Your logic would seem to be logical. Is Assange related to Warhol? He's a bit creepy strange. That whole wiki-leaks thing is, I guess, the future, be it good bad or in between.

He is a bit of a creepster. And yeah, the future is here. Those informants deserve to die anyway.

The more video I watch of him the more the Warhol thing comes through, but with even more egomania than Andy had. Doing a South Park Mohammed on his house is a great idea as far as I'm concerned, but as I understand it he's too paranoid to live in the same place very long.

(I was going to post a pic of me standing next to a tape measure to prove that I'm not short and fat but am actually tall and fat - that will have to wait I guess)

Well done Naneh for putting this psycopath and his twisted lack of empathy or responsibility for his actions into perspective. He needs to go to jail, but only after they waterboard not only his hidden agenda, but his source of financing. What a revelation THAT would be.

I'm sick of these Australians (Rupert Murdoch, anyone?) coming here and interfering with my country to this magnitude...deport the sucker and don't let him back in.

As for the "secrecy" well, duhh, it's a time of war. Hmmm...a foreign national revealing national secrets...

As for showing off your tall-ousity, wear heels...preferably hot pink ones...hot pink is back!

Hi Zuma. Apparently Mr. Assange is disinclined to grace our shores with his presence. I can't imagine why. And pink heels are exactly what the doctor ordered!

This is an important post. I've only begun to think about Wikigate, so I'm interesting in the views of those who are better informed. This adds to my perspective. I appreciate your addressing the topic.

The topic does need addressed Steve, and not just in the tones of unqualified adulation for Julian Assange I've been hearing so much of in OS and elsewhere. There's a great need for good investigative journalism, journalism along the lines of what Seymour Hersh does. For me, this massive data-dump of classified information from the frontlines of a still-ongoing war doesn't fall in the same category. People are going to be killed as a direct result of Mr. Assange's actions - people may already have been killed as a result of his actions. It seems a bit hypocritical to hear such a self-professed warrior for peace describe that as "collateral damage." Hypocrisy is hypocrisy, whether it's perpetrated by hawks or doves.

It does seem like the man is as much of an ideologue as any neo-con ever was, and seems just as willing to sacrifice lives to advance his beliefs. However, no one has had to face consequences for the "collateral murder" by their ideological belief on the side that supported and organized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not saying that this justifies what he has done, but that there is a double standard if he is the only one who gets persecuted for having done so.

@all who think Assange is the problem. Really now, how many innocents have been killed because the US keeps secrets and continues to fight a war that is horrific? Assange is not the problem. It's the so-called architects of war that we should be concerned about. They are the problem.

Mr. Malik, thank you for reading. I agree with you that there is no shortage of hypocrites involved in the wars we're now waging. Hypocrisy is the medium in which politicians exist, in Washington and most other capitals as well.

Inquistive, of course I want to hear how you really feel. That's what blogging's all about, or it should be anyway.

Grif, hypocrites and criminals are a problem wherever they're found. That doesn't give Assange a free pass, sorry. When someone commits murder in the interest of exposing murderers for their misdeeds, is that OK with you?

Dammit Inquistive, I was expecting you to blast me for being a war-monger and a stooge of government propaganda. No worries though, I'm sure someone will come along soon enough and explain to me in great detail the depths of my ignorance.

nana - you are such a stooge of government propaganda! jk

I don't have enough energy for a knockdown tonight cause I gotta get ready for the big wedding tomorrow but you are going pretty easy on Gates and Co tonight.

We can't have you bleary-eyed for the wedding Grif. I'm bummed though; I was hoping to trot out my "What's good for Unocal (now Chevron) is good for America" spiel.

If I had been in his shoes I'd of personally vetted any documents released and given out only those showing where our government is lying to us. Of course, I'd of also realized that releasing said documents really wouldn't sway things much but there's always value in the truth.

We know this war is wrong. The longer we wait to end it, the worse our day of reckoning. Heckuva plan that!

