Prev
Next

Wikileaks: friend of the truth, enemy of the troops?

Paul Colgan

by Paul Colgan

28 Jul 05:55am

Must Reads

Rudd quits: Now for the next episode in his soap opera - this is a caption

Rudd quits: Now for the next episode in his soap opera

372

Game listens to fans, replaces stupid finals system - this is a caption

Game listens to fans, replaces stupid finals system

51

Sweet-talking Rudd has forced Gillard to be a bad guy - this is a caption

Sweet-talking Rudd has forced Gillard to be a bad guy

182

Filed under: Afghanistan, Censorship, Defence, Internet, Media, Security, War Logs, Wikileaks

59 comments

There’s a tendency in some circles to see disclosures like the Wikileaks publishing of 90,000 documents about the war in Afghanistan as an inherently good thing.

Friend or foe? Wikileaks' Julian Assange. Pic: AP / File

Many people – from all parts of the political spectrum – see the release of secret government information as desirable as a rule because it allows people to look into the inner workings of the state apparatus and its agents. This makes governments accountable. Others, more insidiously – especially in technology and new media circles – welcome events like this mainly because they involve the internet.

The Afghanistan war logs are a watershed moment in government control over intelligence data. It’s not that battlefield information was published – that’s nothing especially new – but that the release of the information was so huge and co-ordinated between three countries and on the web simultaneously.

The Guardian, The New York Times, and Germany’s Der Spiegel were given access to the documents and agreed they would all publish at the same time. They have each tried to redact the information so they do not compromise operational safety.

But the White House has accused Wikileaks of compromising national security and the Australian Defence Department has announced an investigation into possible risks to its operations in Afghanistan.

With publication happening worldwide and in three different countries there is no way to define of national security interests, because there is no one nation involved.

The news organisations in three countries may have to answer to the laws in their jurisdictions. But Wikileaks answers to nobody, including community opinion of whether it should be publishing details on the operations of American, British, and Australian troops in Afghanistan.

Britain and Australia share a system of D-Notices, a non-binding and unenforceable agreement between the press and the government on the types of information that shouldn’t be published on national security grounds.

Call it a gentlemen’s agreement about not releasing information that could get troops from your own country - or those of strategic allies - captured, tortured or killed.

But Wikileaks isn’t based in any country. It doesn’t have a national interest to protect. It doesn’t claim a home in any community whose young men and women are going overseas to fight and sometimes killed.

Its Australian founder, Julian Assange, is clear that he gets off on this.

“This is something that I find meaningful and satisfying,” Assange said. “That is my temperament. I enjoy creating systems on a grand scale, and I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards.”

The implications of Wikileaks’ latest coup are only starting to become clear.

Most of the 90,000 documents are mundane accounts of battlefield activity. And even some of the more controversial aspects are really just the reality of war, like a special operations unit being charged with hunting down and killing Taliban the leadership. There is a full version here and a quick summary here.

Assange claims there is evidence of war crimes committed by the allied troops, and there is also the claim that Pakistani intelligence services have been supporting the Taliban, which has drawn rapid denials from both US and Pakistani governments.

Making this information public is in the best traditions of pressuring governments through disclosure.

But the threat of Wikileaks will need constant assessment. Arrangements for military security, communications, and tactics will be adapted to avoid further damage.  What information does it have? When will it act? Where will it act? How can it be contained?

These are all questions which in war are asked about an enemy.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

372Rudd quits: Now for the next episode in his soap opera
371The plague is already on both their houses
324We need to help asylum seekers help themselves
290The war over personality, hatred and grudges
263I wanna knock the bottom out of this advertisement
242Leaking of Rudd outburst does Gillard no favours
228Punch: Piracy on the High Cs is music's greatest enemy
194Why is this man so popular, and how long can it last?

59 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Johor says:

      08:34am | 28/07/10

      Enemy of the troops? Geeze - not Assange so much as those who
      still use war instead of diplomacy, those who still live mentally in the Middle Ages when might is right. Those times have passed. Lizard people are out. Human beings are in and Assange is very much a human being. Thos who don’t see this need to either put their glasses on or clean them.

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:13am | 28/07/10

      Diplomacy hey…North Korea, Iran, Thailand, Fiji, Israel, worked so well there. War is not perfect but diplomacy is not some magic solution to all of the worlds ills.

    • John A Neve says:

      10:42am | 28/07/10

      To defend ones country is one thing, to die to save a politicians face is another. All of the conflicts involving the “coalition of the willing” since 1945, have not been about defending ones country. Rather they have been political wars, a repeat of the old days of financial gain, land acquisition and power.

      Basically our young people are dying to make some one a dollar, peope are being lead to believe that if those people over there aren’t like us, they must be bad. The centuries roll on, but we never seem to learn, we must love being used!!!!

    • TheRealDave says:

      03:41pm | 28/07/10

      I thought the Korean War was about defending South Korea from the invasion of the communist North who had the gall to try and subjugate them with overwhelming military might and impose a 1 state communist solution…...or did history lie to me? What about Grenda when Cuba decided it wanted it? Or the Falklands, or Kuwait? Or the various arsekicking handed out to the Serbs?

      I’ll leave Vietnam out - even if it did involved the North trying to take over the south as well…which they did eventually. That wasn’t a Viet Cong tank that knocked on the door of the Presidential Palace in ‘75 wink

      Sometimes a good defence is a great offense wink

    • John A Neve says:

      11:25am | 29/07/10

      TheRealDave,

      I fail to see what your post has to do with this issue!! None of the “coalition of the willing’s” countries has been attacked by Afghanistan or Iraq.

      I repeat to defend ones country is one thing, to fight a politicians war is another.

    • Seamus says:

      08:35am | 28/07/10

      Let’s hope this bastard gets crushed sooner rather than later, too.

      Reply

    • Chase says:

      07:27pm | 28/07/10

      Paul isn’t that bad…

    • DogSoldier says:

      09:44pm | 28/07/10

      I agree!

    • DD Ball says:

      08:41am | 28/07/10

      I support Australian troops. If they are to remain, they must have the necessary support they need, or I say they must come home. I note a lot have died since Rudd was elected. I note that the war Rudd opposed in Iraq was successfully prosecuted. The cause of fighting terrorists on their home soil is worthy, if that is indeed what is happening. But sacrificing our troops so that the ALP can have a headline or claim to be ‘doing something’ is unsupportable. My name is David Daniel Ball and I am running as an independent for the seat of Blaxland. I am a member of the Liberal Party, but running as an independent so I may prosecute the issue of the death of school child Hamidur Rahman.

      Reply

    • dale says:

      09:21am | 28/07/10

      So in your way of thinking… Rudd is responcible for the death of the troops? Didnt the Labor party send them in the first place? ANY politician who uses the deaths of a soldier as a way to get a leg up on there oppositian should be shot! What will you do about this if you had the power? would you bring our troops home? would you send more? What quallification gives you the right?

    • KH says:

      09:44am | 28/07/10

      Dale - I think you will find that whichever government is in power (liberal, labor) is generally involved in wars where the UN, particularly the USA, are involved.  In this case, Rudd just inherited an already in progress war in which we are involved, for whatever reason.

    • Joe says:

      10:07am | 28/07/10

      Actually it was the Liberal Party who initially deployed our troops to Afghanistan and still supports Australian involvement, along with the ALP.  It is about the one issue where there is no difference between the two parties.  You certainly can’t blame Rudd for the deaths, without blaming Liberal Party as well, especially considering Abbott’s policy is to maintain the ADF’s deployment in Afghanistan.

      While I also disagree that the war in Iraq was successfully prosecuted, sure Saddam was defeated and removed from power, yet the threat from insurgents obviously remains and peace has not been restored to the country.  In addition, two ADF personnel were killed serving in Iraq, so based on your argument that the PM and party in power at the time is to blame, for simply seeking headline news, is that the fault of Howard and the Liberal Party?  Likewise, the casualties in Afghanistan, prior to the 2007 election?

      Although finally someone is making Peanut allergies an election issue.  That is clearly an issue of national importance.

    • TheRealDave says:

      03:50pm | 28/07/10

      Joe, one was killed when hit by a vehicle while training to deploy to Iraq from a neighbouring country, the other shot himself accidentally. No-one was killed in action. Just a minor correction.

      DDBall. You’re not going to go far as a pollie if you cannot even get the basic facts of our recent history correct. It was YOUR party, why are you distancing yourself from them by the weay?, who sent our troops into Afghanistan AND Iraq off their own bat. Not Labor. Labor supported the deployment for sure, just as YOUR PARTY, the Libs, still support our current commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan.

