Wikileaks releases 440,000 Iraq files

Pookah

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

That's fine but don't get all defensive and butthurt the next time someone calls you out on some comment that is both incredibly dickheaded and immature.

A bit of anti-American black humour in AH?

It's hardly that off the charts.

karma_

Malty_T wrote: »

The various methods the US used to combat the insurgency and instill control in the various communities, their security patrols, agreements with Militia etc. All of these inform the US's enemires.

I'm all for the truth, but if you're going to release the "truth" of war then surely you should realise the documents of all parties involved simultaneously not just one single party? I'm almost 100% confident the taliban have changed their approach in Afghanistan, wouldn't it be nice to know why they chose to make such a decision? And wouldn't it be even nice to know what their plans on are in unsettling various communities, placing IEDs, combatting ISAF forces etc.

You are seriously connecting wikileaks with the Taliban strategy in Afghanistan?

It's not like the Mujahideen or Taliban haven't been fighting non-stop insurgencies or wars in Afghanistan, Chechnya or the Balkans since before the 80's. They may be fundamentalists with no compunction about killing, but they are not stupid and guerilla warfare generally evolves faster than the tactics of conventional warfare.

Turtwig

karma_ wrote: »

You are seriously connecting wikileaks with the Taliban strategy in Afghanistan?

Wut?

Genghiz Cohen

Pookah wrote: »

A bit of anti-American black humour in AH?

It's hardly that off the charts.

Some people think it's OK to make light of children being shot.
I don't.

Nodin

orourkeda wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that telling the truth is a bad thing.

I'm suggesting that it appears odd to me that so many documents can be obtained from the U.S Miliitary by a website that markets itself (for want of a better expression) as being anti establishment. Perhaps I'm reading too much into it and my doubts may be misplaced but there's something about this that doesn't seem right.

Not really - the guy that leaked them has been caught. Its happened before, and will doubtless happen again. In fact, its far easier these days, because of info in digital format.

karma_

Malty_T wrote: »

Wut?

Don't play coy;

I'm almost 100% confident the taliban have changed their approach in Afghanistan, wouldn't it be nice to know why they chose to make such a decision?

You are clearly trying to make some sort of tenuous connection between these leaked documents and the changing Taliban strategy in Afghanistan.

Turtwig

Pookah wrote: »

A bit of anti-American black humour in AH?

It's hardly that off the charts.

Iirc, a joke about 7 people travelling in the one car on a road in Donegal being killed is considered inconsiderate and inappropriate yet if those seven plus four and younger were killed by U.S Forces the joke is now ok.

Pookah

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Some people think it's OK to make light of children being shot.
I don't.

I don't believe the joke was making light of kids being shot, at all.

Nodin

Malty_T wrote: »

Iirc, a joke about 7 people travelling in the one car on a road in Donegal being killed is considered inconsiderate and inappropriate yet if those seven plus four and younger were killed by U.S Forces the joke is now ok.

For one thing, it wasn't a joke about a specific incident, it was an answer to a question....and the butt of the Joke wasn't the "Arabs".....But no, feel free to get yer knickers in a knot anyway....

Genghiz Cohen

Pookah wrote: »

I don't believe the joke was making light of kids being shot, at all.

Oh, I see now that it was people that were shot, without mention of their age, excuse my ignorance on the subject.
That's fine.
Shooting people is nothing to worry about.
Please go back to making fun of the dead.
Please.


Oh, wait now. I guess I was wrong again.

Seven Iraqi civilians were killed, including two children.

My my, if my head weren't screwed on...

Turtwig

karma_ wrote: »

Don't play coy;

You are clearly trying to make some sort of tenuous connection between these leaked documents and the changing Taliban strategy in Afghanistan.

No I am not! That is a rather bizarre stretch to make, any force in any war will always be examining and rethinking its tactics. That's the nature of the game. Knowing the tactics they've changed and why is huge advantage to any side in that game. For example, suppose the ISAF knew where the Taliban were getting their skilled snipers form, what procedures they were trained under etc. Then, from a ISAF point of view, neutralizing those snipers just became much easier. My point is, that even if it was intentional or not, wikileaks has inadvertently provided anyone with any bit of brain will use the means to use the leaked documents to assess US tactics and scrutinise them for weaknesses. I'm most certainly not saying Wikileaks supports the taliban, but what I am saying is that unless the taliban are complete utter stupid idiots they'll change their tactics in the near future. It's really that much of a no brainer. Wikileaks, has inadvertently tipped the scales, if even just a little. That's the point I'm trying to make.

karma_

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Oh, I see now that it was only 11 people that were shot, without mention of their age, excuse my ignorance on the subject.
That's fine.
11 people is nothing to worry about.
Please go back to making fun of the dead.
Please.

I seen people missing the point before, but never by quite so much.

karma_

Malty_T wrote: »

No I am not! That is a rather bizarre stretch to make, any force in any war will always be examining and rethinking its tactics. That's the nature of the game. Knowing the tactics they've changed and why is huge advantage to any side in that game. For example, suppose the ISAF knew where the Taliban were getting their skilled snipers form, what procedures they were trained under etc. Then, from a ISAF point of view, neutralizing those snipers just became much easier. My point is, that even if it was intentional or not, wikileaks has inadvertently provided anyone with any bit of brain will use the means to use the leaked documents to assess US tactics and scrutinise them for weaknesses. I'm most certainly not saying Wikileaks supports the taliban, but what I am saying is that unless the taliban are complete utter stupid idiots they'll change their tactics in the near future. It's really that much of a no brainer. Wikileaks, has inadvertently tipped the scales, if even just a little. That's the point I'm trying to make.

So you are actually saying these documents could be beneficial to the Taliban. Just to be clear, I am of the opinion that that very suggestion is idiotic.

Turtwig

Nodin wrote: »

For one thing, it wasn't a joke about a specific incident, it was an answer to a question....and the butt of the Joke wasn't the "Arabs".....But no, feel free to get yer knickers in a knot anyway....

Right so the joke was an answer to a question about an incident in which 11 people were killed in a car. Just so we clarified that.

Turtwig

karma_ wrote: »

So you are actually saying these documents could be beneficial to the Taliban. Just to be clear, I am of the opinion that that very suggestion is idiotic.

Not just to the Taliban, but to France, Russia, England, etc. any country or entity that may find itself on the warpath with the US that would usually spend a tonne of money installing spies to obtain such data. Yes it's quite valuable stuff and it will most likely be beneficial to the Taliban.

Nodin

karma_ wrote: »

I seen people missing the point before, but never by quite so much.

I once pointed out that Australian aboriginals had gotten the "shitty end of the stick" historically. I devoted about two sentences to it. Does this result in a heated debate about the evils or otherwise of Imperialism/colonialism/racism? Fuck no, its all about whether I (Dublin dwelling paddy) am in fact an Aboriginal.....

Nodin

Malty_T wrote: »

Right so the joke was an answer to a question about an incident in which 11 people were killed in a car. Just so we clarified that.

Could be a t-shirt..."Keep on whingin".....

Pookah

Malty_T wrote: »

Right so the joke was an answer to a question about an incident in which 11 people were killed in a car. Just so we clarified that.

Except it wasn't. It was a joke about how to get 11 Arabs in a car. Just for further clarification.

Genghiz Cohen

Pookah wrote: »

Except it wasn't. It was a joke about how to get 11 Arabs in a car. Just for further clarification.

Oh, I see, it had nothing to do with the incident where those people died!
Well excuse me for thinking that a joke about how to pack a number of people into a car had ANYTHING to do with how a car packed full of people was shot at and they died.

You can see where the confusion came from though, them being all of 2 posts away from each other.

Haw haw haw, good show Nodin, keep rackin' 'em out!

Pookah

Tough crowd tonight, Nodin.

karma_

Malty_T wrote: »

Not just to the Taliban, but to France, Russia, England, etc. any country or entity that may find itself on the warpath with the US that would usually spend a tonne of money installing spies to obtain such data. Yes it's quite valuable stuff and it will most likely be beneficial to the Taliban.

Every day I am thankful for guys like Bradley Manning and Daniel Ellsberg, for if it was not for the likes of them we would be living in our very own 1984.

The truth should always be released and not covered up, if the Catholic Church in Ireland proved anything it was that very fact.

karma_

Pookah wrote: »

Tough crowd tonight, Nodin.

you can please some of the people....

Turtwig

Pookah wrote: »

Except it wasn't. It was a joke about how to get 11 Arabs in a car. Just for further clarification.

A joke is perfectly understandable, but there's a time and place for every joke mentioning a joke about packing people into a car in response to serious question regarding the death of eleven people is neither the time nor the place. If a question on the topic of suicide is asking how someone could even climb such a structure, would a joke about climbing be an appropriate response? It may be AH, but I'm of the opinion that making jokes about the circumstances of someone's death is not on if their death has been discussed seriously previously.

Turtwig

karma_ wrote: »

Every day I am thankful for guys like Bradley Manning and Daniel Ellsberg, for if it was not for the likes of them we would be living in our very own 1984.

The truth should always be released and not covered up, if the Catholic Church in Ireland proved anything it was that very fact.

Yes, but that's my point isn't it, the truth behind any story usually incorporates both sides. If Wikileaks, really REALLY cared about the truth then it should have withheld the documents until it had the documents of the other side as well. Release both sides of the story, or release none. If wikileaks chooses to release Iranian documents then I may retract this criticism but until then it has not provided any truth and if it claims otherwise, then it really is being delusional. There are two sides to every story, not one.

jumpguy

Was looking through some of the released documents myself and most of them are just slush, interesting to get a glimpse of it, but it's mostly a collection of rather nominal events that'd be expected in a war (accidents, IED explosions, small arms fire). Also, the information is outdated given it's nature, a lot of it ranging back to 2004-2006, some from 2007. A report of small arms fire from 2007 is hardly useful to any enemy forces.

Even the most "popular" documents, such as reports of murders, I can't see how they'd be of any tactical use to enemy forces.

I think it's a far overhyped thing altogether, there's not much to worry any of the American or British forces there, except for the breach that led to the files being released.

Kasabian

Dispatches on C4 are doing an expose now, shocking stuff.

sidelines

Chilling stuff on Dispatches re torture which took place, and blind eye turned by US forces.

karma_

Malty_T wrote: »

Yes, but that's my point isn't it, the truth behind any story usually incorporates both sides. If Wikileaks, really REALLY cared about the truth then it should have withheld the documents until it had the documents of the other side as well. Release both sides of the story, or release none. If wikileaks chooses to release Iranian documents then I may retract this criticism but until then it has not provided any truth and if it claims otherwise, then it really is being delusional. There are two sides to every story, not one.

Do you even realise how stupid and pathetic your statement is here, and do you have any idea at all about how wikileaks operates? seriously I'd expect a better argument and understanding from a child.

Turtwig

karma_ wrote: »

Do you even realise how stupid and pathetic your statement is here, and do you have any idea at all about how wikileaks operates? seriously I'd expect a better argument and understanding from a child.

Linky.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on Saturday defended the unauthorised release of 400,000 classified US military documents on the war in Iraq, saying they revealed the "truth" about the conflict.
The mass of documents from 2004 to 2009 offer a grim snapshot of the conflict, especially of the abuse of Iraqi civilians by Iraqi security forces.
"This disclosure is about the truth," Assange told a news conference in London after the whistleblowing website published the logs on the Internet.

Again, I repeat, are they really so naive to think that telling one side of the story constitutes the truth?

Nodin

Malty_T wrote: »

Linky.


Again, I repeat, are they really so naive to think that telling one side of the story constitutes the truth?

So how would you suggest they 'tell the other side of the story'?

Turtwig

Nodin wrote: »

So how would you suggest they 'tell the other side of the story'?

Iran, release some of its documents for starters. Al-Qaeda would be next, but that's a tougher nut to pin down as it's more an ideology than an organisation still though it's doable.

Nodin

Malty_T wrote: »

Iran, release some of its documents for starters. Al-Qaeda would be next, but that's a tougher nut to pin down as it's more an ideology than an organisation still though it's doable.

America didn't "release" documents, somebody leaked them.

You seem to have no idea of the structure of Al-qaeda or the Taleban....

Genghiz Cohen

Nodin wrote: »

America didn't "release" documents, somebody leaked them.

You seem to have no idea of the structure of Al-qaeda or the Taleban....

I think he meant WikiLeaks should release etc. etc...

That would imply they have them to begin with but how would we know if they had any?

Turtwig

Nodin wrote: »

America didn't "release" documents, somebody leaked them.

You seem to have no idea of the structure of Al-qaeda or the Taleban....

Wikileaks had the documents with quite some time. If they could hold onto the documents until now, then they could hold onto them for longer. Iranian documents wouldn't be too hard to stumble on either, human beings are inherently sloppy there is bound to be an activist or hacker dedicated to the cause. Remember the site doesn't care how the documents are obtained or who obtained them, it protects the anonymity of the source as well as how the files were obtained. Unfortunately, as it stands the manner in which Wikileaks is releasing its documents and video editing can be interpreted as having an anti-establishment bias.

Nodin

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

I think he meant WikiLeaks should release etc. etc...

That would imply they have them to begin with but how would we know if they had any?

I'd imagine they would, if somebody in Iran decided to leak them. However there won't be comparable data, because Iranian activity in Iraq etc is covert, whereas the US is running a massive operation with a normal army.

As regards afghanistan - The Taleban is a collection of tribesmen, mercenaries (more tribesmen) and jaysus knows. They aren't known for their reliance on a central command structure or technology.

In addition, there remains the fact that there are still those that claim that the US went into Iraq as some form of "humanitarian" mission. Its quite clear from the orders given that the suffering of Iraqis is not on the list of priorities.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-detainee-abuse-torture-saddam?intcmp=239
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/22/iraq-war-logs-military-leaks

Turtwig

sidelines wrote: »

Chilling stuff on Dispatches re torture which took place, and blind eye turned by US forces.

Yeah it is, I haven't see this documentary, but I do know that the US's current system of incorporating local authorities in Afghanistan and Iraq to enforce law can easily be seen as inhumane in our eyes. I dunno about the war in Iraq, I was ironically more borderline on that one, but the Afghan one I was in staunch opposition to. In Iraq, the local militia and police forces are to some extent more humane than the militias and police forces that are being trained in Afghanistan.

Nodin

Malty_T wrote: »

Wikileaks had the documents with quite some time. If they could hold onto the documents until now, then they could hold onto them for longer..

Why should they?

Malty_T wrote: »

Iranian documents wouldn't be too hard to stumble on either, human beings are inherently sloppy there is bound to be an activist or hacker dedicated to the cause.
.

Of course, the Iranian secret services just leave them any old place.....

Malty_T wrote: »

Unfortunately, as it stands the manner in which Wikileaks is releasing its documents and video editing can be interpreted as having an anti-establishment bias.

And.....? It was America that illegally invaded Iraq, wasn't it? It was the US that seemed O So concerned with the well being of the average Iraqi....

The Saint

Malty_T wrote: »

Wikileaks had the documents with quite some time. If they could hold onto the documents until now, then they could hold onto them for longer. Iranian documents wouldn't be too hard to stumble on either, human beings are inherently sloppy there is bound to be an activist or hacker dedicated to the cause. Remember the site doesn't care how the documents are obtained or who obtained them, it protects the anonymity of the source as well as how the files were obtained. Unfortunately, as it stands the manner in which Wikileaks is releasing its documents and video editing can be interpreted as having an anti-establishment bias.

If there was information to be leaked on the Taliban or Iran then there are masses of places that would release it, not least every western news agecy who would have it covered like man juice on Jenna Jameson.

Turtwig

Nodin wrote: »

Why should they?



Of course, the Iranian secret services just leave them any old place.....



And.....? It was America that illegally invaded Iraq, wasn't it? It was the US that seemed O So concerned with the well being of the average Iraqi....

Instead of letting your disgust of the US invasion guide you here, try understanding the implications of what Wikileaks has done. It has performed an action which could easily be interpreted as siding with the enemy, it's not going to be, but that's beside the point. It handed the initiative to the other side, the entire public focus is on the US Crimes, the US this the US that, but again, that's not the whole story, it never is. The US Crimes may be the largest proportion, but again, we can only speculate. Is Wiki leaks impartial or is it Anti US? Why did Assange spend so much time on Al Jazeera television, why did they selectively edit a gunship video. Why not include other gunship videos for comparison? He claims he wanted to make journalism more scientific, yet he and his editors did not include any controls, any comparisons, only pure one sidedness. Anyone who reads my posts knows I don't particularly like America, but I don't like websites or sources that claim unbiased truth when they don't even bother to include the scientific examination the purport to provide.

The Iranian secret service, the CIA, all these guys are leakable. You don't seem to realise that information is the biggest asset of war, the US has Intelligence analysts gathering info on Iran. Just like Iran has chaps doing it for them. Wikileaks doesn't care about the origin of the leaks, so just find a hacker, activist, spy, informant etc to "leak" the information.

Regardless, of the legality of the Iraq War, wikileaks can easily be seen as anti establishment, anti government. Bias is not something that leads you to the truth, which is my point. Does Assange care about global truth or just seeing his vision of the rise of anti-establishment coming true?

Turtwig

The Saint wrote: »

If there was information to be leaked on the Taliban or Iran then there are masses of places that would release it, not least every western news agecy who would have it covered like man juice on Jenna Jameson.

But they haven't...

karma_

Malty_T wrote: »

Regardless, of the legality of the Iraq War, wikileaks can easily be seen as anti establishment, anti government. Bias is not something that leads you to the truth, which is my point. Does Assange care about global truth or just seeing his vision of the rise of anti-establishment coming true?

If you love the truth so much why do you not seem so troubled by the fact that the US likes to cover it up? should transparency not be it's ultimate goal if indeed it was a humanitarian mission? You sir are a hypocrite, and each new post you write just hammers home that point.

The Saint

Malty_T wrote: »

But they haven't...

You are assuming that there is information on them to be leaked. Do you have any basis for this?

Are you saying that if Wikileaks had information on Iran that they should wait until the have something similar on the US before releasing it? Do you think that the Pentagon papers should have been withheld until there was information for a counter leak on Vietcong atrocities?

Nodin

Malty_T wrote: »

Instead of letting your disgust of the US invasion guide you here, try understanding the implications of what Wikileaks has done. It has performed an action which could easily be interpreted as siding with the enemy,,

By some, who interpret any form of criticism as being "siding with the enemy".

Malty_T wrote: »

It handed the initiative to the other side,

What "initiative"? Who exactly are the "other side"?

Malty_T wrote: »

the entire public focus is on the US Crimes, the US this the US that, but again, that's not the whole story, it never is. The US Crimes may be the largest proportion, but again, we can only speculate.
,

The documents are notable not in that they reveal masses of "US crimes" - they show something else.

Malty_T wrote: »

Why did Assange spend so much time on Al Jazeera television,
,

You mean why did Al Jazeera focus so much on Assange. I've a wild idea on that one.

Malty_T wrote: »

why did they selectively edit a gunship video.
..........

Who said they did? Has it been proven?

Malty_T wrote: »

Why not include other gunship videos for comparison? He claims he wanted to make journalism more scientific, yet he and his editors did not include any controls, any comparisons, only pure one sidedness

Whats the "other side" to US forces being ordered to - effectively - turn a blind eye to abuses by Iraqi government forces?

Malty_T wrote: »

The Iranian secret service, the CIA, all these guys are leakable.

In theory, yes. However - as they are covert - its far more complicated for anyone to penetrate and then leak info.

Malty_T wrote: »

You don't seem to realise that information is the biggest asset of war, the US has Intelligence analysts gathering info on Iran. Just like Iran has chaps doing it for them. Wikileaks doesn't care about the origin of the leaks, so just find a hacker, activist, spy, informant etc to "leak" the information.

They aren't an intelligence gathering organisation. People come to them.

Malty_T wrote: »

Regardless, of the legality of the Iraq War, wikileaks can easily be seen as anti establishment, anti government. Bias is not something that leads you to the truth, which is my point.

The documents are there. Unless you're saying they are untrue...

Turtwig

karma_ wrote: »

If you love the truth so much why do you not seem so troubled by the fact that the US likes to cover it up? should transparency not be it's ultimate goal if indeed it was a humanitarian mission? You sir are a hypocrite, and each new post you write just hammers home that point.

Actually now let's be honest you have compared me with a child and now a hypocrite and you've also assumed various positions that I do not hold along the way. Where have I said these cover ups don't trouble me? Or at the very least perhaps you can point out a quotation where I insinuate such? Then I'll be able to correct your misunderstanding.

That said, you did sort of get something right I'm not surprised by the number of cover up cases. It was inevitable really given the new policy of giving control and law back to local militias that the US tried using in Iraq and now in Afghanistan. Such a policy practically requires a prime directive like approach with means turning a blind eye to stoning in A-Stan or a blind eye to torture in Iraq. It's simply that area's culture and it's not pretty but such was the fuckedupness of the situation the US got themselves into in the first place that all they can do is allow the people the "freedom" to choose what laws they themselves want to follow.
Only time will tell if this is helpful for the countries long term prospects because in the short term it leaves Afghanistan just as worse off as it was before the Invasion. Iraq is faring slightly better, but only because there isn't a much as a tribal variance as is there in Afghanistan. I've gone off the point here a little, but I'm not really sure how this constitutes a full scale cover up tbh, the implications of such policies from day one were fairly obvious. It reminds me of the wonderful media that fabricated the so called scientific claim that the Conveyor belt would stop working and freeze half of Europe. Then, in turn, a few years later, claimed new research had debunked this very claim, when in fact there was no such claim to begin with!
Such headline news US "cover ups" should really be old news, but alas in this cyber age it appears the standard of fact checking and media reporting is at an all time low, low, low.,

karma_

Malty_T wrote: »

Such headline news US "cover ups" should really be old news, but alas in this cyber age it appears the standard of fact checking and media reporting is at an all time low, low, low.,

And this is exactly why outfits like wikileaks are so essential. In essence they are the only 'real' news outlet left. This is the reason they get so much flack from the US government, if they weren't peddling the truth it would not be such a big deal and no one would care. They are in effect the only organisation putting any real pressure on government to clean up it's act.

Turtwig

karma_ wrote: »

And this is exactly why outfits like wikileaks are so essential. In essence they are the only 'real' news outlet left. This is the reason they get so much flack from the US government, if they weren't peddling the truth it would not be such a big deal and no one would care. They are in effect the only organisation putting any real pressure on government to clean up it's act.

And it's also why they are so potentially dangerous. Who has the right to decide what is leaked and what is kept secret. For example, it is well known that Wikileaks edits the sensitive documents to hide some Iraqi informant names. I can't help but wonder though if Assange and his cohorts would object if the financial contributors, sources of funding and exact inner workings of wikileaks i.e who decides what actually get's leaked and when, actually got leaked?

Funny thing is wikileaks isn't the only organisation that deals with big government secrecy, but the thing is those organisations tend to stop there. Wikileaks has posted copyrighted books, sorority rituals, and other material that can be consider far more an invasion of privacy than any CIA,NSA,MI5,FSB, intel ever does.

Nodin

Malty_T wrote: »

And it's also(.......)ever does.

Could we cut to the chase and just say you're all paranoid about wikileaks....?

Turtwig

Nodin wrote: »

Could we cut to the chase and just say you're all paranoid about wikileaks....?

No because to do so would be to ignore the reality of what they did. They released documents during an ongoing war that can provides the forces who opposes the coalition troops of a means to a better progranda war and an insight into the tactics of their enemy. That's wrong, simple as. Wikileaks has an editorial board and they should have at the very least withheld this information until the either
(a) the war was over
or
(b) they were going to release information on both Opposing forces simultaneously.
Instead they chose to interfere in an active war. Regardless of how omniscience or impartial you may be once you start interfering in another person's war you run the great risk of sliding down a slippery slope. Rendering point B somewhat dodgy too.

KyussBishop

Malty_T wrote: »

The various methods the US used to combat the insurgency and instill trust and ease tensions in the various communities, their security patrols, agreements with Militia etc. All of these inform the US's enemies.

I'm all for the truth, but if you're going to release the "truth" of war then surely you should release the documents of all parties involved simultaneously not just one single party? I'm almost 100% confident the taliban have changed their approach in Afghanistan, wouldn't it be nice to know why they chose to make such a decision? And wouldn't it be even nicer to know what their plans on are in unsettling various communities, placing IEDs, combatting ISAF forces, how they pick ambush points etc. Either release both sides, or release none.

There's no evidence of any harm having come from either the Afghanistan or Iraq leaks, and claims it is actively helping the enemy are dubious and unsubstantiated. They also can only release what people leak to them, so saying to release information from 'both sides or none', and that 'until then it has not provided any truth' is utterly stupid.

Keeping documents of great public interest secret, when there is no concrete evidence of how they will cause harm, is completely wrong and there is no excuse for it.

It is the similar, overused/abused 'national security' argument which has been used by the US government to block torture victims from suing them (tangential I know, but worth mention, in how that argument can be abused).

Releasing information like this requires a risk/benefit analysis, and the benefit from this information being in great public interest (including in Iraq, where there are elections soon and they have concrete evidence of their governments complicity in torture/murder) heavily outweighs the unsubstantiated risks to troops.

Malty_T wrote:

I don't like websites or sources that claim unbiased truth when they don't even bother to include the scientific examination the purport to provide.

They release the raw information; that's as close to the unvarnished truth as is possible.

Malty_T, can you explain the difference between unbiased truth and biased truth? Does a bias turned fact into fiction? Even your notion that wikileaks shouldn't release these logs until they have the taliban equivalent hurts my head..

The fact you have the same voting rights as everyone else in this thread is crazy.