A responsible journalist would have vetted the material thoroughly before making it public, omitting anything which might have cost lives. I don't really classify Assange as a journalist, though maybe history will be kinder to him than I am.

You say:

"The longer we wait to end it, the worse our day of reckoning."

Amen Harry. I've done a lot of posts about Afghanistan (most of which are now deleted unfortunately) and you may recall I used to be supportive of it, at least the part of it that involved keeping Afghanistan from becoming (again) a safe haven for terrorists. Then came Obama, and rather than choosing a course of action based on reality and sound policy, he opted for the Nixon route; a gradual drawdown which both guarantees a major defeat and prolongs the bloodletting for years to come. It's the worst of both worlds, and anyone who says we need to leave will get no argument from me.

It's a tragic but now unavoidable ending. Seeing this film changed my mind on our motives: "The Boy Who Plays on the Buddhas of Bamiyan". It's about the window opportunity we had, told from the Afghan point of view. It's heartbreaking and incredibly harsh but very insightful in what turned out to be token efforts to help as cover for our true motives.

Thanks for this. R

Thanks for that Harry; I'll add it to my Netflix queue, along with "Taxi to the Dark Side", a film which Inquisitive Canuck suggested to me in a comment on my last Afghanistan post and which should be here any day. Heartbreaking and incredibly harsh; that's the history of that poor country for over three decades now, and we've chosen to add to that heartbreak rather than doing the right thing when we had the chance.

Sheila; as Zaj used to say, thanx fer da read!

Read some of the documents yourself, nana.

They read like "two civilians killed, present."

It's not only unlikely this information is in any way useful to the Taliban, it's actually rather absurd to suggest it is.

You can find all the troop bases and break down of generally where they are and who they talk to by going to GlobalSecurity.org and reading war correspondences from journalists.

There is a point, which you did not make, that this opens a door to having non-professionals dealing with sensitive material involving secret keeping during war time. But that is why some people have said, advocating a destruction of the First Amendment, that embedded journalists should not be allowed in a war zone or allowed to interview any soldier under any circumstance.

Nobody has been killed by publishing seven month or older reports on military activity, not one single person. It's just as absurd as the witch hunt against Geraldo by the Bush admin.

Assange is just an easy target. It's so easy to just point the finger at him and try to call him a murderer, when in fact he and Manning have brought the raw truth of certain matters previous known only to the inner-circle of people in the White House and State Dept up until this point.

I can agree on the point, that you didn't really make here, that this is can be a trouble with people not taking proper care to vet information for possible danger to active military operations then releasing it to public. That point has merit. But to make that point in this case is to say the military does the same thing over and over for seven months and changes nothing it does and talks to no one but the same people over and over. It basically is like saying the U.S. military are complete numb skulls morons who never change tactics and just keep approaching the same people over and over thinking "maybe this time this guy will do more than just point me at where he saw the Taliban moving toward."

Accusing him of murder is pretty low, nana. I wish you would take care to put some meat on that bone before you make such a charge.

What planet are you on? Who gave you a time period of months before the information is useless? It grieves me when people justify such crapulous criminal misconduct with endless and pointless argument that is backed by nothing of merit.

Zuma, Prog Lib is taking the knee-jerk leftist approach. Unfortunately, the left is just as capable of being mistaken as the right.

Progressive Liberal, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I didn't make up the fact that people from the Times of London were able to find dozens of names of informants in just two hours of looking at the documents. Do you think the Taliban aren't also looking at those documents right now, with the express purpose of finding people who've ratted them out or cooperated in any way with the foreigners? And do you think they won't act when they find names of people (or the families of people) they can move against? If you do you don't know much about the Taliban. Facts is facts, and the facts are that there are many people named in the leaked documents who will now be targeted, along with their families, by the Taliban. Sorry old bean but that's just reality. Please try viewing the world the way it really is, not the way your prism of ideology says it is.

Tough call. On one hand, democracies thrive better bc of guys who do what he does. On the other hand, sure he'll likely have had a 'hand' in Taliban murders. In the end, though, the Taliban's murdering would not likely have abated at all had this man kept the lid on things. R. for quite a thoughtful argument, however.