      It gets tiresome when supposedly educated people can’t even remember basic facts about the most recent deployment of our troops to a warzone. Its not the Boer War fer chrissakes. Its been on the news for the last 9 years people! How can you not get it right?

      And you want people to vote for you?

    • Smack says:

      04:11pm | 28/07/10

      Mr Ball,
      While your comments are an interesting political statement; I’m not entirely sure how they relate to the article on which you are commenting.  I don’t understand the connection between your perception of the ALP claiming headlines on the back of a war committed to by an LNP government, and the legitimacy of a non-government organisation releasing potentially sensitive material.  Unless you are simply using The Punch comment board as a political platform to publicise your campaign of course.

    • Joe says:

      05:04pm | 28/07/10

      @TherealDave… You are correct, but DDBall didn’t make that distinction, for example the 3 most recent deaths in Afghanistan were the result of a helicopter crash and not from enemy action, yet he still blamed Rudd for the increasing number of casualties. Really it just illustrates how absurd his argument is.

      Totally agree though, that it is stupid of DDBall to try and turn the deaths of Australian soldiers in Afghanistan into an opportunity to attack the ALP, while claiming to be a member of the Liberal party, who initiated our involvement in Afghanistan and still supports the Australian commitment there.

    • James1 says:

      05:26pm | 28/07/10

      Joe, it is not stupid for DD Ball to do that.  It is cheap, and insulting to the memory of every Australian that has died in Afghanistan.  Furthermore, it exposes the real value he places on the lives and memories of Australian soldiers.

    • DD Ball says:

      09:25pm | 28/07/10

      I have been walking the electorate while this gang have been working themselves up into a smear frenzy. I haven’t said what they claim. I am confident that mature people won’t fall for their childish pranks.

    • NeilM says:

      10:21pm | 28/07/10

      DD Ball this ranks as the worst drivel I’ve read on Punch. Iraq successfully prosecuted? There was no basis for the invasion at all. The decision made by US, UK and Australia was indefensible. Some where along the way 50 + thousand Iraqies have died while security was provided by coalition troops… that is a complete failure.

      Afghanistan is a war supported by both Lib and Labor. It is just as foolish as the Iraq fiasco. No western power has ever managed to drag that country into its zone of infuence without heavy casualties. I’d like to see us pull out before we suffer more Australian casualties to no purpose.

      It would be good though if the young men that have given their lives in Afghanistan could be remembered as the last Australians sacrificed to a useless war by Govts that seem unable to comprehend that war is the last resort of national policy, no the first.

    • James1 says:

      11:42am | 29/07/10

      “But sacrificing our troops so that the ALP can have a headline or claim to be ‘doing something’ is unsupportable.”

      Then what did you mean by this, DD Ball?  It looks an awful lot like an attempt to use the deaths of Australian soldiers as a political tool.

    • Steve says:

      09:45am | 28/07/10

      This Assange guy, is a typical Journalist and a royal pain in a certain backside. Wikileaks - for the most part - is something that is useful against African goverments that actually commit gross atrocities on a daily basis, these governments that beat their own citizens, destroy communities, basically do a Saddam.. Except these things are still happening.

      Now, no-one says anything about this because it doesn’t concern us, and no-one wants to see things like that happening. So that’s fine.
      About the current war in the Middle East there is national security at stake here, the reasons for going. (Don’t even start with me about why we are there - You haven’t been there, I’ve had plenty of mates go over (all as different jobs, not just riflemen, and I’m going soon enough)). 

      However, Assange will continue to boast about what a great job Wikileaks is doing, without giving the whole picture and context under which information is released without letting people make up their minds. If the job of the organisation is to be impartial. Then they are doing a terrible job at it.

      Reply

    • Mick says:

      02:02pm | 28/07/10

      I strongly doubt that Assange’s motives are completely altruistic and I believe he is unfairly tarring all who prosecute the war in Afghanistan with the same brush.

      That being said, if his institution serves to protect the embattled from tyranny then it is a noble result (irrespective of the intention). Australian soldiers’ lives will not be lost as a result of these leaks but it is possible that innocent Afghani lives will be saved as the coalition (I mean this at the international level) realises that all of their actions will potentially come under public scrutiny.

      Operational secrecy is necessary to a point but covering up errors - especially those involving the loss of lives - only begets further lawlessness from the very people we charge with the duty of upholding our values.

    • Daniel says:

      09:54am | 28/07/10

      Seems like in the modern world with these illegal wars the “Truth hurts”.

