Ask…

Share your views on hot topics

Our WikiLeaks poll

By Reuters Staff
August 2, 2010

Was it right for WikiLeaks to leak the Afghan war documents?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

WikiLeaks created a firestorm in Washington and Afghanistan last week when it leaked secret documents related to the war in Afghanistan.

The whistle-blowing website published tens of thousands of war records, a move the Pentagon said could cost lives and damage the trust of allies by exposing U.S. intelligence gathering methods and names of Afghan contacts. WikiLeaks is at least morally guilty over the release of the classified documents, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said his group held back 15,000 papers to protect innocent people from harm and was reviewing them at the rate of about 1,000 a day.

Comments

The argument that leaking the documents could cost lives is disingenuous, the flawed strategy of this middle eastern effort has cost thousands of lives.

It is more likely that embarrassment for conducting such a foolish campaign that failed, the original objective of finding the men responsible for the 9/11 attacks has been abandoned.

Iraq has yet to form a government and when they do it will almost certainly be as hostile towards the US as Saddam. The people who were responsible were from Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, working with those governments to reduce terrorism could have been much more successful than spending 9 years in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by jstaf | Report as abusive
 

In the short term there will almost certainly be harm from what some of the documents say. Perhaps, in the long run, they may do some good by informing the American public — and perhaps other publics — what those our nations send into battle must do and endure because we have done so.

Posted by RET_SFC | Report as abusive
 

The leaked documents appear to have mostly consisted raw intelligence reports. It is these documents which are then usually filtered by analysts who know what they are about, in order to gain a (hopefully) accurate picture. The hope of Wikileaks’ founder is presumably that untrained members of the public will be able to form a better picture than the professionals by reading documents released by a self-selecting group of disgruntled low-level operatives whose reports, presumably, were rejected. This hope seems absurd.

A case in point is the included release of speculations about the attitude of Pakistan’s ISI. Whether those speculations are true or false is almost irrelevant – handing them in this way is certain to damage relations between the ISI and Western agencies (damage which has been exacerbated by David Cameron of course), which is guaranteed to cost lives. Including the civilian lives over which Wikileaks makes great show of wringing its hands.

Posted by Ian_Kemmish | Report as abusive
 

My father repeated an old wise proverb, “There’s a time and place for everything” and he was right.

War is not humane. If we created laws to make war humane, there would be no war. Releasing the documents while the war is taking place was destructive. And releasing it to the public was slanderous in nature. What can the public do other than sneer and complain?

The time is after the war and the place is in front of Congress.

Posted by GSH10 | Report as abusive
 

jstaf , Bravo!

Posted by Banned | Report as abusive
 

What an irrelevant question! The question was was it right for the informant to leak the info – NO!

But if content is going to be published anyway obviously some news organizations/website will try to publish it. Many mainstream organizations will not but there will always be one that does. If it wasnt Wiki it would be the next in line. Theres NEVER been a whistle-blower who has not gotten a platform.

Posted by John2244 | Report as abusive
 

What is so bad about the truth? Since the Vietnam war we’re not told about “Body Counts” any more, so the way the new has read, there have only been coalition forces dying. It gives a more balanced picture of what’s going on to hear a more accurate acount of the conflict, and censorship only clouds that picture.
Waiting for after the war is good in theory, but when is this war going to end?

Posted by joe_dyck | Report as abusive
 

So, *WHO* is so injured by these leaks? Is it the USA? Is there a distinction that can still be made between our powerful leaders and the country? Is information revealing bumbling execution or misconduct damaging to the *COUNTRY* or to the *POWERFUL* who put us in this war to begin with? Most posts and comments presume that we have a political organization similar to 18th century France, where one man could say “I *AM* the State”. They may be correct.

A question: over the past 12 months, how many Afghans have we killed per day? This does not seem to be a figure that is published.

Posted by txgadfly | Report as abusive
 

The “leaks” or rather the disclosure of information that is newsworthy, emphasizes the enormity of the funding waste, and how those tax dollars are spent. We recently committed to funding Pakistan another $7.5 billion, and Sec Clinton and Richard Holbrrok went slavering all over the Pakistanis eager to get their hands on the first installment of $500 million last week so they could “channel” it to their corrupt network, and pay a lip service to cleaning out the Taliban and fighting terrorism. How much more is spent “filtered” into the pockets of the Karzai network? How much more in to Iraq – What about some of our other large scale funding and the layers and layers of bureaucracy on the payroll in teh State Department. Wouldn’t it be better to use the funds to create jobs and skilled training for America? Vote CUTUSBUDGET – next time you see it on the ballot.

Posted by cutusbudget | Report as abusive
 

the one who did the 9/11 attacks was the one who wanted Islam to be blamed and the one who’s not Christian..
they’re waiting for everybody to fight one and another.. then they will take all the treasures at the end..
seems like it’s worked..

Posted by q-la | Report as abusive
 

Whose Hands? Whose Blood?

http://www.truth-out.org/whose-hands-who se-blood-killing-civilians-afghanistan-a nd-iraq62058

Had the US not tried to hide the truth about these wars, this leak may not have happened. Show the casualties of war and the caskets coming home, show the babies shot up and burned up. Show the grotesquely deformed babies from DU contamination. We’re in these wars because of lies.

Posted by LipsMalloy | Report as abusive
 

Wikileaks has given us a window of opportunity to take back the US from a malignant corruption that is the real enemy of a free people. Assange and his coworkers have done exactly as honest and brave people should do, just as Daniel Ellsburg did with the Pentagon papers. And now, with huge worldwide support, they have the power to do even more. Donate now to Wikileaks and watch how the world will change for the better.

Posted by austinexile | Report as abusive
 

Freedom of information is one of the most vital underpinnig of a democratic society. It gives people the information needed to decide whether those they place in power are worthy of that power and are acting in the best interets of the majority and of the counry and of the wolrd. Seeing that the USA is a global hegemon it is without doubt that information abiut the actions of its forces in any place on earth is closely scrutinised and by the largets audience possible. One of the major reason the Nazis were able to get away with their genocidal programs for so long is becuase they kept them very well hidden from the rest of the wolrd, despite the fact that much of it was happening in other countries outside of Germany. If nothing else history teaches us that the first casualty of war is truth and the more truth we get the better.
It is truly a sign of the inadequacy of the American media that it took an Australian to bring the murders perpertarted by their government into the full light of day. By shining this light the darkness now enveloping the USA may begin its retreat. Fascism has no place in a modern America nor anywhere else in the world. This may mean that many lives may now be actually saved as the pentagon will be under more scrutiny to engage in their wars in less barbaric and careless and ruthless ways. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Posted by baumman | Report as abusive
 

What ever happened to intellectual property rights in the context of international law? Irrespective of an activist’s opinion regarding a war (or any other policy/action of a country), a government and its people own the intellectual property (in the form of documents, cables, etc.) that is being stolen by WikiLeaks. Further, there are preliminary thought processes (recorded in cables, etc.) and then there are actual government policies/actions. The two are fundamentally different. Preliminary thought processes of government officials are not policies/actions of a government. Finally, isn’t intercepting a country’s classified information a violation of espionage law? If so, wouldn’t that also be an act of war on the part of WikiLeaks and those that propagate the stolen intellectual property?

Posted by JeromeS | Report as abusive
 

Post Your Comment

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
  •