http://www.wikileaks.org/wiki/Special:Support ). I've got a long way to go before I blow through my charitable contributions for the year, so make the choice easy for me and keep it up.

[peaceandfreedom]

01:03 PM on 08/12/2010

And the only three papers in the world that they could get to print this hogwash were the NY Times, The Guardian (a division of the british M-5) and Der Spiegel--all with less than stellar track records when it comes to giving us the truth, or even the complete story?

And what have we learned that is new? Nothing that you couldn't have found in any number of other European papers over the last 7 years. But what has the focus been? Pakistan's back stabbing and Iran's 'nuclear pretensions."

Just as the Pentagon papers were released by former intelligence operatives, and used to depose Nixon ( who was a paranoid schizophrenic) this 'news' will be used to charm the country into attacking even more Middle Eastern nations.

Watch.

[peaceandfreedom]

12:41 PM on 08/12/2010

Wikileaks is a scam.

[playsindirt]

12:38 PM on 08/12/2010

I have a nephew in Afghanistan and this is very scary to me. And I'm not keen on this Australian guy abusing OUR Constitution so he can peddle OUR military secrets which might in turn harm OUR troops.

[bccmeteorites]

12:45 PM on 08/12/2010

There is no link between him and our Constitution. He is not an American. Contrary to popular belief and any military doctrine you may have been fed, the jurisdiction flowing from the Constitution ends at our borders.

[playsindirt]

01:17 PM on 08/12/2010

That's entirely my point. Let him disclose Australian military secrets. Oh, wait a minute - they don't have any.

[lonngfello]

11:49 AM on 08/12/2010

With all the imbedded reporters in the mideast you have to ask yourself, why is it that they are not telling the story as it is being told through the leaks? Is the "free press" complicit in the war propaganda and obfuscation of the truth?

If you answer the second question with an affimative "yes" then the first question is answered by the second.

[Code For Food]

12:03 PM on 08/12/2010

The best way to restrict a free press is to give it sanctioned access that can be revoked.

[lonngfello]

12:07 PM on 08/12/2010

Yes, revoked or arbitrarily administered.

[mrJJ]

11:39 AM on 08/12/2010

WikiLeaks reveals more than state secrets with Afghan War Diary

WikiLeaks' work with the New York Times, the Guardian, and Der Spiegel also points to future of Web journalism

Last weekend, WikiLeaks -- the controversial site where whistle-blowers can expose secrets to the world -- dropped a bombshell: some 90,000 classified documents detailing the real story of the U.S. war in Afghanistan.


Interestingly, WikiLeaks took a different tack with this leak. Instead of posting the documents right away, it sat on them for a month while reporters from three highly respected news organizations -- the New York Times, London's Guardian newspaper, and Germany's Der Spiegel -- made narrative sense out of them. Then the Wiki and the three newspapers shared their findings simultaneously with the world.


Just as interesting to me about all this, though, is the collaboration between WikiLeaks and its "media partners." Assange knew he had a story that was bigger than he could handle, so he called in the big guns to do the type of analysis and contextual references his org is incapable of. By doing so, it also gave the disclosures more heft -- real journalists are vetting this stuff, not some shadowy organization that might just be some 14-year-olds in their parent's basement for all we know.

read more: http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/wikileaks-reveals-more-state-secrets-afghan-war-diary-992

[CubanVoice]

11:15 AM on 08/12/2010

Anyone shocked by anything in these reports needs to wake up! What can possibly be in them that people arent aware of already? Abuses by the military? More civilian deaths? The fact that the war is NOT winnable? That our strategy there for ten years has sucked? That troops are on the edge, stressed, overtired, overextended, with no clear sense of goals and making deciions that affect and cause lives?

BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW! That would be an announcement thatbwould shock and awe!

[Madmac]

10:52 AM on 08/12/2010

WikiLeaks to Pentagon...You either better get down...or you better lay down.

[banker67]

10:37 AM on 08/12/2010

And since any and all allegations from the spooks and generals must remain super top secret, they don't have to prove a thing before they kidnap this guy or just 'sanction' him.
If they say he might damage national security, that's that. He then becomes fair game anywhere in the world. Does Rushdie's battle with Muslim loons come to mind about now?
We recoil in horror that some unnamed, allegedly Muslim group ordered the hit on Rushdie. But not when the boys waving the stars and stripes do the same thing to people who offend their privately defined, extremely flexible idea of 'patriotism'?