Good point Jonathan. Something often overlooked here - though it's well known to Afghans - is that far more people are killed by the Taliban than by US/ISAF forces. The additional people who will die as a result of the WikiLeaks documents are a drop in the bucket, but I doubt that'll be much comfort to them.

Excellent post Nana. I'm forever amazed at what people think is permissible in the name of "transparency". It is impossible for them to determine what information is of value to the enemy or what is harmful to American soldiers. But there we go again...Americans are always focused on the wrong thing to me...up in arms about immigrants; they ought to be seething about Wikileaks. Rated, again!

Hi Fay. We should definitely be upset about civilian deaths from U.S. actions; on that I'm in full agreement with Mr. Assange. Every single death over there is a tragedy. It just seems that someone who's so incensed about those deaths that he's willing to cause more of them is, to put it kindly, an incredible asshat.

i think j. a. takes the view that information that has has been 'passed' by any individual, private or government, is likely to be selective according to the agenda of that person, or office.

that's how you get a judgement by presidents and prime ministers that there are 'wmd' in iraq. many have died from that 'massaged' information, literally millions have had their lives destroyed.

the answer is simply to tell the truth as you see it, and let others make their judgement as to veracity and relevance. the alternative is to live in a morass of lies.

as for the afghan mercenaries, bad luck if this makes the difference between fighting for a foreign invader and getting away with it, and fighting for a foreign invader and getting caught. picking sides is a chancy business, particularly if you are from a 'northern alliance' tribe patrolling in pashtun regions.

Maybe so Al. Still, I'd wager that many of the people put at risk by WikiLeaks aren't from a " 'northern alliance' tribe patrolling in pashtun regions." It's difficult for outsiders to be a good source of information in most areas of Afghanistan, as you well know. The simple truth, unspun, is that there are actually Pashtuns who don't want to see the Taliban return to power. For examples of that, look at the rejoicing in Kandahar and other parts of the Pashtun heartland when the Taliban were driven out. Some of the people endangered by Assange are no doubt mercenaries; others were acting in good faith with coalition forces because they seriously don't like the Taliban. To characterize them all as "mercenaries" is merely to betray your own bias on the topic.

This is from a discussion found on my blog:

"You fail to establish in any way how these documents endanger anyone. The Taliban is already aware of those who help the U.S. forces with intel or physical aid, they can see them with their eyeballs. The Pashtuns who are loyal to the Taliban report on their neighbors who are seen speaking with Americans. The informants listed in these documents are in no more danger now after the release of these documents than they were when they approached or were approached by army officers. Beyond that, these reports don't give specifics as to what was said in the case of the informants. It only states that were involved in the operation (in the documents I have reviewed)."

You holding the exact same position as the Bush men Defense Sec. Gates & Joint Chief of Staff Adm. Mullen.

Quoting NY Times article by Charlie Savage:

"Mr. Gates said the documents' disclosure had prompted a rethinking of a trend nearly two decades old, dating from the Persian Gulf war of 1991, of trying to make intelligence information more accessible to troops in combat situations so they can respond rapidly to developments."

"Mike Mullen portrayed WikiLeaks founder as recklessly endangering people in order to satisfy its 'need to make a point.'

'Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family.'"

Now you are just some guy on a blog, Nana. When you make a claim like Assange is killing people by bringing the truth to the public it is one thing. But when Gates and Mullen make the same point it makes me want to retch and punch them in the face.

These are men who sit there and order the bombing of villages, who know full well exactly who much torture and unwarranted detainment of innocent persons occurs. These men are so soaking in the blood of innocent children and innocent bystanders that their souls must weep eternal if they even have any souls left after so many years of being in the business of killing in the name of the state.

Nobody is put in any more danger from this than they were by Rachel Maddow going to Afghanistan, the names of informants in certain files of the data dump are found by using your eyeballs and ears in walking around the streets of Afghanistan. The Taliban has all the information it needs to try and kill everyone attached to the U.S. in any way without any WikiLeaks documents.

What Assange and his people have done it give a solid gut punch to the bull shit machine in the gov't and the military. They released the hard truth of the war to the people who fund the war: you and me.

"Those informants deserve to die anyway."

Just madness, Nana. Pure madness. As if the Taliban doesn't know what is going on their own country. Believe me they know better than WikiLeaks who is and who isn't talking with the Americans. They are going to kill or not kill people they believe to be part of the "enemy forces" without or without a Web site releasing a few names that don't even connect with what intelligence might have been gathered from these people.

Basically, if someone in Afghanistan was talking to the U.S. they were already marked for death before this ever came out. They are in exactly the same amount of danger before that they are now.

There are some valid points, again that you do not make here, about how an issue of trust is raised here. People may be less inclined to give tips to the Army if they believe they will be immediately outed after taking care not to be seen. But people talk, and intelligence gathering doesn't stop and end at war journals sitting in a database in Iraq.

I think, this just my assessment here, that people like yourself just don't like Assange. You have some stupid personal agenda against him and I could give a flying fuck about the man. I only care about the truth, and I don't think anything done here was putting anyone in any more danger than were to begin with.

It opens a million doors and creates all kinds of complex situations that would not have existed if WikiLeaks had not done this.

But I believe Manning, and much less so Assange, are heroes bringing the truth to the power. This illegal and unjustified war has become more clear to me thanks to these documents and the same is true for millions of other Americans.

Whistle blowers are the only thing left to protect us from a world of nothing but tyranny and death squads.

One can only hope this entire incident will result in a greater resistance to continuing this failed policy of beating a bloody scar of false democracy into the Mid-East.

As I said before, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I have no agenda against Assange, stupid or otherwise, but you can characterize it however you want. People will die as a result of his actions; that is a fact. If that's OK with you, fine, make all the little rationalizations for it you want, but calling me names for the sin of having a different take on the matter kind of points up the weakness of your argument. Nitey nite.

"What planet are you on?"

Planet Earth. I'd like you to join me but I guess that is asking too much. It's easier to spout off a bunch of shit, isn't it.

Enjoy being on the side of The Bush War Criminals? Well you are. You are sitting next to Cheney and Gates and Mullen and Bush and Ashcroft.

I like where I'm sitting. It's called "supporting the whistle blowers." The only people in this world who still have soul.

"Who gave you a time period of months before the information is useless?"

Go read the documents, review GlobalSecurity.org and check out the newspapers. I get the impression you just shoot from the hip and that would be the problem here. You are talking out your ass and that's why you make no sense.

Newsflash: They can see you if you talk to the U.S. They know who slams the door on Americans on sight and who doesn't. It's foolish to think a single name in a report that lists the person as "present" during the operation is any different from a Taliban fighter in plain clothes and unarmed walking around a village taking note of who talks to the Americans and who doesn't.

If everyone would pull their head out their ass for ten seconds you would know that.

The issue here that is valid to raise is that Assange and WikiLeaks are computer experts and not military intelligence experts and there is a good case to be made that it raises questions about how much sense it makes to have computer experts trying to determine what information is 'too sensitive' and which is 'disclosure ready.'

But nobody here is making that point, all I hear is pandering to the Army like good little lapdogs and a Fox News session of making valid claims about someone getting someone killed and absolutely no context whatsoever to prove such a serious claim.

This shouldn't be the 'new norm.' I'm not saying that. I'm saying that this a good thing in the long run, this was the truth of the war being brought to people after it was suppressed by the powers that be.

Maybe people like bull shit and lies. I don't. But that's just me. Lies piss me off. Other people seem to enjoy being fed horse crap and delusions all day. Makes them feel safe.

"People will die as a result of his actions; that is a fact."

No, it's really not.

And I would hope you see why I'm asking you to make a solid case than you are since you are accusing him of murder.

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't like things getting personal. Frankly I've had enough of that ad hominem shit to last me a lifetime with the poor moral fiber of many people on the Internet.

I don't know if you have a personal agenda against him or not, but saying stupid crap like your "creepster" comment makes it appear that you do.

