Wikileaks Puts Afghan Informants In Danger
Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks’ publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.
The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.
22 Responses to “Wikileaks Puts Afghan Informants In Danger”
Contact
Email: owillis@gmail.com
Twitter: @owillis
Facebook
Flickr
AIM: oliverwill
Google Reader Shared Items
Huffington Post Columns
Media Matters Blog Entries
Must Reads
Why Didn’t Obama’s DOJ Go After The New Black Panther Party For Voter Intimidation?
History: Democrats & Republicans On Civil Rights & Equality
Latest Entries
Obama Administration Doesn’t Get It: Weakness Is Not A Virtue
Palin Endorses Nutjob Christine O’Donnell
Ben Nelson Knifes The Middle Class On Taxes
GOP’s K Street Project Comes Back To Life As Lobbyists Hire Republicans
Stem Cell Research Ban Ruling Now On Hold
VIDEO: Somebody Really Wants To Be The Stark County Republican Treasurer
VIDEO: Honk If You Hate Dallas
Opponents Of “Ground Zero Mosque” Mostly Just Hate Islam
Obama Meets With Elizabeth Warren
Karl Rove Will Pretty Much Lie About Anything
Meta
Breaking News
Heidi Montag Fears Breast Implants Will Harden
UK: Gary Higgs Kills Joanne Kitchen After She Yells Wrong Name Out
PICTURE: Vanessa Williams Joins “Desperate Housewives” Cast
Kim Kyeonga Called Korea’s Paris Hilton
Reggie Bush To Be Stripped Of Heisman
Timothy Wayne Hammerstone: Disney Worker Arrested For Child Porn On Xbox
Clay Sannar: Mormon Bishop Shot & Killed
Shooting Spree In Slovakia Capital Kills Six
Lindsay Lohan Stopped By Cops In LA
Yvonne Strahovski at 8th Annual BAFTA/LA TV Tea Party
Coverage
President Obama
2008 Election
John McCain
Humor
Iraq
George W. Bush
Health Care
Economy
NFL
Links
Fox News
Hillary Clinton
Race
Sarah Palin
Redskins
Newsweek
Tea Party
2006 Election
Racism
Oliver's World
Michael Steele
Maryland
Religious Right
History
Conservative
Superman
Crime
Liberals
Women
Mitt Romney
Glenn Beck
Democratic Senate
Immigration
Liberal Media
Black Conservatives
Weird
Twitter
Rudy Giuliani
Global Warming
Abortion
Dick Cheney
Fred Thompson
Foreign Policy
Religion
Supreme Court
Profile
Jessica Alba
Beyonce
Tom Brady
Cricket
Lady Gaga
Katie Holmes
AnnaLynne McCord
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
New Orleans Saints
Katy Perry
Michelle Rodriguez
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
Blogroll
As unfortunate as that is, I do not think it challenges the legitimacy of what Wikileaks has done. The fact is, our political and journalistic safeguards regarding this war have broken down. The politicians kowtow to the military, and the journalists are embedded. I think it will take extreme actions like this to get the public’s attention and make them face facts: The war is a slow moving disaster.
As unfortunate as that is
Boy, is this a fantastic phrase. Sorry that your cooperation with us has led to your targeting for death, but now I can make some political points about the war.
Why is that “revealing the facts” always indicates that the war is a “disaster”?
Isn’t it just possible that certain things that take place in war must be classified :
Troop locations
Intelligence informants
Weapons movements
Support locations
and, of course,
when investigations are taking place, they must be kept secret until they are completed.
“Top Secret” does not equal “Cover Up”
What a bunch of crap! The United States is supposed to be a free and open society. The government shouldn’t keep any secrets from its people – not one. PERIOD! If our military wasn’t dirty as hell and didn’t use barbaric tactics, there wouldn’t be any need for secrecy!
Sorry to break it to you folks, but that is what generally happens to collaborators in war. The French Resistance frequently murdered people they believed to be cooperating with the Germans. Similarly, American patriots during the Revolution terrorized Loyalists to Great Britain.
Furthermore, I think the ultimate imperative in this situation is to undermine the occupation of Afghanistan. It ceased to be about 9 / 11 and al-Qaeda years ago, and now is just a cynical exercise in regional hegemony.
Truth is the first casualty of war.
The government shouldn’t keep any secrets from its people – not one. PERIOD!
Would you like ponies with those rainbows?
This isn’t something where one should apply a “they did it first so it’s OK” type rational as in gotcha politics, but conservatives have little room to whine about this kind of thing considering the extent to which most of them laughed off the endangerment of the undercover operatives in the Brewster Jennings CIA front company explicitly exposed by Robert “Douchebag of Liberty” Novak in the Valerie Plame affair. (And before we get the usual suspects chiming in that Plame was “just a desk jockey”, etc., I’m talking explicitly here about the OTHER operatives in Brewster Jennings, which Novak mentioned BY NAME in his reports…)
This isn’t something where one should apply a “they did it first so it’s OK” type rational as in gotcha politics…
Yeah, so?
Why is that “revealing the facts” always indicates that the war is a “disaster”?
Well, according to Occam’s razor, that would be because the war is a disaster.
The thing that pisses me off the most is that Pakistan is funding the Taliban, and we still keep giving them money. We need to give them an ultimatum. Either they stop this crap, or that money goes to India.
I know, it’s not that simple, but a guy can dream, right?
Zython, you are missing the point. Occam and his razor have nothing to do with it.
There were over 90,000 pages of released data, that somehow boils down to “war bad – must stop.” That’s analysis?
I know, it’s not that simple, but a guy can dream, right?
You can always apply for a dreamer’s position with the current administration – they are always looking for more.
This has become a wingnut talking point, & it isn’t true. Posters at Daily Kos made this accusation on a diary that was about wikileaks, but weasel pointed out he checked the example the Times quoted, & found it just wasn’t true.
And ‘The Times” being refered to isn’t the New York Times, but the Times of London.
Hey, The Times quotes “a senior official at the Afghan foreign ministry” and “One former intelligence official”, so obviously this must be a real concern and not something ginned up by the administration to distract attention from an unpopular, unwinnable war.
Riiight Oliver. And the failed US policy in Afghanistan itself has never gotten any civilians killed.
And if I was an Afhan working with the US, I’d be far more worried about the revelation that Pakistan, with US funding, is working hand-in-hand with the Taliban.
What a lame-ass attempt at push-back.
Good for Wikileaks. Screw Afghanistan.
Wikileaks are ruining our opportunity to remake Afghanistan in Our Image. LOL
Call me a dreamer, Willis, but I am the one defending the principles this country was founded on. Apologists for the military-industrial complex and defenders of the veil of secrecy called “national security” that the Pentagon draws over everything to hide their misdeeds, are not the patriots! In fact, you are the antithesis of a patriot by condoning and supporting this anti-American bullshit!
I suppose that Daniel Ellsberg should have been strung up as well.
It takes about 30 seconds to find this information online:
“The Times and its sister paper The Sunday Times are published by Times Newspapers Limited, a subsidiary of News International. News International is entirely owned by the News Corporation group, headed by Rupert Murdoch.” (Wikipedia).
Seriously, Oliver. You can’t quote Murdoch when its convenient. Besides, I don’t understand your fascination with invading and occupying a foreign land. Didn’t Thomas Jefferson say something about how America should not get entangled in foreign alliances …
Oliver? Response please?
Didn’t Thomas Jefferson say something about how America should not get entangled in foreign alliances …
Well, it was George Washington, and what he actually said was, “We have to fight the terrorists over there so we don’t have to fight them over here.” Or at least, that’s the modern interpretation.
Difficult to understand why those names could not have been redacted, I love Wikileaks for being the only organization with any balls whatsoever, but endangering informants seems like something to be avoided regardless on how someone feels about the conflict.