Assange: "National security is not my concern"

[USArmyParatrooper]

Moderator, due to a DU bug I cannot control this site muddies the link.

It is found at http://www.armytimes.com/ scroll down to the headline "Gates, Mullen: Leakers are endangering troops"

Also in the story, Private Manning is a "prime suspect." Hopefully whoever it is well get caught and be harshly punished.

Outing informants to the Taliban not only puts their lives in great peril, it means other Afghan citizens will be fearful to come forward.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, speaking alongside Defense Secretary Robert Gates, said the publisher of the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks could already be responsible for the death of a U.S. service member or Afghan civilian. “Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing,” said Mullen, referring to Australian Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, “but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.”

Assange agreed Tuesday that the files offered insight into U.S. tactics. But he said that was none of his concern, and he seemed irritated when a questioner in London pressed him on whether he believed there were ever any legitimate national security concerns that would prevent him from publishing a leaked document. “It is not our role to play sides for states,” he said. “States have national security concerns, we do not have national security concerns.”

Gates said the documents reveal “intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures” that “will become known to our adversaries.” The huge cache of documents reportedly contains the names of Afghans who have cooperated with the U.S. Gates did not directly confirm that, but said, “I think we have a moral obligation not only to our troops but to those who have worked with us.”

Building and maintaining the trust necessary to procure such cooperation could have been damaged by the leaks, Mullen said.“If we’ve learned nothing else in fighting these wars, it’s that relationships matter,” Mullen said. “They are vital. We are not going to kill our way to success and we sure aren’t going to achieve success alone. “So in addition to making sure we understand the tactical risks from these leaks, I think it’s incumbent upon us not to let the good … relationships we’ve established and the trust we’ve worked so hard to build throughout the region also become a casualty.”

[Warpy]

1. Assange would be unconcerned with US imperial security

at any rate, since he's Australian, not American.

I still think the major fallout from this will be red faced officials who we all know have been played for fools for many years. As this stuff slowly seeps into the American consciousness, support for Afghanistan will fall even faster, the way it did for Vietnam.

[USArmyParatrooper]

4. Australian troops are also in Afghanistan

And as an American citizen I surely wouldn't want to put Aussie troops at risk, even IF they US wasn't also involved.

[Warpy]

26. Still, it's highly doubtful that information from years ago will put

anything in danger but the bad policies of a bunch of puffballs who are making billions off blood on both sides.

[USArmyParatrooper]

32. No, it's not doubtful at all

The US military would benefit enormously if we acquired 92,000 pages of very detailed information of the Taliban's every move from 2004-2009. And as I mentioned previously they put the lives at great risk of Afghans who oppose the Taliban and were cooperating with Americans. It's also going to strike fear in others who oppose them from coming forward.

What it will NOT do is end the war, not by a long shot. Tell me, what juicy scandal was broke by the documents?

[Cid_B]

44. And you base that WAG on which experience or data exactly?

Also, you are wrong... and I base that on personal experience.

[Duer 157099]

58. Whaaa...? You mean not everyone in the world wants to protect poor lil ole US?

Waaah, I thought everyone in the world was our bestest friends and LOVED us and wanted to do everything possible to protect us from the big bad meanies in the world!!

Fucking whiners. Grow up and face the music like the rest of the world has had to.

Jesus, exceptionalism taken to the most absurd degree! We get to fuck up anyone anywhere anytime, but OMG we expect every citizen of the world to be concerned with protecting US secrets!!

WTF kind of twisted sick thinking is this anyway?

Edit: this was meant as a reply to the OP, not your post Warpy :D )

[bemildred]

2. Working link:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/07/military_wikileaks_gates_mullen_072910w/

[TheKentuckian]

3. Concern noted, again. I salute Private Manning as the truest of heros and Assange bravely

provides an inestimable service to the free world.

God Bless these great men and keep them!

[USArmyParatrooper]

7. I realize putting US troops at risk doesn't matter to you

But you're also OK with outing Afghan informants who are opposed to Taliban rule?

