Even before WikiLeaks published the 91,000 classified documents on the war in Afghanistan on Sunday, officials across the United States government embarked on an aggressive campaign to contain the public relations damage. The first shot came from National Security Advisor General James Jones who accused WikiLeaks of action that could put "the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security." He added that "the irresponsible leaks" will not deter Washington's commitment to the fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The German defense ministry on Monday criticized the leak of around 92,000 classified US military documents on the Afghanistan war, but said the news value was rather limited. The German news magazine Spiegel as well as the New York Times and the Guardian newspapers at the weekend printed excerpts of the documents, which were released by the Wikileaks website.
The German defense ministry on Monday criticized the leak of around 92,000 classified US military documents on the Afghanistan war, but said the news value was rather limited.
The German news magazine Spiegel as well as the New York Times and the Guardian newspapers at the weekend printed excerpts of the documents, which were released by the Wikileaks website.
First off, ignore the puerile whining from the White House about "national security" and "threats to the lives of soldiers in the field" and so forth. One might have expected more from the White House and America with its tradition of rather greater openness - but this kind of thing is down there with the British Ministry of Defence in terms of blaming the messenger rather than the message, writes Alex Thomson. It has little to do with anybody's security. The notion that the snatch or kill squad has a name - Task Force 373 will make not one jot of difference to their mission. And so goes almost all of the 90,000 odd documents released via WikiLeaks. Much of it is BDA - Battle Damage Assessment and thus after-event stuff - not planning or strategy or any of the really sensitive stuff.
First off, ignore the puerile whining from the White House about "national security" and "threats to the lives of soldiers in the field" and so forth. One might have expected more from the White House and America with its tradition of rather greater openness - but this kind of thing is down there with the British Ministry of Defence in terms of blaming the messenger rather than the message, writes Alex Thomson.
It has little to do with anybody's security. The notion that the snatch or kill squad has a name - Task Force 373 will make not one jot of difference to their mission.
And so goes almost all of the 90,000 odd documents released via WikiLeaks.
Much of it is BDA - Battle Damage Assessment and thus after-event stuff - not planning or strategy or any of the really sensitive stuff.
The Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, said today that the organisation is working through a "backlog" of further secret material and was expecting a "substantial increase in submissions" from whistleblowers after one of the biggest leaks in US military history.Speaking in London after his website published more than 92,000 classified military logs relating to the war in Afghanistan, Assange said that he hoped for an "age of the whistleblower" in which more people would come forward with information they believed should be published.Assange said that the site, which currently operates with a small dedicated team but has a network of about 800 volunteers, had a "backlog" of more material which only "just scratched the surface".While he would not be drawn into commenting on the nature of the material, he said that the organisation held "several million files" that "concern every country in the world with a population over 1 million".
The Wikileaks founder, Julian Assange, said today that the organisation is working through a "backlog" of further secret material and was expecting a "substantial increase in submissions" from whistleblowers after one of the biggest leaks in US military history.
Speaking in London after his website published more than 92,000 classified military logs relating to the war in Afghanistan, Assange said that he hoped for an "age of the whistleblower" in which more people would come forward with information they believed should be published.
Assange said that the site, which currently operates with a small dedicated team but has a network of about 800 volunteers, had a "backlog" of more material which only "just scratched the surface".
While he would not be drawn into commenting on the nature of the material, he said that the organisation held "several million files" that "concern every country in the world with a population over 1 million".
In a SPIEGEL interview, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, 39, discusses his decision to publish the Afghanistan war logs, the difficult balance between the public interest and the need for state secrets and why he believes people who wage war are more dangerous than him. SPIEGEL: You are about to publish a vast amount of classified data on the war in Afghanistan. What is your motivation? Assange: These files are the most comprehensive description of a war to be published during the course of a war -- in other words, at a time when they still have a chance of doing some good. They cover more than 90,000 different incidents, together with precise geographical locations. They cover the small and the large. A single body of information, they eclipse all that has been previously said about Afghanistan. They will change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars. SPIEGEL: Do you think that the publication of this data will influence political decision-makers? Assange: Yes. This material shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war. The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence.
In a SPIEGEL interview, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, 39, discusses his decision to publish the Afghanistan war logs, the difficult balance between the public interest and the need for state secrets and why he believes people who wage war are more dangerous than him.
SPIEGEL: You are about to publish a vast amount of classified data on the war in Afghanistan. What is your motivation?
Assange: These files are the most comprehensive description of a war to be published during the course of a war -- in other words, at a time when they still have a chance of doing some good. They cover more than 90,000 different incidents, together with precise geographical locations. They cover the small and the large. A single body of information, they eclipse all that has been previously said about Afghanistan. They will change our perspective on not only the war in Afghanistan, but on all modern wars.
SPIEGEL: Do you think that the publication of this data will influence political decision-makers?
Assange: Yes. This material shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war. The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence.
The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence.
Is Assange really that naive ? keep to the Fen Causeway
Policy isn't made by public opinion these days, it's made by corporate lobbyists and the decision taken is determined by the amount gold on one side or the other.
Simply put, politicians live in a bubble of advisers and lobbyists where the information they receive is strictly sorted and rationed to ensure they "spontaneously" reach the right decision.
So, a bunch of DFHs with no real money working out of Iceland are gonna have zero effect. keep to the Fen Causeway
Daniel Ellsberg, who gained fame for leaking the Pentagon Papers to the press, stayed up last night into the wee hours reading the trove of Afghanistan documents and feeling affinity for the leaker, whomever it might be. "He's a guy who's in the same state of mind I was in," said Mr. Ellsberg in a phone interview. "I've sort of been waiting for somebody to do this for 40 years."
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- An ongoing Pentagon review of the massive flood of secret documents made public by the WikiLeaks website has so far found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field, a Pentagon official told NBC News on Monday.
