War in Afghanistan.

[kandrathe]

Deceiving who? The Taliban is surely under no illusions as to what the US is doing - they're fighting the war! They know full well what's happening and where, except perhaps at the level of specifics, which I don't think civilians have any need to know in any case. But it must come as no surprise to them that they have rockets, or that they brought down a chopper we were never told about, or that the US has units hunting their leaders.

I agree that there should be better communication from the President summarizing the "war" news with the home front. I think perhaps there is a fear of demoralization. Here in the evil empire, it is sad that a decade long war can become back-burner and we grind through money and lives until some event or a slow news cycle propels our interest back to the war for a week or two.

No, this is about deceiving *us*, sugar-coating and burying information that might make the war look unpopular. Once a democratic state is in the business of lying to itself, raison d'etat takes over.

Ok, I think I've been saying this for awhile. After WWII, our governments never demobilized, but rather kept looking for applications to apply this world dominating power, ergo, raison d'etat. It's mostly the US, but, also our NATO allies, Japan, South Korea and ANZAC.

Yes. My point is, their release would be entirely unnecessary if they did not also contain information that we should already know, but don't, because the government denies it, or simply fails to mention it. If this was merely a flood of documents released just for the sake of releasing them, I'd be much less sympathetic.

The release was reckless, and irresponsible. What I'm saying is that it was unnecessary for all this information to be released.

Well, for now, I think it would behoove the coalition forces to devote more effort to keeping their civilian informants safe from reprisals. If I understand Petraeus' Iraq strategy at all, then he will no doubt pursue this course anyway.

There is no doubt that the US and Afghan government will be moving quickly to protect the exposed, however, this depends on the person, their position in the community and their geography.

Regardless, the idea that civilians should be "protected" from the "horrors" (read: truth) of war is disgusting. War is ugly, and if the people don't want to fight it, what on earth is their purportedly democratic government doing trying to deceive them into it? The government is the servant of the people, not the other way around.

Sorry, I wasn't clear on that statement. Because of Vietnam, the military strictly controlled journalists movement and access to information within war zones. I'm more inclined to think this documentary,War Made Easy, is closer to our problem.

War should not be easy.

If it's worth it, then it's worth it. If it's not, then it's not. But that's for the people to judge, and not the military, or the government. The people can't do that without the relevant information. That doesn't mean this kind of information overload minute-by-minute reporting we get from these documents - they are a second-best substitute for transparency. But it does mean all the major facts (like, say, the effectiveness of the Taliban) are on the table for all to see.

We agree in principle here. I don't think Wikileaks helped out at all. The wise play would have been to work between the responsible news organizations and the Pentagon to release the information in a responsible manner to protect people lives. In principle, I'm still against news organizations making a profit from stolen goods, and I don't support the existence of a Wikileaks like structures to encourage traitors an easy venue for dumping classified information. I don't think we are at place where our governments can exist without secrets.

[Lissa]

I predict the site will be shut down soon, and Julian Assange will be prosecuted for whatever they can stick on him.

My bet? They have nothing, and Julian Assange will continue to do what he's always done. I'm optimistic that Wikileaks will remain in operation.

If for no other purpose than to... ... "smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let them know that they need to live in a state of constant fear."

If it works twice as well as the original, we can expect to see Wikileaks alive and well long into the next century.*

-Jester

*The original did also include a disclaimer that this was not meant literally - whereas the US government might well be more direct.

If the spooks are subtle, it will appear as if he died in a freak accident where they could only be a million to one chance, or he will just disappear without a trace. The questions is *whose* spooks will get him. When you mess with engaging in asymmetric information warfare against all of NATO and their allies, you wouldn't know who hired the contractors. They may just be allied mujaheddin as well, and we're handing out tons of cash for dirty deeds.

You don't kill someone like this in this day and age, you discredit them or get them jailed for trumped up, but highly likely charges. Killing someone makes them a martyr now, tarnishing their image makes people no longer pay attention to them.

Besides, the information that went up is 6+ months out of date. A lot of things have changed from the most recent items they published. The only thing this publishing is going to do is make it less likely that Afghan's will work with the NATO forces.

For those of you not following recent info on the situation, Swedish prosecutors have now placed two arrest warrants against the founder of wikileaks, one has been dropped because the rape charges were flimsy at best, but the second, a molestation charge, are still being looked into. So, as I noted in this post, you don't kill someone like this, you discredit which is what is happening now.

[kandrathe]

For those of you not following recent info on the situation, Swedish prosecutors have now placed two arrest warrants against the founder of wikileaks, one has been dropped because the rape charges were flimsy at best, but the second, a molestation charge, are still being looked into. So, as I noted in this post, you don't kill someone like this, you discredit which is what is happening now.

I had heard this here, and here too. I was thinking it was clumsy of the Swedes, who better have an air tight case before they go tossing around warrants. Otherwise, King Julian will just claim to be the victim of an attempt to frame him.



He's guilty of making himself a worldwide spectacle, where every thing you do is scrutinized and it attracts anyone who can make a case against you. Perhaps these women are doing this for the 15 minutes of fame and profit, or maybe he's really a scumbag. That is for the Swedish prosecutors to prove then.

But, if the comments are to be believed, then this is an obvious frame up, and jails are notorious for acts of violence against sex offenders.