US says Wikileaks could 'threaten national security'

I just saw Daniel Ellsberg talk last night. He thinks it might. Let's hope it brings the troops home and stops wasting hundreds of billions on supportof our guy Karzai.

Shame on Obama. He knows better. Shame on the American people for making Obama think this is the way to get reelected.

 

Very well put as to why we need to get out as there will be no "victory".

 

No we don't know that. You have the war supporter line down. So similar as to how we knew South Vienam was the first dominoe and all of SE Asia would go communist. So similar as to how we knew the Russkies would invade W. Europe. So similar as to how we knew Iraq had wmd.

.

 

Back in the 80's a guy named Charlie Wilson thought it was a really bad idea to leave Afghanistan in a power vaccumm once they had succeeded in embarrasing the Russians. The net result was 20 years later you had 9/11.

And now you advocate taking the same course?

 

LINKAGE

 

Well, they're idiots for not combing through the data properly, but the same principle applies-who actually cares about Afghan lives? Certainly not the American gouvernment, that's for sure.

If the gouvernment cleaned up its own act and revealed these excesses beforehand while properly processing it, that would be a sight to behold. So much for transparency. American taxpayers should know that their hard-earned money is going into strafing school buses and blowing up weddings, the gouvernment should at least be accountable for that, if not the terrible and flagrant violation of international law (And yes this matters, because when fighting an organization that absolutely refuses to follow international law, you lose if you're the mega-power and you stoop to their level).

And I guess "threaten national security" has become the new "war is peace". Already, as you can see in the thread, certain people shut off their minds just because of the key phrase.

 

Have you considered that Obama is staying in Afghanistan because its the right thing and not for his re-election?

 

I had heard about that and yes he does sound pretty shady.

 

Probably as much or more as you with your determination to be a contented moderate conservative have considered that our leaders may not have the purest of motives or at times are pursuing crazily ineffective strategies.

I tend to trust Ellsberg as a man of integrity and smarts who think that is Obama's motivation while you , as you have said before trust guys like Bush I and perhaps largely his son.

So you don't think Obama frequently says things or does things with a focus on reelection.

 

We've been hearing this since the year before... There's no reason to believe that time in between would make things turn around.

 

If Obama cared so much about re-election he'd have never pushed that mess of a health care through which killed his approval rating. And Afghanistan is not a popular war.

While there are many things he, like any other politician, compromises on for the sake of boosting his re-elect-ability, this is not one of them.

At some point you have to come to understand what's at stake here - and that this isn't some esoteric battle on communism or terrorism, but a very real threat to our national security and if you think 9/11 can't happen again and this time with nukes, you are rolling dice that I - living in a target city - am not willing to roll.

In fact, withdrawing from Afghanistan would be a threat to every New Yorkers peace of mind and I'd oppose you all the way to the end.

 

True. I'd argue that the US forfeited the right to "national security" then they undertook what Gore Vidal described as "the perpetual war for perpetual peace" post WWII.

 

So since Obama doesn't agree with you then his motives must not be pure?

Right not Afghanistan as an issue is at an all time low for Obama to continue to pursue it doesn't sound like a decision done solely to win re-election. In fact it sounds like the opposite.

It sounds like you haven't kept up with my track record on this forum for the last few years.

Of course he does. He is an elected politician but this is an issue given where the poll numbers are doesn't seem calculated to be a winning issue.

Let me ask you since popularity regarding Afghanistan is low if Obama announced a withdrawl from Afghanistan would you accuse him of doing so to win reelection?

 

If this is such a big deal, then why are they still pondering whether to charge the person who leaked these documents? It feels like treason to me in a way. It's inexcuseable that someone inside the military could leak all these documents and not end up in prison for a very long, long time as a result.

And, that dufus over at WikiLeaks who twittered that Gates has all the blood on his hands instead of him, someone should do something about him as well. His rationale for leaking the documents is flawed imo. What is he trying to do exactly? Is he trying to create more problems than we already have...cause that is what he has done? It's not going to help us win the war. I guess he would rather live under an Islamic state banner. Maybe he can have dinner with Bin Laden and they can talk about how he helped Al Qaeda by doing this?

 

The Taliban confirm they are going to hunt the names revealed in the leaked documents.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/30/...get-names-exposed-by-wikileaks.html?GT1=43002


Taliban Says It Will Target Names Exposed by WikiLeaks
Militants were alerted to the leaked documents, which reveal details of informants, by news reports.
The U.S. military has already accused WikiLeaks of having "the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family" on its hands after leaking 92,000 classified documents. The Taliban has now confirmed it is poring through the documents, and intends to hunt down and punish any suspected spies named.

Britain's Channel 4 News interviewed a Taliban spokesperson named Zabihullah Mujahid by telephone. "We are studying the report," he said, referring to the documents, available online, some containing the names, tribes, and family information of Afghan informants.

"We knew about the spies and people who collaborate with U.S. forces," he continued. "We will investigate through our own secret service whether the people mentioned are really spies working for the U.S. If they are U.S. spies, then we know how to punish them."

The Taliban has recently pursued a policy of intimidating those who cooperate with the NATO forces in an attempt to undermine efforts at governance. Many local officials have been killed, and most have been threatened. The militant group is known to execute informants, reports Channel 4, by hanging, beheading, and shooting. It has even, on one recent occasion, strapped "two alleged traitors to explosives before detonating them in public."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen condemned WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange yesterday. "Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing," Mullen said, according to Reuters. "But the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family."

Gates told reporters that trust between the Afghan people and the U.S. military had been breached. "I spent most of my life in the intelligence business, where the sacrosanct principle is protecting your sources," he 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."

Many media organizations have avoided linking to the WikiLeaks site and have redacted information in their reports. But Mujahid told Channel 4 that the Taliban had begun investigating the leaked information after being alerted by news stories.

 

Thanks Wikileaks!

 

The Taliban and Al Qaeda are certainly running a better war than the Western allies are. They can do whatever they want and still make themselves look good to other Muslims. The allied forces don't really look good to anybody after all the crap they've pulled. I'm sure there is damning evidence in some of those documents that probably do constitute war crimes...which noone will ever be held accountable for because it's war.

That basically sums up the whole problem with trying to win this war. Al Qaeda and the Taliban can get as dirty as they want. Yet, Western forces are supposed to fight this war cleanly. When you start fighting wars without the barbarism that makes war what it is, then you lose. We're not even winning hearts and minds by trying to fight cleanly. What have we done since we've been there? Nothing really has changed except Saddam was overthrone in Iraq...and that has turned out to be a huge disaster in itself cause only the tyrant could control Iraq and now they have a dysfunctional govt that cannot agree on anything.

All these wars have done is make ordinary Muslims turn extreme and migrate to fight these wars. And, there is no shortage of them, either. They will continue to throw the poor, illiterate Muslims at the war for as long as it takes...until one day the Western allies decide they have had enough. All they have to do is continue blowing stuff up. That's it! Notice how we supposedly secured Iraq and put Iraqis in charge...and Al Qaeda has rebounded by continuing to just blow stuff up and kill people. Even if violence is way down, they will always be there to blow more stuff up to show people that they are still there, are a force to be reckoned with, and ready to fill the void if and when the govt collapses.

We're going to leave these wars with violence and people still dying any way you cut it. I guess we're trying to leave them with their own forces to secure the place...but given we cannot even do it...how the hell are we going to expect them to do it on their own?

 

Interesting....

Researcher detained at U.S. border, questioned about Wikileaks