WikiLeaks - Hero or Troublemaker?

[Thumpalumpacus]

There is an alternate explanation: that there was one line of policy to be promulgated for international consumption, and another line of policy to actually be implemented.  Given the tensions of the times, it would obviously be impolitic for the Taliban to refuse to turn bin Laden over.  Under what must have been a bit of a stressful spot, the Ambassador let slip the policy to be implemented, rather than the cover of "we're asking for evidence."  The translator realized the error.  This is, of course, speculation -- but no more so than your scenario.

You're suggesting that it's just as likely the ambassador let it slip a secret plan as my explanation where a translator translated?

I'm suggesting that diplomatic blunders happen.  After all, your source reported the ambassodor's answer as "No", and then reported the translator's answer as "No, not without evidence."  The burden in this case is not on me; this is not my citation.

Given their history of thumbing their noses at international opinion, how can you justify assuming that they would about-face and attempt to mollify world opinion?

Thumbing their noses regarding internal Afghan matters is one thing. Thumbing their noses at the US about 9/11 is something completely different.

Apparently, it wasn't; they refused to surrender someone inculpated in an atrocity to the country so victimized, as international law (as established at Nuremburg) had established.

Just a regional Arab nation. Egypt would do it at the drop of a hat, the UAE would probably want to help, Kuwait, etc. etc. This doesn't seem like a major point.

Except that those countries, as well, had not the resources nor the permission to reach across Iran.  You may wish to dismiss this objection; you haven't disarmed it.

I'm not saying the Taliban aren't bad. They're in favor of extremist theocratic rule over innocent people. What I'm saying is that the attacks on both al Qaeda and Taliban camps and the subsequent invasion had less to do with justice for 9/11 and more to do with a show of strength.

I'd like to make clear at this point that I'm not trying to tar you with the brush of "sympathizer", and I'd like everyone reading this exchange to be clear on that point.  

My argument is simply that it takes two to tango, and that the Taliban as much as the Bush Administration mishandled this.  The Bush Admin should have been less bellicose, and more internationalist, even if emotional or political satisfaction might be somewhat delayed.  However, once they put forth that the surrender of bin Laden, KSM, and others was the desiderata, the Taliban could have undermined any American [domestic, politically driven] justification for attack.  Had America had bin Laden in the dock, there would have been no international support whatever for any military action.

I personally felt at the time, and do so feel today, that the original invasion was justified.  I also think that after it was clear that we missed him at Tora Bora, we should have withdrawn; to our discredit, considerations of prestige entered into the equation at that point.

[Will]

It seems we're interpreting the same information differently. I'm not above agreeing to disagree.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Heh, I thought that's what we were doing.  

[Sophus]

Also, if I remember correctly, wikileaks withheld some 15,000 articles to preserve privacy (of soldiers, I think, but maybe informants as well.)

According to this article, yes. Its author, Anthropology Professor Forte, seems to see this similarly to Will:

The endangering of Afghan civilians cannot, clearly, be a point on which to prosecute a case against Wikileaks, because the irony would be too immense for even the U.S. to try to keep inflated and aloft. The safety of troops is not much less ironicâ€"after all, it was the state that placed those troops in harm’s way, not Wikileaksâ€"but it does play better with a home crowd that has been sufficiently conditioned to thirst for the blood of imagined “traitors.”...
 It would be amazing if the U.S. or an ally ever got to try a case against Wikileaks on the grounds that troops’ lives had been endangered. It would be a massive fiasco. The state would need to showâ€"and not just assert, as it does nowâ€"exactly how any troops were actually endangered. Which of the rounds received from small arms fire in Afghanistan is a regular “insurgent” round and which one is a Wikileaks’ inspired round? In a war zone, how do you calibrate safety levels such that you can tell when, with Wikileaks, the danger meter went deeper into the red? And since Afghan civilians are already, all too painfully, aware of the damage done by U.S. and NATO forces, how can the release of these records do any greater damage? Did Afghans need a reminder, in print, in another language?

Yet also says:

“If there are innocent Afghans being revealed, which was our concern, which was why we kept back 15,000 files, then of course we take that seriously.” The problem is that many such identities are revealed in the files that have already been released. Assange argues that the U.S. military is ultimately to blame for having placed Afghan civilians in danger, and for recording identities that could be revealed. He is not wrong there, and the U.S. was overconfident that its database was beyond any danger of leakage, which is obviously wrong. Perhaps not wanting to engage in cold, bitter irony, Assange did not choose to give back to the state the words it often gives us: “Mistakes were made. We regret all loss of innocent civilian life. Unfortunately, the enemy chose to embed itself in the civilian population.” Wikileaks, via Twitter, was correct in noting that not once since the recent leaks exploded into public has the Pentagon said it was sorry about all the Afghan civilians it killed, or that it would stop.

And, just because I like picking on FOX, I'll quote this too:

Fox News was eager to dedicate its time and energies to looking for legal loopholes by which to hang Wikileaks. It demonstrated no such concern for the finer points of international law, let alone another country’s domestic laws, when it came to the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet, here is Fox on Wikileaks’ trail in Sweden. On August 6th Fox was happy to have surfaced with this report: “But the law [protecting freedom of expression and the anonymity of sources] only applies to websites or publications that possess a special publishing license granting them constitutional protection, and WikiLeaks has not acquired the requisite paperwork.” Fox’s headline was “WikiLeaks Website Not Protected by Swedish Law, Legal Analysts Say”â€"no legal analyst was named or quoted in the article. The only reason Fox issued this piece is as part of an effort, combining old media, social media, and the national security state, to draw a tighter noose around Wikileaks’ collective neck. At a time when many “patriotic Americans” are publicly calling for Wikileaks’ people to be hunted down and shot, it is interesting to note that Fox is only too happy to reveal the name, location, and photograph of the person hosting Wikileaks’ server in Sweden.

The hypocrisy is amazing. Truly it is. I've talked with a man now, at least on two recent occasions, who in all seriousness says he believes the young man in the military who gave WikiLeaks some of these documents should be "shot". (Why specifically "shot", I don't know).

[Sophus]

WikiLeaks is starting to really earn my trust since they have now given the US government the ability to redact sensitive information.

[Reginus]

Not sure if this has been said yet, but for the next batch of 15,000 documents, wikileaks is editing the names.  Article here

[Will]

Ah, I found the article I was looking for regarding the Taliban offering to hand over OBL to the US:

After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.

After a week of debilitating strikes at targets across Afghanistan, the Taliban repeated an offer to hand over Osama bin Laden, only to be rejected by President Bush.

The offer yesterday from Haji Abdul Kabir, the Taliban's deputy prime minister, to surrender Mr bin Laden if America would halt its bombing and provide evidence against the Saudi-born dissident was not new but it suggested the Taliban are increasingly weary of the air strikes, which have crippled much of their military and communications assets.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 31436.html

The offer came after the bombing started, but demonstrates my point that the Taliban were willing to turn over OBL.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thanks for your following up, Will.  I didn't recollect that, and I stand corrected.

[Will]

Thumpalumpacus, you have the objectivity of a Vulcan. I'm impressed.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

heh, you're too kind.  

A man who can't admit when he's wrong ain't much of a man in my book.

[Sophus]

Thumpy, as a lurker I shall add my praise too.  

Few to no qualities I admire more.

[Asmodean]

WL being a hero or troublemaker depends on the perspective. When people who can't handle information properly or can use it for their own dark agenda get it, the outcome is usually not too good. When people who don't really care get the same information, nothing changes. And others may react in some way that brings something positive about.

Personally, I wouldn't trust potentially sensitive information to general public. Too many idiots among those... At least one can usually control the idiots within the organization that sits on the sensitive data. Can't control much once it's out there.

[Sophus]

Will the US government censor Wikileaks with SDN? I hope not.

You may not know what the SDN list (Specially Designated Nationals) is but we´ll explain. It’s the US version of Iran and Chinas state censorship machine.

[Sophus]

Is this story at all related to Wikileaks? It hadn't mentioned it:

U.S. Soldiers Accused of Killing Afghan Civilians for Sport
The documents with the charges against soldiers accused of randomly killing Afghan civilians for fun contain "some of the grisliest allegations against American soldiers since the U.S. invasion in 2001," writes the Washington Post's Craig Whitlock. Besides killing three civilians for no apparent reason, members of a platoon from the Fifth Stryker Combat Brigade, Second infantry Division have also "been charged with dismembering and photographing corpses, as well as hoarding a skull and other human bones." Five sodiers are accused of planning and executing three murders in Kandahar province while seven others have been charged with related crimes, including trying to block the investigation and assaulting a whistleblower. Now questions are being raised about whether the military willfully turned a blind eye toward suspicious behavior. The father of one of the soldiers tried to warn officials after his son told him what was going on, but no one took him seriously.

[pinkocommie]

That's awful!  D: