WikiLeaks' Cry for Help- Julian Assange wants the Pentagon’s help (reviewing 15,000 reports)

[kpete]

Source: Daily Beast

WikiLeaks' Cry for Help

by Philip Shenon Info



Julian Assange wants the Pentagon’s help.

His secretive WikiLeaks website tells The Daily Beast it is making an urgent request to the Defense Department for help reviewing 15,000 still-secret American military reports to remove the names of Afghan civilians and others who might be endangered when the website makes the reports public.

The request follows statements of regret from Assange and others at WikiLeaks that the site may have unintentionally endangered Afghan civilians with its first massive document dump—72,000 leaked classified American military reports from Afghanistan that revealed the names and home villages of hundreds of local informants who cooperated with American forces there.

Schmitt said the site wanted to open a line of communication with the Defense Department to review an additional 15,000 classified reports in an effort to “make redactions so they can be safely published.”

................

In a phone interview Tuesday with The Daily Beast, Schmitt said the site wanted to open a line of communication with the Defense Department in order to review an additional 15,000 classified reports in an effort to “make redactions so they can be safely published.” Schmitt said that these reports also relate to American military operations in Afghanistan.



Read more: http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-08-03/wikileaks-julian-assange-admiral-mike-mullen-afghan-war-logs-daniel-schmitt-germany-joint-chiefs-of-staff-pentagon-marine-colonel-david-lapin/

[Igel]

1. Not sure that's legal.

Interesting question, though.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. Sure Julian.

Come on over and meet us.

We'll be out behind the abandoned warehouse next to the old highway. Look for the black sedan with the tinted wondows around midnight.

You bring the documents and some beers.

We'll bring the ice.

It'll be fun even.

</pentagon>

[flamingdem]

44. My thoughts exactly, I hope Julian has a plan because this makes NO sense nt

[Oregone]

71. They will not help him, so it will undermine their cries when he releases the documents

They have the power to protect people, but they will pass on it here. He is simply running a PR operation

[msongs]

3. since when is the war department concerned with something it does being legal? nt

[Spazito]

4. So, do I have this right...

Mr. Assange wants the Pentagon to check out the 15,000 stolen documents and, after ensuring no names, etc, are published, give him the okay to publish the STOLEN documents?

What alternate universe does he live in?

[Ruby the Liberal]

7. He is painting them into a corner.

Brilliant play, IMO.

[Spazito]

13. How do you see that?

If Mr. Assange was REALLY trying to ensure no one is put at risk by the publishing of the 15,000 documents, he would be looking to find someone who has experience in this area and ask them for help with the documents. Instead of doing that, he is doing a pathetic attempt at a 'call out'.

[Ruby the Liberal]

16. 1. They have a price on his head (widely reported)

2. He uploaded insurance.rar (or _name_.zip or whatever - I didn't look for it) - encrypted with unknown content, and announced (whether true or not) that he set the encryption keys to 'select individuals'.

3. Encryption can be set to unlock portions, but not all of the volume.

4. insurance.rar, for all we know, could be his ipod music library.

5. He is "asking for assistance" therefore putting his "enemy" status off the table.

6. If they agree to work with him - he disarms them and he wins.

7. If they continue to list him as "wanted for questioning" and refuse to work with him, they look like vigilantes and he wins.

Make sense?

[Spazito]

27. What does he win?

He is quite capable of finding someone with the expertise to go over the documents to ensure there are no details that would put Afghanis and others at risk yet he doesn't seem to want to do that. I wonder why?

[Ruby the Liberal]

33. He backed the DoD into a corner.

Offered to work with them - while the 'insurance' file is hanging over their head as no one knows whats in it.

[Spazito]

40. Is he not playing games by putting the lives of Afghanis and others at risk...

by doing this? Is it worth putting lives at risk to 'back the DoD into a corner"? Why is he not asking for someone with experience in these kinds of documents to help him to ensure there are no names, details, etc, that could put people at risk?

[Ruby the Liberal]

45. I can't speak for the man, but I know enough about him to know that he is ADAMENT

about the quagmire in Afghanistan and the US ans Australian involvement in it.

If I were to crawl into his head, I would imagine that his "disappearance" being followed with war details that *may* end the war may be justification to him.

