WikiLeaks founder accuses US army of failing to protect Afghan informers

[CHIMO]

Source: The Observer

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 appalled that the US military was so lackadaisical with its Afghan sources. Just appalled. We are a source protection organisation that specialises in protecting sources and have a perfect record from our activities," he said.

WikiLeaks has been accused of disclosing the names of Afghan collaborators who may now be subject to reprisals. Critics also say that the information it published is unchecked and some of it may be of dubious provenance. But Assange responded to those claims by saying: "This material was available to every soldier and contractor in Afghanistan… It's the US military that deserves the blame for not giving due diligence to its informers."



Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/01/julian-assange-wikileaks-afghanistan-us

[Arctic Dave]

1. If you are helping an occupation force to take over your country,

aren't you a traitor and not an informant?

[backtomn]

26. The Afghanis don't see an occupation......

but, of course, the Taliban do.

So.....you are for the submission (and zero rights) of women, death to gays, zero religious freedom. What part of this is OK with you?? It is NOT OK to free people from this??

Say what you mean.....be honest.....and we can debate from there.

[EFerrari]

29. What? The Afghans don't "see" on occupation?

Are you joking?

[backtomn]

32. NO

They continue to ask us to stay.......or maybe you didn't hear that.

Women are genuinely scared that we will leave.......same with people in villages out in the country.

Obviously, they don't want us to RULE them, but not many are saying "get out of here".....unless you mean the Taliban.

[EFerrari]

44. I watch news out of the Middle East, not Fox,

and those people do not want us to be there. They don't want the corrupt government we put in and they don't want to lose family members that the Pentagon turns around and calls collateral damage.

All occupations are brutal and violent and this one is no exception.

[The Magistrate]

46. They Do Not want the Talibs Either, Ma'am

To be born in that part of the world is to be screwed, blued, and tattooed....

[EFerrari]

47. Agreed. n/t

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

31. It Would Be Nice If We Were Freeing People From Such Things, Sir, But We Are Not

There is a very slim margin of difference in Kabul and other large cities from Taliban rule, and virtually no change in the countryside.

[truedelphi]

33. Oh yeah. Of course. the BBC

Featured an entire segment about ten days back, about the enthusiasm with which the people of Afghanistan are greeting our bombs.

They are so thrilled by our being there, that they are moving to seaports and trying to find boats to take them to East Timor and then on to Australia.

Apparently this refugee problem is so overwhelming that Australian officials are now trying to re-arrange the immigration laws, so the nation is not flooded with these people.

There is an awful lot wrong with this country too - high divorce rates, failing economy, wealth being distributed from lower classes to the upper one percent, homes being foreclosed on, gangs in the street, etc, but would some drones dropping bombs on YOUR pretty lil head help you solve those problems?

Didn't think so.

[Arctic Dave]

56. I don't recall the Northern Alliance being much better.

Plus, we as a nation didn't give two shits about the plight of the afghanistanis before 911. Funny that.

[cosmicone]

60. +1

[Arrowhead2k1]

30. Treason is relative. nt

[cosmicone]

61. Actually, average Afganis welcome the US ....

the ONLY people who hate the US presence is the Pakistani military and ISI who want to control Afghanistan for "strategic depth".

Pakistan's fear is that a democratic Afghanistan will be friendlier to India (historical experience) and it puts Pakistan in the jaws of a nutcracker with threats from both fronts.

To avoid this Pakistan created the Taliban, funded, armed and trained it. Most of the Taliban has always been undercover Pakistani military.

One way to solve this problem is to redraw Pakistan's Western border at the Durand line. This will put North and South Waziristan into Afghanistan with fellow Pushtuns and then the NATO forces can easily enter those tribal areas to weed out the Pakistani elements. Currently, due to sovereignty issues, the NATO forces cannot go there and Pakistan only creates a theatrical farce of helping.

[Pirate Smile]

2. I'm sorry but what an asshole. He outs their names to the world then acts like he played no part in

their names becoming public. Own up to your role bud.

[girl gone mad]

5. He's not denying that he played a part. However, the ultimate responsibility..

for protecting the identities of informants lies with the US government.

It's just basic common sense.

[backtomn]

24. I'm sorry .....but, if I say....

......Mr. Joe Johnson is a witness in a Mob murder....and he lives at 123 Main Street, NY.....it is the city of NY's fault if he is killed??? Maybe peripherially, but the informant is actually criminally liable in that case. It should be the same her....but it appears that it is not.

Explain that.

[The Magistrate]

27. You Are Not Liable, Sir

If the information was communicated to you, and you simply made a public disclosure, you have done nothing criminal. The person who provided you the information may have committed a crime, depending on how it was acquired; if you communicated it directly and personally to an associate of the person the witness would testify against, you may have committed a crime.

[backtomn]

34. Since he is not an American, in America, maybe you are right..

Since he was an Australian outside of the U.S., he might be in the clear. However, if he was an American, in the U.S., he might be criminally liable.

Is he RESPONSIBLE for their deaths.....yes.....and he will need to live with that.

The law is not the only authority for which he might answer. I wish him well.

Nice legalism......pathetic.

[The Magistrate]

37. On U.S. Territory, Sir, He Would Be in Violation of the Espionage Laws

It would have nothing to do with liability for murder or in fact for any consequence of the disclosure; he would simply be a person in unauthorized possession of secret information, disclosure of which could harm the United States.

[backtomn]

43. First of all....cut the "sir" crap.....

....since you don't mean it, it is annoying.

The leaker from the military will stand for a military trial.....the Wikileaks guy is Australian, outside the country. The American government has no authority over him.

It is time that you read up on this a bit.

[The Magistrate]

45. You Are Not Even Arguing Anymore, Sir

Let alone reading the comments you are ostensibly replying to....

[Pirate Smile]

49. That is how The Magistrate always talks (types)-very respectful. He's not mocking you by doing it

You can actually have a respectful conversation and disagreement with The Magistrate without it degenerating into the typical internet name-calling, motive-questioning crap. It's rare. We don't want it to change. :)

[boppers]

53. Welcome to DU.

That's part of The Magistrate's communication style. It is not meant as a statement about the opinions of others.

[Bo]

35. He outed Informants...simple as that.

The idiot does not want to own up to the consequences the informants will suffer, entire famlies beheaded etc etc....

[backtomn]

38. Civil disobedience means......

that you are willing to accept the punishment for you actions. Apparently, today, people want to commit a crime and be left alone. Wrong

[boppers]

54. The US military outed informants, and may have killed them as a result.

Assange reported it.

You DO NOT document individuals by name (or other identifiers) if they need to be protected. That's basic trade craft.

[Kolesar]

9. With ya' ... eom

[backtomn]

22. I'm sorry, but I agree......

HE was the one outing these informants. He is just trying to shift blame for their (possible) deaths to the U.S. Sorry.

In interviews, he agreed that he would be responsible if this happened.....but denied it. It appears that he was not entirely trutful.

In the end.....I think that this will hurt us. Thanks.

[boppers]

55. He didn't write down their names.

Who did?

There's your person, or people, who put others at risk. Once it's written, it's not secret.

[backtomn]

23. Sorry that this even happened.....

Not to you "Pirate Smile"

Good post.

[EFerrari]

28. If a 22 year old with a laptop had access to those names

the Pentagon wasn't doing its job. Just like the so called secure DADT survey that John at Americablog was able to take three times and he's not even in uniform.

Don't we give these people billions of dollars to protect us and our interests? They have enough resources to do the job right if they wanted to.

[backtomn]

36. Still guilty.....

That is not an excuse for criminality. Investigating where the government might have screwed up is an unrelated issue.

Imagine this in a U.S. mob trial and a witness was killed.........not guilty because the government SHOULD have protected them??? Please. Still guilty.

[EFerrari]

41. Criminality? LOL

The Pentagon long ago lost any right to point fingers at ANYONE.

[The Magistrate]

3. He Has A Point, Sir

The best defense is a good offense....

[harun]

63. +1

[w4rma]

4. It sounds like Assange is helping us by finding our security holes, to me!

No code names for informants? DUMB. And these names were available at the lowest level of operation? DUMB.

[LiberalFighter]

39. I agree. When the data was available to everyone including contractors.

That is inexcusable.

The blame lays entirely at the feet of the military brass.

[Historic NY]

6. Hey you leaked the info that gets them killed.....

not the US government confidential informants w/o handlers are sometimes sent into far dangerous situations that cannot be monitored. I hope he tries to sell that to the dead.

[girl gone mad]

7. lol.

Now you guys care about dead Afghans?

[The Magistrate]

8. What Makes You Think, Sir, Many Of Those Named Are Not Long Dead Already?

Most of this stuff is many years old. The persons operating against U.S. forces have much better ties to and intelligence concerning the communities they operate in than we do. Terrorizing and eliminating suspected, even potential, informants is one of the chief activities of partisan forces.

"This case is full of, how you say, 'scarlet fishes'?"

[Historic NY]

12. Then why leak it? Sorta like the Valerie Plame case isn't it.

[The Magistrate]

13. The Leaked Material, Sir, Taken As A Whole, is a Valuable Development

It makes clear a great deal about the manner in which, shall we say, perception has been managed in this campaign. It confirms in black and white, under the government's own imprimatur, a great deal that the government has denied, that knowledgeable commentators reported had happened, or speculated was likely occurring.

This whole 'now informants will be killed' thing is merely a low-grade distraction, bruited about to give people something to talk about besides the embarrassment to the government the information in the now public documents constitutes.

[backtomn]

40. No it isn't....

Let me know if any of this changes the policy of the Obama administration. If that happens, you might be right. I don't think that it will. We will see.

[The Magistrate]

42. Prefer An Ignorant Public, Do You, Sir?

The President's policy on this subject, Sir, is to begin withdrawl from the place late next year. That will be cutting it close, certainly, but people are tired of the thing, and we cannot afford the money costs of it any longer. War is a luxury item, permitted only to governments willing to tax their prosperous and wealthy citizens.

[BootinUp]

10. Sounds like he is feeling some heat.

Of course the military should review their procedures on protecting informant information, but these statements from WikiLeaks only confirms what most people think at this point. That he shouldn't have carelessly published the information.

[lib2DaBone]

11. Mr. Assange says he... "Hates the 911 Truth Movement"

He says talk of 911 truth "annoys" him. I would ask ..Why? Didn't he believe the offishul (sic) report?

[boppers]

52. Assange trucks in verifiable facts that are publishable.

Hence, sensationalist speculation annoys him.

Wikipedia works the same way.

[msongs]

14. bush and obama put the troops there - they are the ones getting the troops "killed" nt

[Pavulon]

15. Poor baby, decided to swim in the ocean and brought his floaties.

will see if his release becomes a murder case. Pretty sure if they tie a body around his stunt the UK will jail his pale ass.

[The Magistrate]

16. As A Matter Of Curiousity, Sir, How Do you Suppose that Would Work?

[Pavulon]

17. Any way the people at mi6 or cia plan it to work..

dead soldier from the uk, goat farmer, whomever. He dumped secret documents and the case in the us is depraved indifference murder. I get drunk and kill you by "mistake", well I should have known the 12 pack before my drive had potential to lead to death. The documents I signed for ts sc made it quite clear that 15 years of federal time some huge amount of money was the minimum and death was the maximum for disclosure in time of war.

Some people take opsec seriously.

The pfc, any one who helped him here will die in florence adx and the pale man's fate in tbd.

[The Magistrate]

19. Too Far A Reach Even For Screen-Writers On 'Law and Order', Sir

In your illustration, you drank the twelve-pack, you drove the car, and yes, you can be done for some degree of murder.

A man puts up a sheaf of posters on light-poles, one of which says "X snitched on Y", he has no legal liability whatever if X shows up three weeks later in the trunk of a burning car. You could not even get a civil suit for wrongful death into court against the person who put up the posters.

Pfc. Manning is certainly in a world of trouble, and will remain in it for the rest of his life. He could well be executed under law. The Wikileaks fellow is fine so long as he remains outside jurisdiction of the United States.

[BootinUp]

21. Could of worked in a Fringe episode. nt

[Forkboy]

50. i love your posts. They read like a Ludlum novel, minus the publishing deal!

[lib2DaBone]

18. I thought WikiLeaks was founded by Dick Laurie..?

Dick Laurie was the founder of Google and has strong ties to the the NSA.. (or indeed )is part of the NSA.

The Pentagon could squash WikiLeaks like a bug... why don't they?

Maybe they WANT WikiLeak to get that informtion out to the public?

If we are going to wage a new war on Pakistan and Iran.. we have to convince the American People that Afghanistan is not worth our time. (indeed it isn't 66 soldiers killed last month in Afghanistan).

The "New" goal is a war on Pakistan and Iran...

[rug]

20. The U.S. military always takes care of its native informants.

[HEyHEY]

25. Hard to say. This is the risk you run when you post classified documents

Though much of what was posted is likely good to have out in public, maybe buddy shoulda thought twice about realsing names of informants? Of course that brings up a bunch of other ethical conodrums. Ah, my head hurts!

[Forkboy]

48. LOL...I like this guy.

[daleo]

51. If someone would have revealed the names of Afghan informers

To the Soviet occupation in the 80's, we would have called them a hero - the moral equivalent of a Founding Father. If the Soviets would have threatened them, we would have said it proves they hate freedom.

[Meldread]

57. Sorry Assange, but you also carry a responsibility.

I have no problem with making the documents public, and I praise Assange for doing so. Yet, at the same time he should have made a strong and deliberative effort to scrub them of information that could have caused harm to innocent people aiding the American military. He could have then distributed the unedited documents to reputable news agencies under the condition that they wouldn't endanger anyone directly or indirectly mentioned within the documents. That would allow news agencies to reach out directly to individuals and begin confirming the story, as well as gathering additional information not mentioned in the leaked documents.

Assange it may ultimately be the responsibility of the American Military, and there is no way of denying that you are correct at how sloppily the information was handled. However, let's be clear - you also carry a responsibility, even if it is only a moral responsibility. If people die as a result of your leaking of the documents you carry some amount of blood on your hands as well. The same would be true of any news agency that would have done the same.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

59. You think he should have held off making them public

until somebody actually read them?

:rofl:

I think the goal is "speed", not "responsibility".

[Meldread]

64. Exactly and that's the problem.

An individual with information that can harm innocent people has a responsibility to protect those who are innocent. Even if it means - and this might be radical - waiting a week to read over all the documentation first and black out the names and references to said innocent people.

[CJvR]

58. His concern...

...for the Afghani "informers" is real touching.

To bad he wasn't concerned enough to remove any info that could actually be used to ID them!

Sorry Assange but anyone ending up dead because of your action remains your responsibility no matter how much you would like to blame someone else, particulary for legal purposes. Although you are probably safe from that, proving that someone was murdered thanks to your leak will be close to impossible.