      Reply

    • HappyCynic says:

      10:01am | 28/07/10

      Let’s face it in war knowledge is just another weapon, but in the 21st Century knowledge has been democratized so it’s lost a lot of its power as it has become more prolific.  However governments and corporations across the world don’t like losing power so they try to control what information is released and when in order to try and keep a tenuous grip on that power.  It’s kind of similar to the Catholic Church and the problems they had after the invention of the printing press in the 15th Century, when books with new ideas not sanctioned, censored, sponsored or written by the Church became readily available the Church had it’s influence and power reduced exponentially, same problem today, different medium and different institution.

      Sites like Wikileaks are an essential part of the Democracy of Knowledge, I wouldn’t call them a friend of the truth partly because Assange can’t keep his mouth shut and partly because the ‘truth’ is open to all sorts of interpretations, but on the other hand they’re no enemy of the public, just an enemy of the few dinosaurs who think they still have power in today’s society.

      Reply

    • Jon says:

      10:15am | 28/07/10

      Who is responsible if an Australian soldier is killed as result of these leaks?

      Reply

    • Kordez says:

      12:15pm | 28/07/10

      The enemy that killed him/her.

    • Muttley says:

      02:20pm | 28/07/10

      no Jon, the person at fault there is clearly the stooge who leaked the classified data. If anyone does die as a result then the “whistleblower” should be tried for murder.

    • spud says:

      10:24am | 28/07/10

      People die in war. Sometimes it is necessary, sometimes it is not. The war in Afghanistan was always going to be messy. We cannot just leave the place to the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and other anti western Islamic fundamentalist groups.

      This guy is playing with fire. all he cares about is HIS name in the headlines and wikileaks getting publicity. He is NOT a benevolent source of good.

      and @ DD Ball, you are without a doubt an immoral political opportunist. Using the deaths of Australian troops to attack the ALP, please get a grip!

      Reply

    • James1 says:

      05:28pm | 28/07/10

      Perhaps that post should be sent to his political opponents in Blaxland, so that voters can get a real measure of his morals.

    • SkepDad says:

      10:59am | 28/07/10

      I support Wikileaks but it concerns me greatly that this leak may contain information that will put soldiers at risk.  As a former soldier myself, Assange’s bigoted attitude towards the military is familiar, but no less distasteful for being so.  He claims to “enjoy helping people who are vulnerable” but excludes soldiers from that.

      However it’s hard to blame Assange for publishing the documents, especially if ithey contain evidence of war crimes or double-dealing on the part of Pakistan (neither of which, I must say, would surprise me).  It is though disturbing that this group of civilians, clearly with an axe to grind against the military, have so much power to harm while simultaneously being so unqualified to assess the intelligence value of the information they’re publishing.

      Whatever we may think of the governments or the military commanders, the people actually at risk are the sons and daughters with boots on the ground.  Wikileaks have a responsibility to those soldiers to have military intelligence competently assessed for potential harm before leaking it, or they, and the original source, risk being complicit in the death and injury they so sanctimoniously bemoan.

      They may have a hard time convincing ex-military intelligence specialists to come on staff, but if they want to be viewed as an organisation focused on social responsibility and accountability, rather than just activism, they would be wise to make the effort.

      Reply

    • SkepDad says:

      03:19pm | 28/07/10

      And so it begins: http://bit.ly/9xk63O

      “Afghan informants’ lives at risk from documents posted on WikiLeaks”

      How are you helping these vulnerable people, Mr Assange?

    • Tropsmurf says:

      06:32pm | 28/07/10

      Agreed SkepDad, as an ex RAR man I find Assange’s distaste for the military frustrating but not unexpected.
      Of course I expect that he will disavow any responsibility for any Afghan deaths.
      I will say that I think Wikileaks or something similar is important but they need to be prepared to accept the consequences of what they are doing as well.

    • AdamC says:

      11:31am | 28/07/10

      I haven’t read the reams of materials leaked to this site but, having read some of the breathless reporting and commentary about them, I am not sure what they contain that is new. In terms of big picture, I am still unsure what these leaks tell the public that we don’t already know.

      My concern is that the public interest benefit of this information being available is not sufficient to justify what damage the information could do to the war effort. Journalists no longer seem to consider that calculus when deciding on what to report.

      Reply

    • Aaron says:

      05:24pm | 28/07/10

      I’ve read quite a few of these reports and if nothing else, for me, they highlighted the casual disregard for civilian life inherent in the way that supposed civilized western forces conduct themselves over there.

      Yes war is messy and people die.

      However, refusing to acknowledge that innocent men, women and children are dying because of operational mistakes AND acquiescing to a military culture that seeks to cover these atrocities up is not only criminally negligent but undermines the whole reason we are there.

      These War Logs have exposed this sort of behavior and I think, provides a much needed counterbalance to the picture painted by Military press releases.

    • Adam says:

      11:37am | 28/07/10

      In principle Wikileaks is the way of the New Media, more information across more sources easily accessable not what is drip fed by a select group of journalists. Free speech at work. However with free speech comes responsibility. Any forum, system or body not regulated quickly becomes lawless. The alledged leaking of personal details that puts individual soldiers lives at risk is groosly negligent, irresponsible and wreckless and merely turns the founder into what he is fighting against. The media must report information and verifiable facts the more the better. Not to settle scores or put others in danger to fulfill an agenda.

      Reply

    • Anjuli says:

      12:16pm | 28/07/10

      What ever any one say war is not honorable, people get killed but to leak all that information puts all soldiers in danger is this what any one really wants.Assange who has done this should be tried for treason war is a dirty business.

      Reply

    • Betelnut says:

      12:51pm | 28/07/10

      Although Assange is a narssist, his website is invaluable because it as free from governmental interference, all governments (not just the good guys).  It is unfortunate that we cannot get more honest information from our own governments, and increasingly cannot rely upon reporting from a shrinking number of global media outlets beholden to the political and commercial interests of their owners.

      I think it is worth pointing out that in the current case, the information was over 2 years old and both Wikileaks and the newspapers involved made efforts to remove any references to soldiers or informants that would place them at risk (with assistance from the Pentagon in the case of the NYT).  As such, this “troops at risk” argument being trotted out by the US government and war-sympathetic media seems like some covering fire to try and limit the embarassment over the scale of these leaks.

      If the government needs to hide the horrors of war to maintain public support, why are we fighting in the first place?

      Reply

    • KaptKubleman says:

      01:11pm | 28/07/10

      I’d much rather live next to people that have been granted refugee status than some white, obese, biggoted xenophobic family.

      Some people sound like they believe that if more people enter Australia, there won’t be enough Air/ Big Macs for everyone to consume.

      Reply

    • Ryan says:

      02:03pm | 28/07/10

      @KaptKubleman : firstly, the place where you want to move to is Bradford in the United Kingdom, I believe it is the utopia you seek.

      Secondly not wanting to live next to someone white or obese makes YOU the biggot by definition.

    • stephen says:

      01:39pm | 28/07/10

      Wiki-leaks?
      I’d like ter do it all over Mr. Assange.
      And one of the gains of releasing this sort of info is nothing’s at stake eg, no risk, no honour, and the perpetrator can be the harbinger of doggerel that us ignorant are meant to know.

      Reply

    • Luke says:

      01:54pm | 28/07/10

      Assange is a much needed force in today’s controlled media environment. Should not those that report the news, report the facts? It seems that what we see on television, read on traditional news (papers and web) sources and hear on the radio are all tainted by opinion.

      Are we all so stupid as to require someone else telling us what to think about something?

      WIkileaks provides the untarnished truth. There is no editorial. It is up to the readers of the site to make up their own minds. This is how it should be.

      For all the people claiming that soldiers will die and so on, I would bet a huge amount of money that you haven’t gone to Wikileaks and seen any of the documents shown there. You’re commenting on reports that are full of opinion without actually deciding for yourself what to think.

      Reply

    • Muttley says:

      02:25pm | 28/07/10

      lol. Yeah, you’re right. Because everything that is posted on the net is true. “Wikileaks provides the untarnished truth” Pure genius

    • TheRealDave says:

      04:16pm | 28/07/10

      “WIkileaks provides the untarnished truth”

      You mean like the doctored and cut up Apache video that made it look like the good ole US again was just poncing about brassing up poor reporters and civilians with Apache gunships…and ignored all the weapons being carried around the reporters, ignored the fact that another US Army unit was being brassed up only a block away and the weapons picked up by the troops when they got there??

      That kind of ‘Unvarnished truth’ ??

      Hmm??

    • Jonathon says:

      02:36pm | 28/07/10

      If organisation like wikileaks didn’t exist, we might still believe that Iraq has WMD’s, Osama Bin Laden is still alive and that Conroy understands the concept of ‘internet’.

      Reply

    • Markus says:

      09:11pm | 28/07/10

      Come now Jonathon, there is no need for hyperbole - no one has ever believed Conroy understands the concept of ‘internet’ raspberry

    • DogSoldier says:

      10:11pm | 28/07/10

      Don’t give Assange credit that he doesn’t deserve. The whole purpose of wikileaks is an attempt to effect policy, whether it be Afghanistan or somewhere else. As for any new revelations in what I’ve read, I can’t find anything.

    • DailyMagnet says:

      02:44pm | 28/07/10

      Clearly, there are some commenters who cannot see that Assange wouldn’t have the info if the military were not dissatisfied with the way things are going in ‘the war’ in Afghanistan.

      Whether he likes or dislikes bastards is quite irrelevant - you are just shooting the messenger for the heck of it. 

      The cosy relationship the federal government has with media conglomerates in Australia renders DNotices(aplied unofficially to just about anything damaging to the government and information is usually only released strategically against certain sectors anyway) an affable agreement they were not originally so.

      The media’s role to inform is at odds with its mandate to entertain, and sometimes, like in this instance, the Australian public has a responsibility to consider what it is charging it’s government to do, via election.

      Generally, mainstream editors don’t want to deliver anything that isn’t light and fluffy to the mindless masses and it is almost impossible to get a run for a story that outlines human rights abuses occurring within Australia, let alone Afghanistan.

      Some of the comments here are a testiment to that head in the sand approach to the consequences of the government and the public’s choices.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      04:18pm | 28/07/10

      “Clearly, there are some commenters who cannot see that Assange wouldn’t have the info”

      Assange wouldn’t hav ethe info if it wasn’t for some sook who couldn’t live out his Walter Mitty dreams storming of fin a huff and taking his bat, ball and 90 000 pages of classified documents with him.

      So while Assange basks in reflected glory the idiot who did all the stealing will be going to gaol…for a very very long time…..

    • Luke says:

      02:49pm | 28/07/10

      Why read the news champ? Apparently nothing on the internet is true.

      Reply

    • Trish W. says:

      03:53pm | 28/07/10

      This jerk off must be a secret love child of Michael Moore & Jane Fonda. There must have been a better way for him to deal with this explosive info. Setting aside we Aussies insecure dislike of all things American, did jerk off really think his moments of infamy were worth the potential risk he may have created for others such as, Australian’s, British, Canadians, French, Dutch, etc. A pox on jerk off, and a hanging for treason to his informant. WOW, who would have ever guessed that countries fighting a war would have any lethal secrets. Geez, maybe even the Taliban have one or two unpleasant secrets. Maybe jerk off has an imformant in the Taliban as well. One thing’s for sure & certain, his hair will become a lot greyer from looking over his shoulder.

      Reply

    • TheRealDave says:

      04:09pm | 28/07/10

      I’m all for the release of information as to what we do in warzones but not for the release of ANY information that can be deterimental to those in uniform and their safety. Its tiny little nuggets of info amongst 90 000 pages that can and will get soldiers killed. Smart military trained and intelligent enemy can glean countless tactical gold nuggets of info that some idiot with no military nous whatsover sees fit to publish to the world for his own personal amusement.

      Not only can it give away tactical info on how we operate it also lets the enemy know what they are doing wrong and what weaknesses we exploit or look for. Therefore making our soldiers jobs harder and far more dangerous.

      If that idiot has also published the names of serving military personel, especially Special Forces soldiers then his balls should quite rightly be nailed to the wall. Giving away soldiers names is an open invitation for people to come looking for them and their families here, in the US, In Canada, in France, in Germany and in the UK.

      Its hard enough fighting a war - let alone have idiots in our own country giving away intelligence and information to help them out. We used to call that Treason and shot people for it.

      I know some of you will just scream ‘Freedom of Information’ or suggest that those of us agains tthis stupidity just want to cover up ‘war crimes’ and other bollocks. No. Its nothing to do with that at all - never has been. Its about protecting the 99.9% of troops who go about their jobs professionally, honourably and with the greatest courage of any of us. Soldiers don’t get to pick and choose their wars. Politicians do. Releasing information like this does little damage to politicians - it can just cost soldiers lives.

      Reply

    • Mick says:

      05:27am | 29/07/10

      Why shouldn’t we know what you troops are up to over there? Why should the only information we receive about them be delivered via a government issues press release?

      There are NO names in ANY of the documents released, the only information it tells you is the Unit name, the date, what kind of action they were involved with, how many rounds were fired, how many enemy they were in contact with, how many planes/close air support elements were called in and lastly bomb damage assessments and estimated/confirmed enemy deaths and friendly WIA/KIA.

      That’s it, no names, no tactics used, just raw data.

      Should we all just sit around our TV’s and beleive what our governments tell us? That the war is tough but we’re winning it, while the reality of the situation is that we’re losing the war and countless innocent people are being killed.

      I’ve read a fair amount of the leaks and the VAST majority of what has been released is of the most mundane, run of the mill military operations you see in ANY war zone.

    • Kordez says:

      05:37pm | 28/07/10

      The purpose of this release was to expose the mistakes that have lead to the death of hundreds if not thousands of innocents. I haven’t read the entire 15 meg document freely available for download, however I suspect Zeta with his unhealthy desire for large weapons and warfare will have some insights to share in the near future. A government with a presence in Afghanistan would be insane to reuse any tactic, yet alone the one that has been released. I’ve always been of the belief that secret documents should be available as soon as the public interest requires them, rather than being locked down for decades with the risk of interference or destruction.
      So lets say our troops find themselves with increased exposure.. they are the best at what do in the world and deserving of recognition. The war on Afghanistan is completely swept under the rug and it is about time the public was more informed on the decisions that lead to the resulting deaths of our troops and innocent women, children and men in countries we invade. If the government disclosed this to us we would have no need for Wikileaks.

      Reply

    • Michael says:

      05:58pm | 28/07/10

      Couple of points to remember here.

      First is that WikiLeaks’ impartiality is in question.  People focus on it as if it is the only “whistleblower’ site on the net, when it isn’t.  Its biggest competitor, Cryptome, does similar sorts of things without hanging on the coattails of Wikipedia.  And Cryptome has published several articles, documents, and leaks from Wikileaks’ own staff querying WikiLeaks’ impartiality and the extent to which Assange is said to be misusing donations to Wikileaks for his own personal benefit.  Don’t be too quick to turn Assange into a white knight For Great Justice, at least until people get a chance to look at what he does with his own organisation.

      Second, I would be far more impressed if Assange had access to, and released, evidence of the waste, needless training deaths, needless VIP demonstration deaths, and abundant careerism that exists in the US armed forces and to a lesser extent in the Australian armed services.  The sociopaths who call themselves “career” soldiers in many Western armed forces deserve to be outed, and outed comprehensively.  Rear area guilt often is a potent motivator for an attitude that you “can’t criticise the troops” - especially now we’ve got all-volunteer armies across the Western world.  As it is, military waste needs to be criticised, because most armed forces are, in all but draftee armies, bureaucracies from head to toe.

      Reply

    • Duke says:

      06:31pm | 28/07/10

      You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows?  Seems some of the troglodyte, my country right or wrong, the slouch hat cannot be questioned brigade above certainly do.  The joint is a healthier place with Mr Assange in it.  Too many of the above posters happily support others blowing bystanders out of it to keep their Fox News fed consciences lulled.

      Reply

    • Rev says:

      09:55pm | 28/07/10

      I don’t get this idiot Assange.  He sits there with this smug expression as if he is the next messiah, prattling on about how Task Force 24380923 assassinates people left right and centre.  The second a soldier is killed due to these intelligence leaks, his days are numbered.  Releasing information of war crimes is one thing, releasing information into the public domain which could harm soldiers and their families is another.  I for one will not be surprised to read that Assange has died from acute radiation poisoning…a la Litvenenko.

      Reply

    • Mark says:

      08:23am | 29/07/10

      The first casualty of war is always the truth so in that regard Wikileaks is a very good thing. The second thing about war is that one of the spoils that goes to the victors is the ability to write the history of it.

      The last 4 wars that have been fought have been all based on lies. The war on terror, the Iraq war, the Aphganistan war and the Vietnam war all based on lies.

      The public deserve better and if wikileaks ensures the public is better informed about the real goings on the better.

      Reply

    • Richo says:

      11:42am | 29/07/10

      All Julian Assange did was expose a bunch of cover-ups and lies. Mind you they were cover-ups and lies we already knew were taking place. I still fail to see how exposing past events will endanger any troops. These are just reports of what has happened, not reports on where the army are planning to attack next or who their next target is. The past can’t change the future much at all in this case. Assange is a humanitarian first and foremost. Some people (mostly Islama-phobes and xenophobes) love this war and will see anyone who exposes a bit of truth about it as a traitor. Personally I like to hear the truth because I can handle the truth.

      Reply

    • 2ndeffort says:

      11:42am | 29/07/10

      I am a former soldier.  I never served in Afghanistan.

      I would hate to think that this self righteous and self styled ‘whistleblower’ believes that he is doing anything in the interests of the many sons, daughters, husbands, wifes etc currently serving in coalition armies.  I wonder how the parents of the fallen feel about this clown playing out some kind of internet based anarchist fantasy with the lives and legacy of their children.  I am sure he will have a convenient excuse about how he is only exposing reality and that the responsibility lies with others but,  I would imagine the subtlety of his argument would be lost with those facing the day to day realities of the war.

      He appears to be a carefully crafted productof his mother’s anti-authoritarian making and I wonder whether his fervour is fuelled more by some genuine belief about political process, a strong belief in conspiracy theories, or more likely a desire to enhance his reputation is some fringe anarchist underground community.

      Whichever the case, enjoy your moment in the sun mate,hopefully soon you will evaporate into obscurity and I pray that your self effacing stunt doesnt bring anybody of any real worth to society to real harm.  Hopefully you can get back to bragging to other anarchists on underground websites, forums and chatrooms where no doubt you will be regarded as some kind of god.  The sooner you move on and leave the work to those prepared to put themselves in harms way, the better for all. 

      As far as some of the revelations, is it any real secret that special forces are killing Taliban leaders?  I thought this was the whole point of being there.  If they are assassinating key Taliban leaders, great!!  The Taliban wouldnt hesitate to assasinate one of ours.  Get back to your soy latte, your beret and your Karl Marx Assange.

      Reply

    • Nathan says:

      12:51pm | 29/07/10

      You do realise he also exposed where a bunch of innocent children, mothers, fathers, wives and husbands were killed, and those murders where then covered-up in a web of lies. But then again those people who were killed were Afghans, so I suppose you’re right it doesn’t matter who gets killed, unless it’s Australians. Yes they have killed Taliban leaders, but they have also killed an enormous amount of innocent people, which they then tried to hide. Maybe your good guys aren’t so good after all.

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 23 Feb 12 08:23AM

Meanwhile, in the real world, hard-working Australians pack the kids' lunches and bundle them off to school #Ruddvenge#Auspol

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 23 Feb 12 08:16AM

And @_Tors on Labor's scorched earth shenanigans http://t.co/E9I69dG5

Daniel Piotrowski

drpiotrowski 23 Feb 12 08:15AM

Malcolm Farr on what a Rudd administration would look like http://t.co/MSwM7ZWR

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 22 Feb 12 11:26PM

Stuff all this Rudd bullshit. Read this fantastic yarn about the making of the greatest Simpsons episode of them all http://t.co/HB4ztLdX

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

A sneak preview of PM Kevin Rudd Mark II

by Malcolm Farr

27

A sneak preview of PM Kevin Rudd Mark II

After modest carousing following his second elevation to Prime Minister - no more than half an hour -…

Scorched earth is all that will remain if they keep this up

by Tory Maguire

56

Scorched earth is all that will remain if they keep this up

Never underestimate the furiously protective streak of an adult daughter towards her father. Last night…

Kindergarten philosophy

by Emma Jane

0

Kindergarten philosophy

My freshly kindergarten-ed daughter has been learning all sorts of stuff at her new school. Last weekend,…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Australia, we’re a bunch of heartless travel snobs

Justin says:

My 2 cents worth, If you feel the need to belittle other peoples holidays/methods of travel/experiences/destinations/restaurants they choose etc etc, then you should probably take a look at yourself in the mirror as well. People should be free to travel as they can best afford, best suits… [read more]

From: This Sally’s no lay down, she’s a lay down misère

Jacques Meoff says:

"Why can't we have more athletes like Sally Pearson?" The answer is actually pretty simple, notwithstanding the simple fact that she is an incredible athlete, the AIS pour 99 percent of their money into supporting the swimmers. Unless you form part of that team you fund yourself to train, travel and… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

160 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed