Roll up, roll up, roll up.
Come and get you 91,000 secret US military reports from Afghanistan.

Already it is making waves and smells here in Canada over whether a report of a friendly fire on Canadians is accurate or not.

If true it would be another blow to the Harper government's carefully scripted mythology of Afghanistan.

I doubt much will come of this. Harper has slithered his way out of much worse.

Looks like the US Army may have a suspect in the latest leaks: Same PFC as Iraq Helicopter Video.

If this is true, the young PFC is in for a long stay at Ft. Leavenworth and deservedly so. Regardless of his personal objections, he was in a position of responsibility, with appropriate clearences and protocols. He apparently chose to ignore his duty and signed responsibilities. Now he will have to pay the for the consequences of his actions.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

Specifically the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth.

In addition to the USDB, Leavenworth has a federal maximum-security penitentiary, the state's Lansing Correctional Facility, and a privately operated prison CCA. Leavenworth's tourism slogan is “Doin’ Time in Leavenworth” .

Well, I don't think the "deservedly so" part is as clear cut as all that.

He (if it was him) knowingly committed a crime. That is not in dispute.

But there is the principle of committing one crime to try to prevent another, more egregious crime. Whether that applies here is debatable but it certainly seemed to apply in the Pentagon Papers case, in so far as Ellsberg apparently felt he had a moral duty to break the law.

I don't know this young man's motives but, hypothetically, suppose several of his buddies had lost their lives due to what he sees as incompetence and the only avenue he can see which will prevent more of his buddies being needlessly slaughtered is to do what he did. If that were the case, in my opinion he'd feel morally obliged to do what he did and would not deserve to go to gaol at all.

Ya I don't know what to say about this. He clearly revealed that the military is not giving us the full picture, but at the same time the overall picture that we are getting isn't that far out of line it seems. There's really not much in any of those documents that are surprising, the worst being that more innocent Afghans have been killed then may have been reported in the press. Bad as that is, it's still not on the same level as those Abu Graib photos that clearly showed specific acts of torture and abuse by specific people. Perhaps what makes it not as bad is that the US military has made changes recently to it's operations specifically to address the high rate of Afghan civilian deaths (how effective that is may be up for debate, but it at least shows they are taking steps and well before this shit hit the fan on WikiLeaks). I do hope these changes do greatly reduce the number of Afghan deaths, but at the very least it seems US commanders finally realize that it's a critical goal required for any form of victory. I can't say I'm holding my breath though.

Thanks for your thoughts Robert. I feel that this situation is one where we will have to agree to disagree...



Then, as a soldier in a position of specific, controlled knowledge with priviliged (sp?) access, he must face the charges that apply and if convicted, do the time as a criminal... PERIOD.



The Pentagon Papers was as much a case of botched government investigation and improper process of evidence gathering as it was about the papers themselves. Do not misunderstand me, the papers were a major factor in the undoing of the Vietnam conflict. Regardless of how I feel about the activity done by that former Rand Corporation employee, the government absolutely botched their case which is why the judge declared a mistrial.



That is my problem... your case is hypothetical. Thus far, it does not appear that the young private was in that case. Thus far it appears to be a case of him feeling the need to "go public", which puts him where he is now. There are mechanisms within the military to protest / complain (I am not saying they are perfect or even favor the person protesting) but apparently the PFC did not use those avenues so my sympathy for him is nil. Now should new evidence come to light presenting his case to be closer to what you suggest, I would certainly want to reconsider my position. Soldiers have an option / duty not to follow an immoral order but whether the circumstances of this situation make the PFC's decision fall within that clause remain to be seen.

If convicted, this poor boy's life is over. He will be summarily striped of his military rank and be reduced to the status of "prisoner", jailed with hard time at Ft. Leavenworth at the military prison and upon finishing his sentence will be dishonorably discharged. The last part prevents him from voting in federal elections, denys him the right to own a (legal) firearm and makes such a mark on his public record that I doubt he will ever have a credit score again.

Regards,
Ltstanfo

I think whistle blowers need to be protected. Problem is when you blow the whistle it has to be about something specific and about something illegal. Dumping 90,000 secret files isn't likely to get you that protection because many of those documents are just embarrassing and very few of those documents illustrate any specific illegal actions. So he'll have a hard time defending himself. If the only thing he leaked was the helicopter attack video then he might have had a case because it was a single incident of something that arguably was illegal. But now I think he's screwed which is too bad.

You may be right Mike...Evidence found. And now to see what the JAG does with him...

Regards,
Ltstanfo

Thanks for the link. I found this troubling:
If so this will only make matters worse as Afgans will be even more reluctant to work with NATO forces. It could also lead directly to some people's deaths. Somewhat careless I would say.

That's right. First rule of leaking - don't brag. Actually, that's the first rule of confessions - don't.


This amuses me somewhat. People often criticize "conspiracy theories" on the grounds that too many people would have to know (false but generally believed) and that therefore someone would have said something. There are serious repercussions to saying something even if you're just spilling lower level documents like these - and many people are happy to join in the condemnation of the leaker (often the same kind of people who claim that if anything were going on it would be leaked).

The general principle of information control is that you tell everyone in the organization that certain things are secret and that there are serious consequences for breaching that - and generally that works really well. It works in the army, it works in government, it works in the company that I work in and it works in other groups I've been involved with. We take secrets on as a trust and we honour that trust and we instinctively don't like rats - even if they are ratting out people who are working against our best interests.

However, if he leaked the "Pakistan isn't cooperating" material he may have helped the current effort rather than hindered it. The US has been itching to get more aggressive with Pakistan.

I find your reasoning amusing. The guy who leaked these 92K documents risked a long prison sentence and public disgrace all for revealing to the world that the Taliban may be using guided anti aircraft missiles, Pakistan is about as uncooperative as most people have suspected and that more civilians have been killed then officially announced - also commonly suspected. I'd say none of that was worth the risk and yet he did it. Now imagine if there was a real whopper of a story, some real conspiracy to do evil from a high level, would that not be even more incentive for a far greater slice of potential leakers to actually leak? Would the same risk for far greater benefit not lead to an increased likelihood of a leak? I would think so. The worse the news is the more you want to share it.

The guy doesn't have a good sense of risk but he seems to have an over developed sense of his own importance. He wouldn't have the sense to rise up high enough to do real harm. These people tend to get weeded out. It takes years of demonstrated loyalty to prove yourself worthy of trust. This isn't MacDonald's. You can't just walk in off the street and get the keys to the highest level data. There are real spies in the world you know. Intelligence organizations have to have ways of weeding them out (and spies have to have the discipline to not get weeded out). The kind of information this guy had access to seems to be the sort of thing that you could find out from soldiers over a few drinks in a bar with the caveat that downloading a ton of reports just happens to be more efficient.


Less. Much less motivation. The worse the news is the more likely you will suffer for it and the more you will suffer. Hypothetically you uncover evidence that the organization you work for has been killing leakers and making it look like accidents, natural causes, robberies and suicides. Do you leak? Either you dismiss the evidence (and therefore have nothing leak worthy) or you believe the evidence and then have to consider just how smart you think you are. It's not the same risk - the risk changes.
Furthermore, the more sinister the information the less likely you are to be believed. If you uncover too gargantuan an evil it is likely to be dismissed because people are not psychologically prepared to accept it - consider the Germans who had no idea what went on in the camps or who dismissed the stories as unbelievable because... how could Germans do such things?

The worse the news is the less people want to hear it.