The Wikileaks collection

[jmm99]

The German investigation and possible prosecution of Oberst Klein and his Oberfeldwebel because of the Kunduz gas tankers bombing has ended in dismissal of all charges - Hat tip to Igel for his post in "Germans in Afghanistan" (post #40).

It is one thing to critique (whether informed or not) how warfare was conducted and dispute "best practices" (as to which, reasonable - and unreasonable - people can disagree). It is quite another thing to allege that that conduct was a "war crime".

----------------------
The interview linked by Fuchs (Danger Room What’s Next in National Security U.S. Soldier on 2007 Apache Attack: What I Saw) has a couple of quotes on the tactical situation which are similar to what sapperfitz82 tells us:

McCord: ... [context - he has just carried the wounded girl from the van] ...
I was told to go pull security on a rooftop. When we were on that roof, we were still taking fire. There were some people taking pot shots, sniper shots, at us on the rooftop. We were probably there on the roof for another four to five hours.

Wired.com: How much sniper fire were you getting?

McCord: It was random sporadic spurts. I did see a guy … moving from a rooftop from one position to another with an AK-47, who was firing at us. He was shot and killed.
......
Wired.com: Wikileaks presented the incident as though there was no engagement from insurgents. But you guys did have a firefight a couple of blocks away. Was it reasonable for the Apache soldiers to think that maybe the people they attacked were part of that insurgent firefight?

McCord: I doubt that they were a part of that firefight. However, when I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there…. You just don’t walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight…. Personally, I believe the first attack on the group standing by the wall was appropriate, was warranted by the rules of engagement. They did have weapons there. ....

So, again, more testimony that Al-Amin was far from an unarmed, peaceful neighborhood.

Regards

Mike

[bourbon]

No Secrets: Julian Assange’s mission for total transparency, by Raffi Khatchadourian. The New Yorker, June 7, 2010.

Video: WikiLeaks’ Media Insurgency, posted by The New Yorker, May 31, 2010.

This week in the magazine, Raffi Khatchadourian writes about WikiLeaks. Here Khatchadourian discusses a classified U.S. military video that shows the killing of two Reuters employees in Baghdad, posted by WikiLeaks under the title “Collateral Murder.”

Khatchadourian wrote The Kill Company last summer, and before that an exceptional article on the American al Qaeda member Adam Gadahn.

[bourbon]

One item that stood out to me from the NY'er article:

Before launching the site, Assange needed to show potential contributors that it was viable. One of the WikiLeaks activists owned a server that was being used as a node for the Tor network. Millions of secret transmissions passed through it. The activist noticed that hackers from China were using the network to gather foreign governments’ information, and began to record this traffic. Only a small fraction has ever been posted on WikiLeaks, but the initial tranche served as the site’s foundation, and Assange was able to say, “We have received over one million documents from thirteen countries.”

[Uboat509]

Bourbon,

Thanks for posting that piece on Assange. That was a very interesting read. The guy is probably brilliant but he is a paranoid narcissist with delusions of grandeur. He honestly believes that what he is doing is going to somehow save the world and he is prepared to "get blood on his hands" to do it. He admits to having edited the film to make his point. That qualifies as propaganda in my book which makes him a hypocrite at the very least. Elsewhere, this guy would just be another crank on the fringe but he has built himself his own little cult of personality and has gained access to a considerable amount of data, not enough to change the world as he believes, but enough to get innocent people killed.

[William F. Owen]

He honestly believes that what he is doing is going to somehow save the world and he is prepared to "get blood on his hands" to do it. He admits to having edited the film to make his point. That qualifies as propaganda in my book which makes him a hypocrite at the very least.

Uboat mate, all good points, but looking out from these cliffs, he's just like anyone else in the media. Very little of what you see is actually objective.
The basic reporting of events maybe, but the analysis of any conflict is almost always in support of basic narrative that the reporter/station/organisation has brought into.
Media seeks to influence policy. What annoys me is their claim to be impartial or objective. Very, very few are.

[jmm99]

starting late yesterday with this from Wired, U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe:

By Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter
June 6, 2010
9:31 pm

Federal officials have arrested an Army intelligence analyst who boasted of giving classified U.S. combat video and hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records to whistleblower site Wikileaks, Wired.com has learned.

SPC Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Maryland, was stationed at Forward Operating Base Hammer, 40 miles east of Baghdad, where he was arrested nearly two weeks ago by the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. A family member says he’s being held in custody in Kuwait, and has not been formally charged. .... (much more in article and blogs cited below)

E.g., blogs at the Nation, Arrested Wikileaks Whistleblower: 260,000 Classified Docs Show “Almost Criminal Political Back Dealings”; and at the NY Times, U.S. Soldier Arrested in WikiLeaks Inquiry After Tip From Former Hacker, are running with the same story.

Regards

Mike

[Lorraine]

By now, most everyone has read about WikiLeak's release of 92,000 reports from operations in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2010 -- some of them classified. Over the last month, three news organizations: the New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel had access to the documents. Today, they published stories based on their analysis, simultaneously with WikiLeaks release of the source documents.

All three news organizations make promises that "little or no harm" will come from their reporting.

I've only begun to wade through this mess. But initially, the hair is raised on my back. I'm wary of such easy promises.

The gravest concern is the classified information. There is simply no way that WikiLeaks or the news outlets can predict the outcome of releasing classified information -- even if names have been redacted. Classified information is protected for a reason. Lives, operations, negotiations, partnerships may perish when it's not.

I'm also concerned how easily the Rule of Law has been discarded in favor of "transparency." And how it's likely that these documents will be misinterpreted and/or distorted because they lack context and authentication. And how both these things will impact progress in Afghanistan and how we conduct ourselves as a society.

Anyways, back to reading.

[jmm99]

when I briefly reported the Manning case, Yes, appears incriminating .... , to 92K actually published. So, Wikileaks' denial of the 260K log entries may be technically accurate - unless there are to be 2nd and 3rd installments.

In any event, if someone cannot make something out of 92K classified log entries (that is, something that they shouldn't be able to make out otherwise), I'd be very surprised. Consider the Venona intercepts (The Rosenberg Case Resurrected) - not exactly gems of clarity and incomplete; but they filled in many blanks.

Regards

Mike

[huskerguy7]

In my opinion, I think the release of these classified reports is inappropriate and unnecessary. Even though much of the names are deleted, it still compromises relationships, tactics, operations, and strategy. I do agree with transparency to an extent, but 92,000 documents from an ongoing war is disappointing. As a citizen, I know that some facts about ongoing conflicts are going to be hidden, and understand. I'm ok with that because I trust the people in office and in command. What's really frustrating is that the mass media is going to capitalize on a couple of these documents to paint their own picture of the war. I think that this may cause unnecessary panic and several misunderstandings about the war. Don't get me wrong, I am taking advantage of this event to learn more about the war. However, I would rather have preferred that this leak did not happen; the effects are not worth it. Nevertheless, anybody could oppose this assertion with legitimate points.

As for the content of the documents, I've had the chance to examine some (I'm the kind of person that prefers to avoid relays when receiving information). There is a substantial amount of interesting information that confirms some of my opinions, proves some wrong, and surprises me. After reading a certain amount, I feel that my understanding is better.

[Red Rat]

I have only seen the UK's 'Guardian' newspaper coverage.

From the perspective of an informed observer there appears to be little new in the material released. Most was 'known of' in the public domain, even if it was not widely reported or acknowledged. The sheer amount of material published does IMHO mean that an analysis of it will reveal stuff relating to our intelligence structure, efforts and effectiveness that we just do not want people to know. It will damage us. The Guardian acknowledges (link given elsewhere in thread) that they had too much material and not enough time to process it, so they used a word search facility to home in an areas of interest (search 'blue on blue', 'casualties', 'Iran' etc). This methodology means IMHO that they are simply unable to say truthfully or accurately that its release will not put lives at risk or damage national interests. Overall I found the analysis disappointingly superficial which reinforced my feeling that they were overloaded with information and have not been able to look at it properly in the time they had.