[TheKentuckian]

15. I care about the troops infinitely more than you. I find your response disgusting

and your phony concern for the informants worse.

All the piles of stiffs over there and only now are you renting your garments and wallowing in ashes in your sackcloth mourning gown.
All the concern not for innocent fathers, daughters, wives, sons, sisters, and brothers but for actual participants some of which are villains that will die horribly for revenge for things that have nothing to do with us.

Get the fuck outta her. An exploded baby is collateral damage but a murdered warlord is a heart breaking evil.

[USArmyParatrooper]

20. LOL! You care about the troops more than me?

I'm ONE of them, but thanks for the comic relief.

As far as concern for innocent civilians I can tell you truthfully that I'm definitely concerned about them. I recognize that in any war they're inevitable, but recognizing reality does not equal indifference. I was a SAW gunner (a machine gun) on my first deployment and one of my greatest fears was inadvertently shooting a bystander. I was in Baghdad and routinely took fire from populated areas.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

54. I'm curious, do you think an american soldier's life is worth more then an afghan civilian? n/t

[TheKentuckian]

62. I'm an American. We invest a lot into training and maintaining our troops.

They are also our nationals. Our fathers, daughters, mothers, daughters, husbands, sons, and friends.

It is our treasure, out children's treasure, and our grandchildren treasure we waste away over there.

It is in our name that their deeds good and evil are done.

So, while an American life and an Afghans are "worth" the same as a fellow citizen, tax payer, and plausible relation I have a much higher interest and focus on the countrymen we put in harm's way and in turn bring danger to some and aid to others.

I am neither a peacenik nor a liberal who feels "we have to be better than that" and be "above the fray" and "the adults in the room".

I don't always have to wear the white hat. I don't have to always be noble. I know there are times to be ruthless and occasions where only calculating will do.
Don't mix me up with those who cannot be pragmatic just because I am not under the misimpression that it means roll over and take what you get.

I understand the nature of the predator and do not shy from it.

[Warpy]

27. That is a DOD talking point

and people who have actually read all the material have stated that there is nothing in it to put troops in danger.

However, thanks for your concern.

[USArmyParatrooper]

29. Which "people" have read all 92,000 pages and say that?

[Warpy]

30. Teams of analysts. The report came out a few days ago

and the headline was "No Smoking Gun Found."

You might want to look for it.

[USArmyParatrooper]

31. Or you might want to link your own claim, since you made it

[Cid_B]

47. Gosh...

I'll be sure to mention that to my colleague who found his interpreters and two information contacts in there. He'll be glad to know he must have read it wrong.

Sheesh...

[sabrina 1]

40. The troops were put at risk when they were lied into a war.

Clearly putting them at risk doesn't matter to you.

Assange's revelations if they keep coming, or if we actually had a real press, will save many lives I hope.

Both he and Manning are heroes.

Cheney and his ilk are treasonous war criminals.

But I know that having treasonous war criminals send the troops to get killed where they don't belong, doesn't mean anything to you.

What does btw?

Oh, and as far as the faux 'concern' about the lives of Afghans, those repsonsible for that are whoever in the Intel. community was actually stupid enough to use real names and addresses. A fact already pointed out some former Intel. Agents.

[MH1]

55. We were 'lied into' fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Which lie was that?

Are you a 9-11 "Truther" too? Bin Laden had nothing to do with taking down the twin towers, that was really an op of the US government?

We WERE lied into Iraq. The only 'lies' about Afghanistan were the inevitable incompetence of the press muddying the story of what the Taliban government did or did not offer in response to US demands to hand over Bin Laden.

[MadHound]

5. In this imperial state that we live in, we need all the military transparency we can get,

Secrecy and the military simply aren't a good combination. It leads to abuse, and eventually to the military running the state.

[USArmyParatrooper]

9. So in your view nothing should be classified?

US troop movements and procedures? Our intelligence gathering methods? The identities of local national informants?

Nothing?

