WikiLeaks - Hero or Troublemaker?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I keep hearing the risking lives argument, but these are professional soldiers that volunteered for service, and they're fighting in two unnecessary wars of aggression in countries that never attacked us.

Except that many of the lives risked aren't soldiers at all, but civilian workers whom the Taliban regard as traitors.

I'm not very caught-up on this story, so I'm wondering if you could give me a specific instance of a released document that would likely put soldiers or citizens in harms way.

Here, here, and here are reports that could cost the lives of civilians and/or soldiers.

[The Magic Pudding]

I keep hearing the risking lives argument, but these are professional soldiers that volunteered for service, and they're fighting in two unnecessary wars of aggression in countries that never attacked us.

I thought your country was attacked by people harboured by and allied to the Taliban.
As I remember the Taliban were given the opportunity to expel them.

For the record, I was, and still am against the war in Iraq; however, I regard the war in Afghanistan as justified in its inception, and hardly a war of aggression; "war of vengeance" would appear to be a more-apt description.

I agree on Iraq.
For Afghanistan vengeance could have been achieved from 25,000 feet or 1000s of miles away.
Some people who supported the Afghan war no longer do, but can't provide an honourable way out.

The value of some documented abuses in developing propaganda should be obvious.
Propaganda motivates retaliation and is likely to get people killed.
Ideally abuses wouldn't be perpetrated, but that's easier said than done,
even the UN has problems keeping civilian aid workers in line.

[Thumpalumpacus]

For Afghanistan vengeance could have been achieved from 25,000 feet or 1000s of miles away.
Some people who supported the Afghan war no longer do, but can't provide an honourable way out.

I agree with the first sentence, and my position is fairly represented by the second.

[Will]

Except that many of the lives risked aren't soldiers at all, but civilian workers whom the Taliban regard as traitors.

You mean the Afghan informants? Did I miss something? Were actual named published? When I checked on this a few days ago, it turned out the allegations wikileaks released names of informants were not backed up with evidence. If you have a link to actual names, please let me know so I can change my view accordingly.

For the record, I was, and still am against the war in Iraq; however, I regard the war in Afghanistan as justified in its inception, and hardly a war of aggression; "war of vengeance" would appear to be a more-apt description.

We were not attacked by the Northern Alliance or the Taliban or the Afghan government. The Taliban made a temporary alliance with what we now call al Qaeda only as a part of their civil war to assassinate senior leadership of the Northern Alliance. After 9/11, the US government asked the almost nonexistent Afghan government to hand over Bin Laden. In accordance with the law, the Afghan authorities asked for evidence linking Bin Laden to the attacks. We supplied no such evidence and started bombing Taliban camps, a few of which had al Qaeda on them. Neither the civilians of Afghanistan nor the Taliban are responsible for 9/11. We were attacked by mostly Saudi militants, funded by Saudi money coming from Bin Laden's former fortune, who happened to train in Afghanistan as well as Germany and the United States.

We invaded Afghanistan to keep up the appearance that we have even the slightest idea of how to fight decentralized terror cells. The result of that unnecessary show of force can be measured in Afghan and coalition dead and wounded.

I should note that I don't regard our military men as expendable, either.

No human being is expendable. The reason we have war and murder is people's ability to rationalize giving their beliefs a higher regard than human life. Without that, we'd be at peace, not at war.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Except that many of the lives risked aren't soldiers at all, but civilian workers whom the Taliban regard as traitors.

You mean the Afghan informants? Did I miss something? Were actual named published? When I checked on this a few days ago, it turned out the allegations wikileaks released names of informants were not backed up with evidence. If you have a link to actual names, please let me know so I can change my view accordingly.

Actually, I've already posted them, above.  The first and second ones clearly name local collaborators.    Additionally, are you aware that names aren't necessary in order to determine an intelligence source?  The release of circumstantial information can provide decisive info as well.

We were not attacked by the Northern Alliance or the Taliban or the Afghan government. The Taliban made a temporary alliance with what we now call al Qaeda only as a part of their civil war to assassinate senior leadership of the Northern Alliance. After 9/11, the US government asked the almost nonexistent Afghan government to hand over Bin Laden. In accordance with the law, the Afghan authorities asked for evidence linking Bin Laden to the attacks. We supplied no such evidence and started bombing Taliban camps, a few of which had al Qaeda on them. Neither the civilians of Afghanistan nor the Taliban are responsible for 9/11. We were attacked by mostly Saudi militants, funded by Saudi money coming from Bin Laden's former fortune, who happened to train in Afghanistan as well as Germany and the United States.

Would you please link to a source confirming that the US refused to provide evidence of AQ's involvement?  

Calling bin Laden's money "Saudi" is like calling my money "American" -- essentially meaningless in this context, as it was his personal (inherited) fortune and not Royal financing.

We invaded Afghanistan to keep up the appearance that we have even the slightest idea of how to fight decentralized terror cells. The result of that unnecessary show of force can be measured in Afghan and coalition dead and wounded.

I agree that the US is ham-handed in dealing with the problem of terrorism.

No human being is expendable. The reason we have war and murder is people's ability to rationalize giving their beliefs a higher regard than human life. Without that, we'd be at peace, not at war.

Personally, there are things I am willing to die for -- or kill for -- in a given set of circumstances.

[The Magic Pudding]

unnecessary show of force can be measured in Afghan and coalition dead and wounded.  

Hasn't helped the economy either.

No human being is expendable. The reason we have war and murder is people's ability to rationalize giving their beliefs a higher regard than human life. Without that, we'd be at peace, not at war.

Those are worthy sentiments, but I think governments a long way off adopting such an attitude.
I would like to see some discussion allowed before wars are started.
If someone says no this is a bad idea, it will cost lives and treasure, they shouldn't be called a traitor.

[Will]

Actually, I've already posted them, above.  The first and second ones clearly name local collaborators.    Additionally, are you aware that names aren't necessary in order to determine an intelligence source?  The release of circumstantial information can provide decisive info as well.

I'm seeing district governors, police... not seeing informants. What I'm seeing here are medium to high ranking members of police and government. As far as I know, it common for all governors to regularly meet with coalition forces and it's very common for local police to work with them. I don't have time to go through 16 pages each with 50 reports right now. I'd appreciate it if you'd actually post a link to the report in question. Maybe I've missed it.

Would you please link to a source confirming that the US refused to provide evidence of AQ's involvement?

On September 21st, Afghanistan's then ambassador, speaking for the government of Afghanistan at the time, said they would not hand over Osama bin Laden without being presented with evidence. The Bush administration rejected the request, and tried to dishonestly frame the request for evidence as a negotiation for a terrorist instead of international law. That was the last Afghanistan heard from us before the October 7 bombings of not just al Qaeda targets, but Taliban targets as well.

Calling bin Laden's money "Saudi" is like calling my money "American" -- essentially meaningless in this context, as it was his personal (inherited) fortune and not Royal financing.

That's not entirely accurate. Saudi Arabia, the government, helped to finance al Qaeda and allowed the organization to start and grow within its borders. Unfortunately, the extent to which al Qaeda was funded and aided by Saudi Arabia especially pertaining to 9/11 wasn't made public by the 9/11 Commission, so I can't be more specific than "Saudi money".

Personally, there are things I am willing to die for -- or kill for -- in a given set of circumstances.

It's your business what you're willing to die for. It's your life to do with as you wish, after all. But when it comes to taking someone else's life, it's less cut and dry.

Those are worthy sentiments, but I think governments a long way off adopting such an attitude.
I would like to see some discussion allowed before wars are started.
If someone says no this is a bad idea, it will cost lives and treasure, they shouldn't be called a traitor.

That must be what it's like to live in countries that don't go to war very often. Sounds kinda nice.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm seeing district governors, police... not seeing informants. What I'm seeing here are medium to high ranking members of police and government. As far as I know, it common for all governors to regularly meet with coalition forces and it's very common for local police to work with them. I don't have time to go through 16 pages each with 50 reports right now. I'd appreciate it if you'd actually post a link to the report in question. Maybe I've missed it.

What did you expect to see listed as occupation?  "Informant"?

On September 21st, Afghanistan's then ambassador, speaking for the government of Afghanistan at the time, said they would not hand over Osama bin Laden without being presented with evidence.

Wrong.  His translator added the qualification, according to the second paragraph.  Also, he did not offer to turn bin Laden over; he said he "would be ready for bin Laden's trial", without specifying where said trial would occur.  As will be seen later, this was not an offer to turn him over to America upon receipt of evidence.

Also, in the 10th paragraph of your link, this Taliban ambassador explicitly threatens with violence those who sympathize with the enemy.  This rather supports exactly what I'm saying.

The Bush administration rejected the request, and tried to dishonestly frame the request for evidence as a negotiation for a terrorist instead of international law.

In this link, the Taliban didn't offer to turn bin Laden over to America, contrary to your claim; they offered to try him in Afghanistan under Sharia'a.  I'm sure he would've gotten a fair trial.

That was the last Afghanistan heard from us before the October 7 bombings of not just al Qaeda targets, but Taliban targets as well.

Seems apparent that they cast their lot in with him.

That's not entirely accurate. Saudi Arabia, the government, helped to finance al Qaeda and allowed the organization to start and grow within its borders. Unfortunately, the extent to which al Qaeda was funded and aided by Saudi Arabia especially pertaining to 9/11 wasn't made public by the 9/11 Commission, so I can't be more specific than "Saudi money".

Fair enough.  It seemed to implicate the Saudi government there.  Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It's your business what you're willing to die for. It's your life to do with as you wish, after all. But when it comes to taking someone else's life, it's less cut and dry.

Indeed it is.  'Tis why I prefer to think these things through.

[joe716]

When I first heard the story about the soldier who leaked information to Wikileaks, I viewed him as a traitor, but now I am not so certain.  

Was he genuinely trying to uncover inappropriate and unjust conduct in the government?  If so, should he not be commended?

The media, which Benjamin Franklin called the fourth estate, is supposed to be a watchdog over the government, but I cannot get any good information from FOX, CNN, ABC, or any other slanted, biased source.  

I cannot fault the Economist, however.  If you want to find out what is going on the the world, subscribe to the Economist.

[Will]

What did you expect to see listed as occupation?  "Informant"?

I expected to see actual informants. Regional governors and police routinely cooperate with the coalition forces, so publishing their names doesn't put them in any more danger today than they were in yesterday.

Wrong.  His translator added the qualification, according to the second paragraph.  Also, he did not offer to turn bin Laden over; he said he "would be ready for bin Laden's trial", without specifying where said trial would occur.  As will be seen later, this was not an offer to turn him over to America upon receipt of evidence.

You're suggesting the ambassador's professional translator spoke out of turn, making up an important point during a highly important press conference about the people responsible for one of the most spectacular terrorists attacks in history against the world's last military superpower? I see no evidence of that. More likely the translator was clarifying a translation from earlier. And it does make sense. The ambassador needed to appear reasoned so as not to be as easily associated with radicals. His position would be made stronger by asking for evidence.

Also, in the 10th paragraph of your link, this Taliban ambassador explicitly threatens with violence those who sympathize with the enemy.  This rather supports exactly what I'm saying.

In typical Bush-like fashion, the President had threatened the Taliban before seeking out a diplomatic solution. From the 9th paragraph [Bush speaking]: "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate." That was a serious threat, so of course the Taliban postured right back.

In this link, the Taliban didn't offer to turn bin Laden over to America, contrary to your claim; they offered to try him in Afghanistan under Sharia'a.  I'm sure he would've gotten a fair trial.

I never said they did, though I implied they would eventually. The Taliban are many things, but they're not stupid. If the US made public some of the evidence they had on Bin Laden, enough to be convincing but not so much as to give away sources, the entire international community instead of a select coalition of the willing would have born down on them, including Afghanistan's neighbors. Back in 2001, the US had a much better relationship with Pakistan and the Taliban were nowhere near as powerful. It's highly likely, had the US gone the diplomatic route, we would have either ended up with Bin Laden ourselves, or more likely he would have been turned over to a third party. Or, perhaps, we would have found out the Taliban didn't have the ability to get Bin Laden, and we could have simply gone an entirely different route.

Seems apparent that they cast their lot in with him.

They owed him a bit for the assassinations he helped them with, but their alliance was shaky at best. The singular goal of the Taliban has always been to install a fundamentalist Afghan government in place (and now in Pakistan, too). As long as the West didn't get involved, they didn't care about America. In fact, it was in the Taliban's best interest to never do anything to get too much American attention because we would have given the Northern Alliance, the Taliban's enemies, a great deal of help in response. al Qaeda, on the other hand, was/is all about attacking the West, specifically the US and the UK. Their aims were only temporarily aligned as al Qaeda could help fight the NA. As soon as al Qaeda became more trouble than they were worth, which was at about 9 AM Eastern time on 9/11/01, it was no longer in the Taliban's best interest to ally themselves.

[Reginus]

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

[Thumpalumpacus]

You're suggesting the ambassador's professional translator spoke out of turn, making up an important point during a highly important press conference about the people responsible for one of the most spectacular terrorists attacks in history against the world's last military superpower? I see no evidence of that.

I'm just reporting your evidence that you provided.  I'm making no "suggestion"; I am reading your link:

The rejection came in a statement by Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan. Asked whether the Taliban would hand over bin Laden, Zaeef said, "No."  But his translator said, "No, not without evidence."

Now, it's entirely possible that the ambassador forgot to qualify his flat rejection, and that his interpreter caught the error.  But it isn't clear that that is the case

More likely the translator was clarifying a translation from earlier. And it does make sense. The ambassador needed to appear reasoned so as not to be as easily associated with radicals. His position would be made stronger by asking for evidence.

I'm just reading the link you provided as support.  It is clear from the context [quoted above] that the translator was translating in real time, and not clarifying an earlier statement.

In typical Bush-like fashion, the President had threatened the Taliban before seeking out a diplomatic solution. From the 9th paragraph [Bush speaking]: "They will hand over the terrorists or they will share in their fate." That was a serious threat, so of course the Taliban postured right back.

And yet that comment came after the Taliban stated that they would try him in Afghanistan.  

In this link, the Taliban didn't offer to turn bin Laden over to America, contrary to your claim; they offered to try him in Afghanistan under Sharia'a.  I'm sure he would've gotten a fair trial.

I never said they did, though I implied they would eventually. The Taliban are many things, but they're not stupid. If the US made public some of the evidence they had on Bin Laden, enough to be convincing but not so much as to give away sources, the entire international community instead of a select coalition of the willing would have born down on them, including Afghanistan's neighbors. Back in 2001, the US had a much better relationship with Pakistan and the Taliban were nowhere near as powerful. It's highly likely, had the US gone the diplomatic route, we would have either ended up with Bin Laden ourselves, or more likely he would have been turned over to a third party. Or, perhaps, we would have found out the Taliban didn't have the ability to get Bin Laden, and we could have simply gone an entirely different route.

Your implication, then, seems to be contrary to the Taliban's own statement of intent.  

Additionally, given the long and close ties between Pakistan's ISI (and that agency's power in the Pakistani govt) and the Taliban, the idea that Pakistan would take action against Afghanistan is dubious at best (even with the best evidence), especially once you consider that Pervez Musharraf  already had serious credibility problems amongst Pakistan's Muslims, who would have only seen him as further being an American lackey.  Also, the Taliban themselves would fain have surrendered him at any rate, because such an action would violate tribal/cultural norms.  Not only that, the Taliban's long history of disdaining world opinion undermines this argument of yours as well.

Seems apparent that they cast their lot in with him.

They owed him a bit for the assassinations he helped them with, but their alliance was shaky at best. The singular goal of the Taliban has always been to install a fundamentalist Afghan government in place (and now in Pakistan, too). As long as the West didn't get involved, they didn't care about America. In fact, it was in the Taliban's best interest to never do anything to get too much American attention because we would have given the Northern Alliance, the Taliban's allies, a great deal of help in response. al Qaeda, on the other hand, was/is all about attacking the West, specifically the US and the UK. Their aims were only temporarily aligned as al Qaeda could help fight the NA. As soon as al Qaeda became more trouble than they were worth, which was at about 9 AM Eastern time on 9/11/01, it was no longer in the Taliban's best interest to ally themselves.

And yet they refused to divest themselves of this liability while they had the perfectly blameless opportunity?  It doesn't add up.

[Will]

I'm just reporting your evidence that you provided.  I'm making no "suggestion";

I'm proposing the most likely explanation for the ambassador's translator saying that is that he was communicating the intent of the translator. Do you think there's a more likely explanation?

I'm just reading the link you provided as support.  It is clear from the context [quoted above] that the translator was translating in real time, and not clarifying an earlier statement.

So then you are suggesting the translator answered the question him or herself, instead of clarifying and/or translating a point made by the ambassador. That's what I meant.  

Your implication, then, seems to be contrary to the Taliban's own statement of intent.

Their intent wasn't 100% clear, though we can assume certain attempts based on what we know of them.

Additionally, given the long and close ties between Pakistan's ISI (and that agency's power in the Pakistani govt) and the Taliban, the idea that Pakistan would take action against Afghanistan is dubious at best (even with the best evidence), especially once you consider that Pervez Musharraf  already had serious credibility problems amongst Pakistan's Muslims, who would have only seen him as further being an American lackey.  Also, the Taliban themselves would fain have surrendered him at any rate, because such an action would violate tribal/cultural norms.  Not only that, the Taliban's long history of disdaining world opinion undermines this argument of yours as well.

I didn't say Pakistan would take action against anyone. What I'm suggesting is that local powers would be better suited to put pressure on the Taliban. Pakistan was just an example of a possible local power we could use.

And yet they refused to divest themselves of this liability while they had the perfectly blameless opportunity?  It doesn't add up.

Sure it does. He wasn't 100% liability. The Taliban found themselves in possession, supposedly, of one of the most valued terrorists in history. Bin Laden made for a hell of a bargaining chip. I'm not sure if the Taliban expected the response the US provided in bombing al Qaeda AND Taliban camps. At that point, there was no going back.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm just reporting your evidence that you provided.  I'm making no "suggestion";

I'm proposing the most likely explanation for the ambassador's translator saying that is that he was communicating the intent of the translator. Do you think there's a more likely explanation?

I'm just reading the link you provided as support.  It is clear from the context [quoted above] that the translator was translating in real time, and not clarifying an earlier statement.

So then you are suggesting the translator answered the question him or herself, instead of clarifying and/or translating a point made by the ambassador. That's what I meant.  

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.

Your implication, then, seems to be contrary to the Taliban's own statement of intent.

Their intent wasn't 100% clear, though we can assume certain attempts based on what we know of them.

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?

I didn't say Pakistan would take action against anyone. What I'm suggesting is that local powers would be better suited to put pressure on the Taliban. Pakistan was just an example of a possible local power we could use.

If not Pakistan, then who?  Iran?  Despite the fact that they too detest both the Taliban and AQ, I doubt they'd do us such a favor, if for no other reason than Realpolitik  Perhaps  Turkmenistan?  Doubt they'd have the force to make any pressure credible.  Ditto the Uzbeks.

Sure it does. He wasn't 100% liability. The Taliban found themselves in possession, supposedly, of one of the most valued terrorists in history. Bin Laden made for a hell of a bargaining chip. I'm not sure if the Taliban expected the response the US provided in bombing al Qaeda AND Taliban camps. At that point, there was no going back.

I think they'd play it a bit smarter than that, particularly given that we'd already bombed AQ training camps in Afghanistan after the Embassy bombings, and that, as you pointed out earlier, Dubya made it perfectly clear that they would "share their [AQ's] fate".

For the reasons above, I stand by my assessment of your argument.

[Will]

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?

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.

If not Pakistan, then who?  Iran?  Despite the fact that they too detest both the Taliban and AQ, I doubt they'd do us such a favor, if for no other reason than Realpolitik  Perhaps  Turkmenistan?  Doubt they'd have the force to make any pressure credible.  Ditto the Uzbeks.

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.

I think they'd play it a bit smarter than that, particularly given that we'd already bombed AQ training camps in Afghanistan after the Embassy bombings, and that, as you pointed out earlier, Dubya made it perfectly clear that they would "share their [AQ's] fate".

Share their fate if they don't hand over Bin Laden.

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.