The coverage is interesting too. The 'Guardian' is a left of centre liberal newspaper. The narrative it appeared to be trying to build was that the war was messier (morally and physically) then we think and we cannot trust what we are being told about the situation out there:

• More civilian casualties
• SF taskforces killing targets under dubious legal grounds
• Issues over Afghan government effectiveness (and moral worth), Pakistan and Iranian involvement.

This will strike a chord with the 'why are we there and what are we achieving' component in the UK.

[John T. Fishel]

As a former national level Army analyst, my experience was that there was an awful lot of stuff classified that had no business being classified.
A little background for those who don't know:
1. There are only 3 levels of classification in the US, confidential, Secret, and Top Secret with Secret being the middle level (contrary to the NYT story). They are established and defined by Executive Order, not by legislation. There are also compartments within each category where access is granted based on "need to know."
2. Level of classification is chosen by the"degree of harm" to US national security based on unauthorized release.
3. Most classified documents are classified because they are based on previouslly classified documents - called "derivative classification authority."

IMO documents are legitimately classified when they relate to war plans (writ large), intel sources and methods, and perishable friendly and enemy information, as well as non-perishable stuff. Generally, once a plan has been executed, there is no longer a need to keep it classified although there may be some parts that should remain so. Generally, intelligence information is perishable and becomes part of the public domain fairly quickly so there is usually no longer a need to keep the INFORMATION itself classified. Sources and methods need to stay classified fro a very long time.

My experience has been that once classified it is unusaul for declassification to take place. An exception was OPORD BLIND LOGIC, my plan for the post-conflict reconstruction of Panama which my boss deliberately declassified after it had been executed. But, it is generally too difficult to take the time to declassify plans and information while retaining as classified what should be retained. So, people don't bother. There are also plenty of examples of the improper use of classification. When the opening to China took place, my organization ran a curren intel article on Ping Pong Dipolmacy that the author classified as Confidential even though he had taken it directly from the CBS Morning News on the grounds that if it were UNCLAS the generals would not believe it! In other cases, things have been classified only because they would embarrass public officials if released - this was IMO the primary reason the Nixon Administration sought to block the release of the Pentagon Papers.

Despite some cases of improper classification, the general problem of overclassification and lack of declassification is the all too human response that doing what is right is simply in the "too hard" box. That brings on its own problems such as Wikileaks and the Pentagon Papers (which should simply have been declassified and released).

Cheers

JohnT

[J Wolfsberger]

As a former national level Army analyst, my experience was that there was an awful lot of stuff classified that had no business being classified.

I worked with a guy who tried to classify F=ma (Top Secret, no less), on the grounds we didn't want the Soviets to know we were using basic physics. (No, I'm not making that up.)

I'll second John, but then introduce a caveat. While there is probably stuff in this release that shouldn't have been classified, that wasn't the leaker's decision to make.

[A. Shahid]

The 'documents', if they can be called as much, appear to simply be culled from a well-known database used in theater.
The other issue, one that I'm personally concerned about, is the impact on the lives of named individuals in these documents. When we signed our agreements concerning the proper use of classified material, it was implied that the government would hold up its end of the bargain and prevent the unauthorized disclosure of our names, identities, activities, etc. The fact that US individuals are named in these documents and NOT redacted by the media is disturbing. This could have significant personal and professional ramifications for those who are not career, active-duty intelligence personnel. In some cases, the perception of involvement in 'covert' or 'special forces' raids could make us unhireable in certain professional disciplines.
What sayeth the Council on this matter?

[tom_mancino]

1. No moral equivalency between the Pentagon Papers, released by one of the authors, and a disturbed 22 year old PFC Manning - the most likely source of this leak.
2. Failure to prosecute/stop these leaks shows a disturbing lack of leadership. Where was the CIA? Was any effort made to stop this or other leaks? The existence of this data had been suspected since Manning's arrest.
3. What will Wikileaks have to produce in order to be prosecuted? Names and addresses of operators? The founder is an Australian after all, a NATO and combatant country.
4. These leaks and others like them will have a chilling effect on intelligence operations. Would you give information if you thought it/you might be made available to the enemy?
5. Failure to prosecute these types of events provide support to our enemies, irrespective of the value of the intelligence they contain, by showing that we are not serious. What would have happened had this type of event occurred during WWII? Are we at war or not?

[Ken White]

...What would have happened had this type of event occurred during WWII? Are we at war or not?

and have not been since WW II. Elements of the Army are committed to a war, the institution is not at war nor is the US.

I know very well why that is distasteful. However, I'm unsure why it is not more widely known and accepted (in the sense that it is inevitable so you might as well enjoy it...).

[tom_mancino]

and have not been since WW II. Elements of the Army are committed to a war, the institution is not at war nor is the US.

I know very well why that is distasteful. However, I'm unsure why it is not more widely known and accepted (in the sense that it is inevitable so you might as well enjoy it...).

Agreed.....

[John T. Fishel]

Legitimately classified stuff should only be declassified properly. That said, we shouldn't make it go into the "too hard box." My point, besidess being to give a bit of info on the nature and pitfalls of classification was to say that by not declassifying what and when we should, we create situations where someone else will "declassify" it by improper, unauthorized release. That is part of what happened in both the Pentagon Papers and the Manning and this other Wikileaks case. Not moral equivalency at all.

Tom, Australia is a combatant with us but NOT a member of NATO. She is actually a member of the ANZUS alliance. What, however, would you prosecute Wikileaks for? As far as I can tell, they have broken no US laws. Remember, we do not have an Official Secrets Act (which would probably be unconstitutional anyway). You can prosecute the govt leaker but not the media outlet.

Cheers

JohnT

[Lorraine]

and have not been since WW II. Elements of the Army are committed to a war, the institution is not at war nor is the US.

I know very well why that is distasteful. However, I'm unsure why it is not more widely known and accepted (in the sense that it is inevitable so you might as well enjoy it...).

Ken, I'm not sure of your intent here. Can you explain further?

[Yank in Germany]

Just as large amounts of unclassified data put together can provide intelligence, I am sure 92,000 pages will provide the enemy information on or TTP's and other operations.

Sadly such leakers haven't been prosecuted.

[tom_mancino]

Legitimately classified stuff should only be declassified properly. That said, we shouldn't make it go into the "too hard box." My point, besidess being to give a bit of info on the nature and pitfalls of classification was to say that by not declassifying what and when we should, we create situations where someone else will "declassify" it by improper, unauthorized release. That is part of what happened in both the Pentagon Papers and the Manning and this other Wikileaks case. Not moral equivalency at all.

Tom, Australia is a combatant with us but NOT a member of NATO. She is actually a member of the ANZUS alliance. What, however, would you prosecute Wikileaks for? As far as I can tell, they have broken no US laws. Remember, we do not have an Official Secrets Act (which would probably be unconstitutional anyway). You can prosecute the govt leaker but not the media outlet.

Cheers

JohnT

Very true on both points. I wonder if Australian law is similar to our own, or more "liberal" with possible prosecution for disclosed secrets? Also, is it settled law that media outlets can't be prosecuted or is there a required 1st Amendment test relative to value of the information published to show the workings of government policy? I agree with your comments on over-classification as well. However, to me, this is exactly the type of intelligence that should remain classified for a very long time. It is unfiltered intel reporting of varying reliability, listing names/places/phone numbers, etc. not filtered analytical products with a historic value or insight into government policy (the downloadable data from wikileaks is non-redacted). Some of those reports were from just last year.