[MadHound]

13. I find that far too much is classified,

And that the lack of transparency and accountability leads to military abuses. Is there a need for secrecy concerning some aspects of military operations, certainly. But on the balance we have had far too much secrecy that has led to far too much harm.

Consider this, many local informants are operating with their own agenda and are simply "aiding" the military in order to push that agenda forward. Thus, rather than targeting legitimate people, these informants target their own personal enemies and we, the US military, wind up killing innocents.

As far as our intelligence operations, well frankly I think that the entire country needs to be able to find out what our intelligence agencies are doing. They have led us into one problem after another, ever since WWII.

On the balance I think that Wikileaks brings a much needed insight into what is going on in our military.

[USArmyParatrooper]

17. That's reasonable, but where we disagree...

"I find that far too much is classified"

I actually worked in a TOC (Tactical Operation Center) for sometime and I've sat through a plethora of intelligence briefs. I also know literally everyone who works in our unit's S2, which is essentially the intel department. Their primary focus is gathering useful information and through counterintelligence protecting our troops. Specifics about troop movements and operations (past and future) are routinely classified for good reason. Even a mundane operations order that occurs without incident (say for example, a simple patrol with no engagement).

Just to give you an idea, a "five paragraph" OPORD (Operations Order) contains 1. Situation 2. Mission. 3. Execution 4 Command and Signals 5. Service and Support. Depending on the level of the OPORD and the mission they can be many, many pages long because they go into so much detail.

There is absolutely NO reason for the fine details of our operations to be made public. THAT we carried out a particular mission MAY warrant being privy to the public, but then in some cases it may not.

[USArmyParatrooper]

18. I also forgot to tell you, THIS part you said is absolutely true

"Consider this, many local informants are operating with their own agenda and are simply "aiding" the military in order to push that agenda forward. Thus, rather than targeting legitimate people, these informants target their own personal enemies and we, the US military, wind up killing innocents."

Our intel guys know this quite well. It's their job to do the best they can to try to vet informants and information in general. Sometimes "burn notices" go out on certain sources which means they're not to be trusted. Others are known to be quite credible. And of course, sometimes our guys can simply get it wrong. It's a tough job.

[BootinUp]

6. you might want to grab the link from post 2 and edit your OP. nt

[USArmyParatrooper]

10. The problem is when I copy and paste the link it breaks.

[BootinUp]

12. strange, I wonder

if you need to maximize your browser window or something.

[Denzil_DC]

19. Use this TinyURL version

http://tinyurl.com/333w6sv

[USArmyParatrooper]

22. How did you do that? You're apparently more computer savvy than I

[Denzil_DC]

33. Just go

to http://tinyurl.com/ with the URL you want shortened and it'll do it for you (there are other sites that'll do the same, like http://bit.ly/).

Apart from other uses, it's handy if a board gives you problems posting URLs for whatever reason.

[quinnox]

8. I support the truth being disclosed about the Afghan war

to the American people. If casualties happen because of names not redacted in the documents, it is a mistake and should be corrected at once.

That does not mean the truth should not be released in the first place.

[USArmyParatrooper]

11. What "truth" is that?

What juicy scandal broke as a result, besides the leak itself?

[NC_Nurse]

14. Couldn't they have redacted the names of informants? Sad that these

People caught in the middle are going to pay for this. Probably pay more than anyone else.

[MH1]

56. exactly. And Afghans have a right to try to change their government

or protect the government we helped install, if it is better for them than the previous.

We toppled the Taliban with a relatively small number of troops. How? Because a large number of Afghans wanted the Taliban gone. We just provided some key support and efforts to help the locals achieve their goals.

Now, some of those locals are going to pay dearly because our information security is obviously useless.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LAGC]

21. Answer me this: do you think we should be there, in Afghanistan?

It's the graveyard of empires. Why won't we learn from history?

[USArmyParatrooper]

25. A fair question

I have two points to make on that.

1: I recognize that there is no military solution to terrorism in general.

2: I also believe that the attack on 9-11 warranted massive, aggressive military action against al-Qaeda - who by history and literally marriage were tied at the hip to the Taliban. Just one example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/055_Brigade

[LAGC]

28. I think its a noble goal wanting to depose the Taliban.

But I just question the means. A top-down foreign military invasion naturally alienates the people you are trying to win over. If, instead, we tried to foment dissent and support the native opposition against the Taliban on the ground, a truly popular government could have been erected via revolution that reflected the will of the people, not the corrupt puppet-government that reigns there now.

I just think this current occupation is going to do more long-term damage to the country than it does help. For whatever steps we make towards women's rights and progress, it will be undone in a violent vacuum of power once the U.S. does eventually withdraw.

As for al-Qaeda, the foreign group was never much of a threat. Its just the fact that they snuck in immigrants that got through our defenses and were able to hijack 4 planes that led to the calamity. Its doubtful they will be able to pull off that stunt again now that its been exposed, whether we let the leadership live out their lives plotting in their caves or not.

But the bottom line is, if the U.S. wasn't meddling so much in the Middle East, there wouldn't be so many people pissed off enough to want to do this country harm in the first place.

[Oregone]

23. What a dick! Hopefully Breitbart can get him to fire himself

Then we can have a real democracy, untainted by transparency

[NJmaverick]

24. "we do not have national security concerns"

that's not all that this shameless self promoter is lacking

[TheKentuckian]

34. Being something doesn't mean you act in the best interest of a group and never has

I appreciate your service but sadly it is being ill used for individual gain for a select few rather than in defense of our nation.

You cannot support these ill fated adventures and care about the men and women (including yourself) into harms way with no achievable objectives for suspect at best reasons all the while using those resources for gain while the country you put your life on the line to defend crumbles from disrepair and lack of investment.

We are at odds because we are operating under different paradigms.
You are accepting the premise that we have a legitimate, rational, beneficial, achievable, and decent reason for being there and that if you or a friend falls it a noble sacrifice for the greater good.



I believe that we are their for the purposes of ill gotten gain and that the espoused motivations, goals, and tactics are absurd and unachievable.

The war is contrary to our national interests so if sewing distrust among informants and others are lost to the point that the action is operationally compromised and cannot continue that is a great thing!

I'm no dove but throwing American blood and an open tab at a worthless quagmire is reprehensible and I will encourage and celebrate both getting the truth out about it as well as actions that make it difficult to continue to pursue.

[xocet]

35. Unconfirmed Concern....

"Moderator, due to a DU bug I cannot control this site muddies the link."
...
Gates said the documents reveal “intelligence sources and methods, as well as military tactics, techniques and procedures” that “will become known to our adversaries.” The huge cache of documents reportedly contains the names of Afghans who have cooperated with the U.S. Gates did not directly confirm that (my italics and underscoring), but said, “I think we have a moral obligation not only to our troops but to those who have worked with us.”
...

Maybe confirming what the Pentagon says would be a good idea before repeating unsourced accusations. Prove what you have to say about the purported harm. After all, Mullen is all spin - "...some young soldier..." (see source quotation below)! What about the concern for all of the soldiers? I suppose the older ones do not count by his estimation. He is obviously playing for a pity angle with the term "...young...", but it really comes out to be an unintentional critique of how this society chooses to fight its wars - i.e., by using the young who have no responsibility for the mess into which they are thrown and who gain nothing but damage from the experience and are thus to be pitied.

In summary: Mullen's Argument = Unconfirmed Concern + Pity = Vacuous Argument + Emotional Reaction against Wikileaks + an Infinite Amount of Hypocrisy

Apparently, he has gone to the same school as Glenn Beck.

Here is the relevant quotation from higher up in the same article:

“Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing,” said Mullen, referring to Australian Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, “but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.”

P.S. Use the HTML lookup table for its HREF link to link to the source article without having the URL parsed:

"<link:URL|Text>
URL is without the "http://".
Example: <link:www.dcscripts.com|DCScripts>"

NOTE: Replace the < and the > with the left square bracket and the right square bracket, respectively.

[USArmyParatrooper]

36. LOL You try too hard.

Also a quote from Admiral Mullen:


http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?ID=1322

"I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."

What about the OLD people in the military who are gay??? He doesn't care about them? I suppose the older ones do not count by his estimation. He is obviously playing for a pity angle with the term "...young..."

In summary: Mullen's Argument = Unconfirmed Concern + Pity = Vacuous Argument + Emotional Reaction against DADT + an Infinite Amount of Hypocrisy

[xocet]

37. It is interesting that your point remains undefended....

Your rebuttal consists of the following:

• An indirect remark: "LOL You try too hard."



• A random, tangential quotation: "I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens."



• A misquotation of what I stated: "What about the OLD people in the military who are gay??? He doesn't care about them? I suppose the older ones do not count by his estimation. He is obviously playing for a pity angle with the term "...young...""



• A coup de grâce - i.e., another misquotation in a larger font: "

  In summary: Mullen's Argument = Unconfirmed Concern + Pity = Vacuous Argument + Emotional Reaction against DADT + an Infinite Amount of Hypocrisy

  "

Not a single one of your comments supports your original position, and nothing was adduced in your rebuttal.

Lastly, if you still need help with HTML, there are plenty of good sites on the internet. Here is one for you.

[USArmyParatrooper]

38. There was nothing to rebut

Your entire post can be boiled down to two points.

- He didn't "prove" that he concerned about the leak putting lives at risk.

- He used the word "young" to describe men and women on the front lines, a word he also used describe gay service members when he argued to repeal DADT.

So what exactly are you asserting? If he's wrong there's only two possibilities.

1: Admiral Mullen is lying about his opinion

2: Admiral Mullen is just wrong

If you think he's wrong then I have to ask what experience you have to make that determination. If you think he's lying then there's nothing I can really say against, "liar liar pants on fire"

[xocet]

39. Ok, it is quite simple....

Adm. Mullen has not proven that harm has been done - he did not adduce evidence for this purported harm. Yet, he still claims it.

In your statements, you seem to accept that harm has been done: "Outing informants to the Taliban not only puts their lives in great peril, it means other Afghan citizens will be fearful to come forward."

Where is the proof? Produce the specific proof that such things have happened on account of Wikileaks' disclosure, and you win the debate. In that case, I will happily concede, but so far you haven't produced anything but tangential commentary.

Again, the heart of my message is that no proof for any of Adm. Mullen's statements has been provided. You accept them and parrot them, so you need to prove them, since he has not. That is the point. The rest of my comments regarding the issue are irrelevant compared to my request for you to prove what you parrot. If you cannot do so, it is dishonest for you to continue spouting your propaganda.

[USArmyParatrooper]

45. You're right. It is quite simple

He said he *may* already have blood on his hands, which is not a definitive statement and as such doesn't require proof.

Based on his experience (which is extensive as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) the leak puts our troops' lives at even greater risk than they already are. And based on my experience I fully agree with him.

And any moron with no experience whatsoever can recognize that outing Afghan citizens who have been working with NATO forces puts their lives at great risk as well.

[U4ikLefty]

60. So you were wrong? Took you long enough to pry the words "you're right"

from your fingers.

[USArmyParatrooper]

63. You're confused.

I said, "You're right. It is quite simple" Obviously I'm only saying you're right about it being quite simple. Now that we've cleared that up feel free to address the rest of my post that you accidentally skipped past.


He said he *may* already have blood on his hands, which is not a definitive statement and as such doesn't require proof.

Based on his experience (which is extensive as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) the leak puts our troops' lives at even greater risk than they already are. And based on my experience I fully agree with him.

And any moron with no experience whatsoever can recognize that outing Afghan citizens who have been working with NATO forces puts their lives at great risk as well.

[U4ikLefty]

66. Still wrong.

[Cid_B]

65. Imagine your favorite mafia movie...

and the Vinnie "The Pigeon" Zambonini has just been outed from the witness protection program. Now it seems that Vinnie led the feds to several nice bust against his compatriots a few years ago.

Do we really have to wait until we find Vinnie's bloated corpse before we say "Gosh, maybe something bad has happened."

Now imagine that same thing for a few thousand Afghans who are trying to un-fuck their country. They do exist and I've met them. Maybe they were looking out for their own interests and they just happened to coincide with ours. Either way... This argument that we are going to have to find a TB commander who is going to come out and tell the lowest common internet demoninator ( ie you ) that the reason he slit that guys throat was because he gave up his weapons cache in 07 is ridiculous.

Common #@$@#$@ing sense

[daleo]

41. If a Russian had leaked info about their Afghanistan war in the 80's

Reagan would have called him a hero and a benefactor of the human race. As would have most Americans, especially Conservatives. The fact that it would have put Russian soldiers lives at risk, as well as Afghan collaborators wouldn't have mattered a whit.

But then Russians were occupying Afghanistan and killing its people, while U.S./NATO are only occupying Afghanistan and killing its people. There is a vast difference.

[USArmyParatrooper]

46. Frankly, Russia was our enemy and we *trying* to get them killed

There are troops from 42 different countries in Afghanistan, including Asshange's homeland of Australia. It sounds like you're acknowledging that he's helping the Taliban and al-Qaeda (giving moral equivalency to Reagan's hypothetical response in the 80's). If that's the case and you're cool with aiding the Taliban in their efforts to kill Americans and retake the country, that's cool. I think it's disgusting but I'm not going to get worked up over the fucked up ideals of someone on the internet.

I'm just putting into perspective that people who are gushing over Wikileaks are essentially praising something that greatly helped the Taliban will likely get Afghan informants killed. What was worth it? Oh, yeah that's right. "We got the truth!" The truth about what? What juicy scandal did the leak break? How are classified documents better antiwar propaganda than things like graphic footage of the front lines (of which there is tons)?

[daleo]

50. The U.S. made the Taliban

The U.S. and NATO loved the Taliban when they were killing Russians and their Afghan allies, who were trying to bring modernism and women's rights to the country. Now its different. How?

You are a cheerleader for endless, bankrupting war. It is hurting the U.S. like it hurt the Soviets. It is bankrupting the country, and not even advancing any real policy goals, fair or unfair. You can't drain the treasury forever over a failed policy.

[USArmyParatrooper]

51. The merits of the war against the Taliban aren't the point of the thread.

I'm against the war in Iraq but I would be equally outraged if the same leak pertained to that war.

[U4ikLefty]

61. The war is the only point.

[Scurrilous]

42. Kick

:kick:

[EFerrari]

43. Torture apologists and Bush fixers Gates and Mullen

better retain a good lawyer because their turn will come.

[upi402]

48. Valerie Plame, Sibel Edmonds, et al don't count?

"I think we have a moral obligation not only to our troops but to those who have worked with us." -Gates
Who is the "us" we're obliged to? Must not be the U.S. type of us.

[USArmyParatrooper]

52. Of course they count. Who is saying they don't?

[upi402]

53. Mr Gates and the US government

didn't mean you, or my fellow DUers!
Steamed about the justice delayed, and therefore denied, to whistleblowers -even by the Democratic majority we gave them. We aren't getting many prime issues addressed. Gates wants to protect and defend one group of Americans and throw another under the bus. Plame should be on top of his to-do list, if old hands had his ear.

[USArmyParatrooper]

64. When did Secretary Gates or Admiral Mullen say they don't matter?

If they failed to comment on those it's because neither case pertains to the military.

[G_j]

49. bring them home

then we'll talk

[BootinUp]

57. deleted

[Uncle Joe]

59. Then Assange has something in common with the majority of the U.S. Government.

If they gave a rat's ass about "national security," the looming catastrophe of global warming climate change would be given the respect it deserves and we as a nation would aggressively be weaning ourselves away from being addicted to fossil fuels.

The same fossil fuel addiction which put us in Iraq and Afghanistan to begin with.

Thanks for the thread, USArmyParatrooper.