WikiLeaks: Pentagon ready to discuss Afghan files

WikiLeaks: Pentagon ready to discuss Afghan files

news.yahoo.com

news.yahoo.com...

STOCKHOLM – WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said Wednesday the Pentagon has expressed willingness to discuss the online whistleblower's request for help in reviewing classified documents from the Afghan war and removing information that could harm civilians.
"This week we received contact through our lawyers that the General Counsel of the U.S. Army says now that they want to discuss the issue," Assange told The Associate.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So they (Pentagoons) finally want to 'play'?

They are supposedly going to 'work with wikileaks' to help go through the Afghan documents to remove any names /information that may harm civilians.

Do they really care about the civilians?
I mean, really?

Does it feel like they're just trying to get closer to their 'enemies'?

I don't know, But I just can't fathom the pentagon actually giving a crap about anything other than their own little world.
And this is to keep "people unharmed"..?

Or just trying to keep themselves 'unharmed'?



news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

this is called "stalling"

wikileaks already started the process of censoring what could cause harm

Interesting.. Just read an AP article that said the Pentagon was denying WLs claim;

Pentagon rules out negotiations on 'sanitized' Wikileaks

(AFP) – 1 hour ago

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon said Wednesday it would not negotiate with WikiLeaks to create "a sanitized version" of a second batch of classified Afghan war documents the whistle-blower website plans to release.

A WikiLeaks insider in Iceland told AFP the US military was willing to discuss removing sensitive information from the 15,000 confidential documents, but the Pentagon appeared to deny this was the case.

"We've had no direct contact with WikiLeaks," said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman. "We are not interested in negotiating a sanitized version of the classified documents."

WikiLeaks has already released nearly 77,000 leaked classified US military documents about the war in Afghanistan and is preparing to publish 15,000 more, despite criticism that doing so could endanger lives, since the files include names of some Afghan informants.

Source

I don't get this. What does Wikileaks expect the government to do? To help take out Afghan names and then say, "OK, you're good to release the files now?"

I don't think so, since they were already pi$$ed at the first release, they are hardly going to OK a second release. I don't see the point in any official government agency 'helping' to go through the files.

Surely it goes without saying that Wikileaks cannot expect to work alongside government agencies like this? Does not it not show a conflict of interests on the part of Wikileaks?

I don't buy this one bit. As a previous post stated, the Gov't was ticked-off at the first leak, why would they participate in a second?

If the Gov't was part of a censoring of the next leak, it would have nothing but black lines struck through most of the text.

Something is going on here......

This is shady by any stretch of the imagination. Now, we have Assange and the Pentagon basically working together on the latest large release. I have always said that something is fishy with Wikileaks and this sure isn't helping.

--airspoon

Its not sure it is shady. It may be logical behaviour from both sides from different perspectives.

Wikileaks does its own redacting based on what they think would be likely to get people killed. They are simply inviting the US DoD to help them in that process. From the Wikileaks perspective thats ideal since it allows them to leak the news and expose the system while protecting individuals. Logical.

Its no surprise that the DoD has declined. Since their goal is to prevent anything embarrassing or incriminating being released at all. Since there is no easy direct attack on Wikileaks its in the govt interest for Wikileaks to get it wrong and get people killed. The more the better to undermine public support. Sacrificing pawns. Logical.