Again, I know little about the man and even less about his motivations - so am just guessing that this was a self-preservation mode due to a perceived M-I5/CIA/Mossad/Interpol/Whoever threat.

If so, it was a good call.

Edit to add - This is EXACTLY what he is asking for - someone with security clearance to be a second sets of eyes on what he has.

[Chan790]

60. You seriously misestimate the US intel community.

The only way Julian Assange is getting out of any of this is if he takes down Wikileaks, cooperates with NSA to remote-corrupt/destroy his "insurance" file so that it can't ever be leaked, its' contents released or decrypted {so he can't screw them later}, unilaterally-capitulates and agrees to go spend the rest of his life quietly in some hovel 500 miles from any computer. That is, he needs to put the Jack back in the box and go away quietly with his tail cropped. Example will be made of annihilation of his life's work lest someone ever try it again.

He's playing chess with people who own the board, play with invisible pieces, play in 5-dimensions...and cheat. Much like the end of Wargames, the only way to "win" is to not play.

[Turborama]

63. Where has he announced that he's sent the encryption keys to 'select individuals'?

I haven't heard that before.

[Keystonecops]

70. He'll probably lose this round

He probably is trying to do what you suggest in number 6, but he's messing with the wrong people now that the cards are already on the table. He's foolish to think he can play them.

From the DoD's POV, they may very well

- Say yes, to buy time--the guy already has all the documents and this could allow them to delay, misdirect, and misinform.

- Simultaneously begin a hacking/DoS campaign against wikileaks and against the personal communications of this fellow in particular.

- Start to lay the backstory for the discrediting of the entire team. Suggest that he is in the pay of the USG, invent some sexual malfeasance or exploit some weakness.

- Even by asking for help he's displayed a weakness, buying into the idea that he is giving away local operatives. He should have given nothing back if he was taking the position that he was.

He should have been looking elsewhere for trusted 3rd parties if he was looking for a genuine arbiter. There are plenty of think tanks in the US/UK/Australia/Germany who could provide people to process the information free of charge. Likewise, even activist organizations like veterans for peace, as its full of ex-soldiers, could probably be convinced to provide some operational secrecy for processing and vetting some of the data.

[EFerrari]

31. Do we know what he's doing in private? n/t

[Spazito]

43. So, if he is, indeed, asking for help from someone with the experience...

in these documents (I sure as hell hope he is) then he IS showboating with this public demand of the "White House and the like", is he not?

[Ruby the Liberal]

47. Um, this is exactly what he is asking for.

Intelligence resources to scrub what he has, but has not yet released.

Why this is a brilliant move.

What is it about this that you aren't getting?

[Spazito]

51. I see it as playing games with the lives of innocent Afghanis and others...

to tweak noses for publicity. He is not asking for help, publicly, from anyone other than the "White House and the like", knowing it is not going to happen.

I don't find it brilliant. Brilliant, to me, would be to have someone with experience in documents like this go over them privately and then simply publish them and let them stand on their own merits instead of hyping these up by showboating.

[Ruby the Liberal]

53. Showboating? More like exposing activities that we are shielded from.

Let me guess, you are a fan of Cheney-style intelligence/warfare methods?

I KNOW that we do not need to know everything, and that there is a VERY thin line, but on the other hand - if we are being lied to, shouldn't there be an exception? WMD in Iraq & the downing street papers comes to mind...

[Spazito]

55. You have guessed wrong, very wrong...

I have no problem with the publishing of the documents PROVIDED it is done responsibly. My problem is with the showboating being done by Assange to tweak "the White House and the like" and using the lives of innocent Afghanis and others to do it.

I am Canadian, and unlike the U.S., we did NOT illegally invade Iraq and are leaving Afghanistan in 2011 so to assume I am "a fan of Cheney-style intelligence/warfare methods" is uncalled for, imo.

[EFerrari]

56. Should he just let the Pentagon's PR department tap dance all over him?

[Spazito]

57. He should let the documents speak for themselves AFTER he...

has ensured any names, details, etc, are removed that would put innocent Afghanis and others at risk. If the documents will reveal, as he believes, the lies being told to the American public then it doesn't really matter what the Pentagon says, imo.

It is all the posturing being done that,imo, takes away from his intent which, it seems, is to reveal the facts, the truth.

[EFerrari]

65. I don't see how standing up for yourself is posturing.

I don't see how talking back to the Bush fixer in charge at the Pentagon is grandstanding. Any of us have the right to take their shit right back to them. They work for us, not the other way around.

[EFerrari]

30. Yep. No flies on Julian. n/t

[freedom fighter jh]

8. I don't think he's expecting an OK

Either they tell him what info needs to be redacted and then, if it's reasonable, he redacts that info and then the Pentagon can't complain when he publishes the rest. Or they refuse to tell him, and he publishes the whole thing and the Pentagon can't complain because they had their chance to have that info removed and they passed.

Either way they can't complain.

[superconnected]

10. No you don't have it right. But I see the rw propaganda is coming out correctly.

[Spazito]

14. Excuse me...

Please explain how I have it wrong. That, oddly, seems to be missing in your post.

[superconnected]

15. Excuse ME?

"Mr. Assange wants the Pentagon to check out the 15,000 stolen documents and, after ensuring no names, etc, are published, give him the okay to publish the STOLEN documents?"

He's not looking for an "OK". He's giving them a chance to see the docs and tell him what would put people in danger, just like he gave them the chance to see the docs he released last week before releasing them. He typically gives companies and governments this chance first. If you bother to inform yourself ie go listen to his interview on democracy now, today, you'd have at least an iota of a concept on how Wikileaks works. Instead you're acting like he's trying to get an okay to publish stolen docs, which you'll see is asinine if you bother to go get the real information.

You can start here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/3/julian_assange_responds_to_increasing_us

[Spazito]

24. Why would the Pentagon give him, in essence, the OK by 'clearing'...

stolen documents. He knows damn well they will not do that and instead of finding someone who has experience in documents like the ones he has and could aid in ensuring they do not put Afghanis and others at risk he is showboating.

Your post is disingenuous, imo, when you say "He's not looking for an "OK"" because you know full well that is exactly what he would say were they to do what he wants them to do.

It's the showboating I find nauseating not the disclosure of the documents were he to do the right thing and ensure no one is put at risk by his actions.

[superconnected]

26. Gawd, I gave you all of the information but I see you don't bother to look into it.

HE's not looking for an OK. This article is a LIE. Can you try to have one shred of integrity and go get the truth. I gave you links.

[Spazito]

29. I read the transcript...

and I see nothing that disputes what I have posted. He is, in effect, wanting the Pentagon to give him a 'clean bill of health', if you will, by going over the stolen, still classified documents knowing his intention to publish them.

From the transcript:

" So these things are quite difficult and time-consuming to work out. And that’s one of the reasons that we ask the White House and the like to ask ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force, to help us with the labor of going through this. We are a relatively small organization, and the labor costs and getting through this material are very demanding..."

[superconnected]

35. Closer. He consistently gives all governments and corporations the chance

to review documents before he publishes them to minimalize personal harm. But, he does not get a "clean bill of health" or an "OK", obviously they always say it's not okay and nobody is giving anyone a clean bill of health. He admonishes the white house in the interview for saying he has blood on their hands and explains that they were giving the chance to review the info first and did not bring up that informants real names were actually in the documents therefore they are at fault for as he says - not caring about the informants.

[Spazito]

38. Do you believe the "White House and the like" will do this?

Do you believe Assange is genuine in his request or is he simply doing a 'call-out' knowing what he wants will not happen?

[superconnected]

41. If you actually read the transcript you would see that the white house did

review the 90k documents he leaked last week, so yes, I believe him, like I said, if you bother to look at the interview, this is the standard operating procedure for his leaks and the countries/companies comply.

[Spazito]

49. I cannot find, in the transcript, where the WH reviewed the 90K documents...

before Mr. Assange published them. This is all I could find re the White House:

"But you must understand that we contacted the White House about that issue and asked for their assistance in vetting to see whether there would be any exposure of innocents and to identify those names accordingly. Of course, we would never accept any other kind of veto, but in relation to that matter, we requested their assistance via the New York Times, who the four media partners involved—us, Der Spiegel, The Guardian and the Times—agreed would be the conduit to the White House so we wouldn’t step on each other’s toes. Now, the White House issued a flat denial that that had ever happened. And we see, however, that in an interview with CBS News, Eric Schmidt, who was our contact for that, quoted from the email that I had relayed to the White House, and that quote is precisely what I had been saying all along and completely contradicts the White House statement."

Nowhere does it say the WH reviewed the documents before they were published that I can find. I stand to be corrected if you can cite the part of the transcript where it states they were reviewed.

[Turborama]

72. If you read the transcript he says it was 76,000 files

JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah, we have released 76,000, and we have 15,000 in addition that our staff are working through to make sure that informers are not named.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/3/julian_assange_responds_to_increasing_us

And I also can't see anything in there about the WH saying they reviewed the documents prior to their release.

[superconnected]

21. You can also try this link - if your want to be informed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_HPLHIBTtA

[Bragi]

17. He doesn't ned their okay to publish /nt

[Spazito]

36. No, he doesn't, you are correct...

He IS, however, positing he does not want to publish them until he is certain no lives are put at risk by the publishing but only if t "the White House and the like ask ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force" help him to 'cleanse' the documents of names, details, etc, that could put people at risk.

He is, imo, doing a 'call-out' of the "White House and the like" instead of trying to find someone with experience with these sorts of documents to help him remove anything that could put people at risk.

[superconnected]

42. Gawd! and he only says in interview after interview that he has experienced people all

over the world who look at the documents and sanitize them first.

[Spazito]

52. Then why this call-out to the "White House and the like" in public?

There is nothing in the transcript where he states "he has experienced people all over the world who look at documents and sanitize them first". He states this:

"So these things are quite difficult and time-consuming to work out. And that’s one of the reasons that we ask the White House and the like to ask ISAF, the International Security Assistance Force, to help us with the labor of going through this. We are a relatively small organization, and the labor costs and getting through this material are very demanding..."

No mention of "experienced people" at all, at least in this transcript.

I hope you are right and he is doing exactly as you state, having experienced people looking at these documents, as it is the responsible thing to do.

[Dogmudgeon]

5. Actually, it's brilliant

It puts the DoD in a no-win situation.

--d!

[ozymandius]

6. Why does he think that he would receive any text at all?

Even text containing the word 'the'?

Picture pages shiny slick with black ink.

Why doesn't he ask the leakers to list redacted names?

[freedom fighter jh]

61. Because he's not asking them what's OK for him to publish.

He's asking them what would put people at risk. If they reply with something ridiculous, they can't expect him to take them seriously.

[superconnected]

9. Talk about a biased headline. As a consideration he's giving the US a chance to review the info

before he releases it, JUST LIKE HE DID WITH THE 90K docs he just released, before releasing them, in order to get their input if there's anything that would endanger people - ie names.

[superconnected]

11. Here's the link to Democracy Nows phone interview with Assange today that puts this in context

and I mean you'll really see the spin on this backassed headline after seeing what he's really doing.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/3/julian_assange_responds_to_increasing_us

[slipslidingaway]

19. Thanks for the link n/t

[mzmolly]

12. It's a bit too late isn't it? eom

[Ruby the Liberal]

18. No - he only released a fraction of what he has

They held back information that they had concerns about from a security perspective - from their view.

[jberryhill]

22. He's keeping it secret for our own good?

The pentagon was already doing that. Duh.

[Ruby the Liberal]

34. No, for HIS protection.

[superconnected]

37. His protection and the people who could be harmed's protection.

Remember he has a team of lawyers that reviews every leak before he leaks it to make sure that if a county sues him, he will win since he did nothing illegal. He's won all of his lawsuits so far, and has cited several. Some very large.

[Ruby the Liberal]

39. Didn't know that - thanks!

[mzmolly]

50. PHEW!

Glad to hear it.

[Turborama]

68. He released 76,000 files (the majority) and has held back 15,000 (a fraction)

He obviously released the majority of the files without vetting them properly. So yes, it is a bit late for those files. He should have exercised the same care and attention/due diligence on the 76,000 files before prematurely releasing them as he says he is with the 15,000 he held back.

He gambled that releasing them would save more lives than it would cost. That gamble doesn't seem to be paying off.


JULIAN ASSANGE: Yeah, we have released 76,000, and we have 15,000 in addition that our staff are working through to make sure that informers are not named.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/8/3/julian_assange_responds_to_increasing_us

[EFerrari]

32. Nope. The next batch isn't out yet.

[jberryhill]

20. Did Assange's Source Want The Documents Published? Or Not?

I thought the point of Wikileaks was that they would publish leaked documents sent to them

Someone took a big risk to get these documents to Assange, but he's going to pick and choose what gets published?

Is that what the leaker wanted?

[superconnected]

23. Wrong. Wikileaks has consistently contacted governments and companies

before they released leaks to give them a chance to tell them what could hurt someone. They have consistently pulled out the information - names/addresses of people they felt would unnecessarily be hurt. They do not just publish every thing they get - never have.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_HPLHIBTtA

[jberryhill]

25. So if you leak stuff to wikileaks...

You don't really know what is going to happen with it.

[superconnected]

28. You can read their website and KNOW that they will remove information that will hurt people, and

that if it does fit their criteria - which they list - that it's never been published before, not self-authored, and more criteria they must meet, then they will try to get the most media play out of it they can. Wikileaks flat out says things will be edited.

[Turborama]

73. They will remove information that will hurt people (if they spend enough time going through it)

Which they obviously didn't when reviewing last week's release.

[Meldread]

46. Even though I see what he's doing... the DoD should do it.

I see exactly what he's doing, and I don't agree with the tactic. I don't think political games should be played with the lives of innocent Afghan civilians, and that's why I think the DoD should do it.

I supported the leaking of the information, and will continue to support the broader goal and intention of WikiLeaks. Yet, at the same time I think a certain amount of moral responsibility falls on their shoulders - the same standard I would apply to any news agency. Every effort should always be taken to protect the lives of innocent people who could be harmed (directly or indirectly) through the actions of WikiLeaks. The story should be about the actual story - not the vehicle through which the information is distributed.

[Jefferson23]

48. I am completely fascinated by this man, never a dull moment.

Good luck to you Assange.

[flamingdem]

59. Someone had to do something.. but is he "the one"?

He sure seems to have the smarts to take on the US establishment!

[Jefferson23]

66. I honestly don't know, but I wish him all the best. n/t

[wtsnacks]

54. well whatever the outcome

I hope he gets the help he needs

[24601]

58. He should deliver them in person n/t

[Pavulon]

62. This is the guy you people had taking out the NSA

with his super secret encryption technique and insurance... He already has bodies around his neck.

[The abyss]

64. Might as well ask Corporal Hassoun about what happened to Nick Berg.

Hey, whatever did happen to US Marine Corporal Hassoun?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wassef_Ali_Hassoun a rather interesting ghost-in-the-machine. Disappeared after he touched soil in Utah if I remember correctly..

Correct me if I'm wrong.

His “passport” and personal possessions were found in Falluja

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/09/hassoun.desert/

"A whole-lot-a-head-chopin-goin-on" in those days

A passport carried by military enlisted personal!

[happyslug]

67. If the Pentagon was Smart, there release they own version first

i.e. take a guess at that Wikileaks have and then publish those reports themselves REMOVING all references to anyone. Now this may be Wikileaks plan, hoping for the release of more information then Wikileaks have at the present time, but it means if Wikileaks does publish what it has the Pentagon can win the propaganda war by saying at least they release did NOT reveal any one who can be harmed, but Wikileaks did.

Now the Pentagon have done similar releases in the past. For Example at the end of WWII it released a book on Atomic Bomb research. Almost everything you have read on the net on how Atomic Bombs work and are built is from that book. The purpose of the book was to inform scientists of what they needed to know about Atomic Research as it affected other fields. For most Scientists what was released was all they needed to know, if they needed to know more they had to get clearance from the Pentagon. It was a very cleaver security method, releasing what most scientists needed to know (And would find out in other research if they needed it) but kept the actual details secret (We know how much Uranium 239 or Plutonium you need to get a "Critical Amount" i.e. enough that goes boom, but how pure the Uranium 239 and Plutonium needs to be is classified (It has to be close to 99% pure but how close is classified). Furthermore HOW much Uranium 239 and Plutonium we get with how much processing is classified. We know the decay rates of Uranium 239 and Plutonium, thus knowing how pure the Uranium 239 and Plutonium is critical to know if they are still "usable" i.e. very good chance of going bomb (One report I have read basically says the Hydrogen used to make the H-bomb will degrade to a degree that the H-Bomb is useless after about four years i.e. bomb must be returned to where ever it was built, the Uranium 239 and Hydrogen removed and reprocess to become effective again.

Just pointing out if the Pentagon does what I am proposing, release what the Pentagon thinks Wikileaks has, with personal information removed, the Pentagon would end up controlling the release (Not what is released, but how and to a limited degree what). This will force Wikileak to either withhold its own versions of those same documents OR release them and face the charge of endangering people's lives. Wikileaks may be hoping for this solution (It provides them cover that someone else looked over the documents and found nothing that would endanger someone's life), but in my opinion the Pentagon should do it to shut Wikileaks up. If you can NOT control what is being released, control how it is being released.

[Psephos]

69. Maybe he could just run it by the Taliban instead.

Cuz, as seems to be the received wisdom around here, no Afghan civilian lives are actually at threat. No chance the Taliban, fine fellows that they are, can't forgive and forget those who spoke with the satanic enemy in a weak moment.

Pentagon could take a lesson or two from Assange on how to kill civilians with minimal cost and exposure.

[ronnie624]

74. The Pentagon's victims number in the millions.

Do you have any firm numbers on Assange's body count?

[Psephos]

77. I was referring to the killing of civilians in Afghanistan.

The Pentagon has already proven itself good at that. Now they have some competition.

[ronnie624]

79. So, extrapolating from there,

I suppose we can assume that in 50 years or so, Assange will have killed 10 or 12 million people.

But I'm still skeptical. Somehow, the release of government secrets, doesn't seem quite as effective a weapon as bombs and pestilence from a destroyed infrastructure.

[Psephos]

80. Who's extrapolating?

You are.

I made a wry comment. People who aren't literalists will get the meaning, I'm sure.

Meanwhile, are you really saying you don't think the Taliban are going to "interview" and "rehabilitate" the civilians whose names are on that list?

[ronnie624]

81. You made a wry comment, and then I responded with a bit of sarcasm.

As for the Taliban, I can't be sure what they will do. I know what Robert Gates says, but I'm familiar with his history in the Reagan and Bush I administrations, so I give him little credence. As a matter of fact, I'm highly skeptical of just about everything I see in Western media since the launching of the "war on terror".

The fact of the matter is, the invasion of Afghanistan itself, is of far greater importance to me than the Wikileaks soap opera. We can say with absolute certainty, that it has resulted in the deaths of many Afghan civilians. There is no need to speculate or inflate or invent. It also has much greater and more ominous implications for the futures of Afghanistan and the United States. It is a far, far bigger issue.

Incidentally, I can well imagine your reaction to U.S. citizens collaborating with foreign invaders. I can easily see you supporting "interviews" and "rehabilitation" in that instance.

[Psephos]

82. I was with you until the last sentence.

You don't know me, and such speculations are an exercise in self-gratification.

You and I share a fair deal of opinion on Afghanistan. We seem to part company when it comes to whether releasing the names of Afghanis who interacted with NATO soldiers is a good thing.

[ronnie624]

83. I don't know if releasing names was a "good" thing or not.

The people who fight against the invaders and occupiers of Afghanistan, probably think it is a "good" thing, whereas those who wish to occupy Afghanistan unimpeded, and keep secrets about the war from the U.S. public, probably think it is a "bad" thing.

In my opinion, the invasion of Afghanistan was justified by pretext and lies, and is therefore "bad". As much as I loathe the Taliban and all of the cultural and societal sickness that they represent, I don't believe we have the right to invade their country, whether it is for the claimed reasons or the real reasons, which most of us know, lie beneath the veil of propaganda.

[Arrowhead2k1]

75. This is like asking the cops to escort you to the bank so that you don't hurt anyone when you rob it

:rofl:

[BanTheGOP]

76. Just print them and let the chips fall where they may...

EOM

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

78. ...to continue living...

:think: