It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

WikiLeaks founder accuses US army of failing to protect Afghan informers

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   

WikiLeaks founder accuses US army of failing to protect Afghan informers


www.guardian.co.uk

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has hit out at the US military, saying that it bears the ultimate responsibility for any deaths of Afghan informers in the wake of the publication by his organisation of 75,000 leaked files of American army secrets.

Assange and WikiLeaks, the whistleblowers' website that publishes leaked documents from around the world, have come under increasing fire amid accusations that publishing the files put people's lives at risk. But in an interview with the Observer, Assange said the blame for any deaths lay squarely with US military authorities.

"We are appal
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:06 AM
link   
What do you make of this? You think his claims have merit? Hes very protective of protecting his sources while the U.S. govt. sucks at it so bad. Not to mention he wants to make the govt. transparent to the American people and the world. Some should say he do that as well with his sources but thats just how it is. Its not a govt. just a website.

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:07 AM
link   
Just like we didn't protect the people who helped us in Iraq. I'm sure that when the Iraq files are released. there will be more of the same. Maybe with the names redacted this time.

For an analysis of the names, see larrylove's thread here.

To see the full interview with Assange today, see the link in this thread.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:12 AM
link   
well seeing the fact that we are in a hostile WARZONE. We can't simply put them into a safe house somewhere or anything.... We are not your state and local cops, we cannot stand guard outside their house all the time. They offer us info and we try our best to protect them, but probably 70% of them are 2 faced informants who if they had the opportunity or capability they would slit our throats on live webcam feeds.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reign02
well seeing the fact that we are in a hostile WARZONE. We can't simply put them into a safe house somewhere or anything.... We are not your state and local cops, we cannot stand guard outside their house all the time. They offer us info and we try our best to protect them, but probably 70% of them are 2 faced informants who if they had the opportunity or capability they would slit our throats on live webcam feeds.

When they are our eyes and ears there we OWE them some protection. They don't OFFER, we seek. They are HELPING us and that puts them at great risk. In fact, they are promised protection or at the very LEAST anonymity, which is the point here, eh?

And ah...the beheading card. It is a warzone afterall. Hypocrite much?


[edit on 8/1/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
Why is it that whenever I see his pasty white arrogant smug face, I get the desire to throw a punch at it? This guy is all about propaganda and all about destroying a particular soft target, that generally has a history of tolerating press freedom.

Those harder targets that torture their citizens for telling the truth don't seem to be on his disclosure list. His casual dismissal of broadcasting intelligence sources reveal him to be another self righteous liberal turd, doing more harm then good.

If any lives are lost, I'd like him to face civil and possible criminal penalties. As I understand it, it is illegal to reveal classified information, so the US has every right to go after this guy. I suspect that will happen if there is that kind of collateral damage. In fact the Taliban have stated that they intend to target the people on his list.

For goodness sakes couldn't he have redacted their names? It makes it look like he wants US informants to be targeted and killed. For many US liberals this is true. They are happy when the US military suffers casualties, but for foreign liberals this is axiomatic.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:26 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


Look at larrylove's thread that I linked above. It's not as dramatic as the media have made it seem. He did a far better analysis than the media. But I agree...the names that were left in of those still alive should have been redacted. Frankly, I think Assange just missed them.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   
They were classified military documents. They should never have gotten into Assange's hands to begin with. From what I've read on the informers, they were Afghan civilians who simply talked to the military, mostly giving them intel on local shenanigans. Not like they were full-blown undercover operatives. Unfortunately their willingness to talk to the military probably sealed their death sentences, since the soldiers dutifully recorded their names and towns/provinces.

Whatever ideology Manning possessed can't reconcile with the fact it was his duty to protect these documents. If he thought they contained evidence of war crimes (and I suspect they do), perhaps a better plan would have been to leak them to a responsible media outlet, or a high-ranking Gov. official, or at least NOT CHAT ABOUT IT ONLINE TO SOME DOUCHEBAG like Lamo!

There's a lot of things the Army failed to do in Afghanistan (hell, Iraq and Pakistan too), I suppose there's some truth in Assange's accusation but he shares some of that blame as well.

Maybe the best thing that will happen after all of this is that the US military will have to start being more honest with the American people and the rest of the world for that matter. We've grown to complacent at the indiscriminate killings of civilians wherever the US decides to extend it's imperialist policies.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Blackmarketeer]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:12 AM
link   
lets be real

the most important line is that

Wikileaks presented the opportunity for the US GOV to censor these names

they didnt ...

now, Wikileaks its bad? come on ... logic one on one

and lets be clear ... the ones that choose to kill we're not from wikileaks

and to be an informant ... that sucks too, its not like its a war, its a massacre, so they sell themselves to the americans ... thats not that good too



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Faiol
 

I don't think we have any proof of that claim yet...neither from Assange or the New York Times (unless I've missed something recent). Frankly, I think he messed up and is deflecting on this point. Just my opinion.


[edit on 8/1/2010 by ~Lucidity]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Why doesn't he go take on the rags that killed 2,976 people and injured 6,000+ on september 11, 2001 or the rags the hacked off the head of Nick Berg or the countless other victims of their cold blooded rage.

Why doesn't he go take on the thugs that blow them selfs up in street corners and crowded markets killing civilians in not only other countries, but their own.

Why doesn't he go take on a nation where it is common to crush a woman's head with stones because she was accused of adultery or where they execute two teenagers because they were dating behind their parents backs.

Julian Assange is blind to see it from two points of view. He sees it his way, and his way only and does not care for humanity because he does not see the possible consequences of his actions!



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NeutronAvenger
 

And how do you propose he should do that?

Oh, and just how many of these "rags" do you believe there are?

What you've just listed is really about all there really is as "reason." So for this, just how many innocent people do you propose we kill in two countries and counting to "retaliate" for 9/11?

Perspective.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 



What you've just listed is really about all there really is as "reason." So for this, just how many innocent people do you propose we kill in two countries and counting to "retaliate" for 9/11?


I am not talking about killing innocent people to equal any form of "debt". I am talking about Julian Assange's lack of vision through his rose tinted glasses.

He revolves his life around the negativity of the United States and sees no further past. He doesn't look at improvements.

And he has no respect for the men and woman serving their countries and putting their lives at risk.


Perspective


Exactly what Assange is missing.

I am not trying to say killing civilians should justify the 9/11 attacks, I am saying can he at least have a wider view, maybe look at the positives. He has done nothing but focus on the faults of the United States, and not the people they are fighting. This is a war, not a walk in the park.




[edit]: Typo







[edit on 1-8-2010 by NeutronAvenger]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by SevenThunders
Why is it that whenever I see his pasty white arrogant smug face, I get the desire to throw a punch at it?


That strikes me as a very racist thing to say.
My face is rather white and pasty too.

I think he's rather handsome, in a Nordic sorta way.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
capability they would slit our throats on live webcam feeds.

When they are our eyes and ears there we OWE them some protection. They don't OFFER, we seek. They are HELPING us and that puts them at great risk. In fact, they are promised protection or at the very LEAST anonymity, which is the point here, eh?

And ah...the beheading card. It is a warzone afterall. Hypocrite much?


[edit on 8/1/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Actually we don't really seek, we ask them and they have the right to say "I don't know anything" but they want a better life for their people and their country.

Have you ever been to Afghanistan? Iraq? I'm guessing no. All they want is some ripits (energy drink), gatorade, and some clean water to drink. And maybe some toys if they are kids. Yea Im sure they want protection but they are AWARE that we cannot guard them 24/7. Every house is allowed 1 AK-47.

Also they do not want us hanging around their houses because if the insurgents are in the area they will know who the informants are. There are a lot of variables with this kinda stuff. IF you haven't been to either of these countries (which you probably haven't) then I don't really expect you to understand how things work and how it is over there.

All you see is what the NEWS and what the internet says. Which is a bunch of crap! If you have not been there and expierienced it then you have no place of telling a 2x veteran what you think you know. Or what wikileaks throws out there, because they are just throwing out propaganda just like the insurgents do everyday. Turning the American people against the military folks out there sacrificing their lives for you. It may be an unjust reason to sacrifice our lives but we are doing it for all you sitting on your lazy asses at home watching TV and surfing the web all day, getting fatter and fatter as everyday passes. keeping you safe from terrorist leaders planning attacks on our people because we are the world police, no other country has the balls to do it so we will. Hate us or love us we are doing for YOU.

One day again the fight will come back to American soil and then you will be praising us. One day it will happen and we are ready.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:02 AM
link   
reply to post by hadriana
 



I think he's rather handsome, in a Nordic sorta way.




I want what ever your smoking hadriana!



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:42 AM
link   
You know, Assange did make sure no ISAF-soldiers would be threatened by the information he released.

So why not do the same with the locals?


In my opinion, one hell of a mistake on his part, regardless of his noble intentions. And now he's trying to shift the blame.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by Faiol
 

I don't think we have any proof of that claim yet...neither from Assange or the New York Times (unless I've missed something recent). Frankly, I think he messed up and is deflecting on this point. Just my opinion.


[edit on 8/1/2010 by ~Lucidity]


proof? just do a little research

it was the new york TIMES that showed and asked the pentagon ...

so, thought the NY TIMES the wikileaks got in contact with them

if they dont care about informants ... well, the blood is in their hands, but come on, the blood was already in their hands, is not like its going to change their consciousness

reply to post by NeutronAvenger
 


my friend, he only sees the TRUTH ...

the objective is to leak every document possible that will make an impact in this world and provide justice



reply to post by Reign02
 


lets not forget another thing

these documents are available to every soldier, to every sub contractor

its not like the informants are protected

[edit on 1/8/10 by Faiol]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:00 AM
link   
reply to post by NeutronAvenger
 


In answer to your questions, you can't!

Because the government is controlling the warzones and limiting access/information from being freely gathered..

... thats why he revealed them!



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   
people here worry about informants, while 20,000 innocent got murdered by US troops ...

its just amazing

if you use math, the best way to improve the world is the leak of the files

and the US need to offer protection right now to the informants if they want ever again have informants ...

and hey, if wikileaks got these documents, I bet a lot other spy organizations already have them too

pro-war guys love to try to change perspective

the best way to stop killings is these leaks: the US will probably change the way they work in the ground, and stop killing innocent people




top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join