To pull away from the WikiLeaks story, I am in support of whistle blowers. That is what this all boils down to here. This information was denied to the public, and while you may have a point regarding the information could have been more seriously vetted by WikiLeaks I don't believe accusing him of murder is anything less than public defamation of his character.

Now you are free to do that, nobody will stop you. But I'm begging you, in the name of Shirley Sherrod I'm begging you, to get more meat on the bone before you do that.

Show me the informant that was unknown to anyone in the Taliban that now has their name all over the Web because of this. I'm not at all convinced that person exists. In fact I'm rather positive that nobody in those documents was not already recognized as an informant for the U.S. But that's not something I can prove any better than you can prove that someone will die because of these documents.

Were I in Assange's position I would have held back more of these documents, but that was his decision in this case.

The critical element behind this leak was not the informants, this is not the vital issue here. The most important part of this is the documents that confirm that the Pakistani Intelligence are funneling money into the Taliban. That was pure speculation of war correspondents until this point, now we know for a fact (gov't doesn't deny it & is freaking out over this coming to the public domain) that this is the case.

One of the only things that I had in my "okay, maybe we can do this Afghan war thing" column is gone. Pakistan is 100% our enemy and takes our money to kill our troops with it.

This whole war is a wash, and my previous stance of "wait and see" after the Obama troop surge has altered completely after reading these documents and reading newspaper articles summarizing them.

I agree with you on the point that it was unwise of Assange to release the names of informants, but I think it a major leap of logic to say these names result in death of said people. In all likelihood every single person listed on those documents is known to have helped American forces and have already risked their lives to aid in the fight against the Taliban. Bringing their names more attention was unwise, but doesn't constitute as a death sentence. It was a death sentence the moment they gave aid at all. The Taliban intelligence networks don't need a WikiLeaks link to find this stuff out, they have countless allies in every province all over the two nations in question.

"knee-jerk leftist approach"

Now that deserves a FUCK YOU!

I just read all about this shit and you are just being a fucking prick with that comment.

You're the fucking idiot, not me.

Since we have to be fucking grade schoolers getting all fucking personal here! THEN FINE!

YOU ALL SUPPORT THE LIES AND DEATH OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION CARRIED ON BY OBAMA!

Good fucking bye! I'm sorry I ever commented here with a bunch of mental midgets like you assholes.

Have fun sucking Rupert Murdoch's dick Xeno and Nana.

I take back the latter part of my comment to Al. He wasn't necessarily reflecting bias, but was simply stating his views, just as I've been doing on this thread, and he knows quite a bit about the region. Progressive Liberal on the other hand is talking out his ass, merely vomiting invective and asinine bullshit which he believes demonstrate his acumen and the rightness of his position. Sorry Progressive Liberal, but there's no relationship between your erudition and the quantity of CAPs and swear words you can jam into a comment. I do commend your vehemence though.

Good morning - I guess I'd agree with Progressive Liberal, at least until he starts cussing. (Well, maybe even before that.) The Taliban seem to murder indiscriminately, whether or not they have 'proof' of someone's co-operation. I don't mean to minimize the possibility that more civilians might be harmed because of Wikileaks. I wish they would have screened, rather than dumped. But the new reality of internet quote journalism unquote means that governments can no longer count on misinformation and secrecy to shield their own mistakes. Thanks for this, Nana, as always, a forceful argument and a rousing discussion.

I'll hold Assange accountable for murders that may or may not happen in the future when our government is held accountable for the more than 20,000 Afghanistan civilians we have outright killed, murdered, blown away. Those 20,000 bodies are real. Assanges' victims are theoretical.

I just came from Progressive's post. I am liberal to my core, but to release those names was a crime. If people die on account of this man's massive Ego, he should be charged with something. I saw the video of the helicopters killing innocent people and was outraged, but leaking something that will get people tortured and murdered is just wrong.

Well since you asked my opinion many comments ago I'll try and lay it out: I think that there should be a proper investigation for everyone who we suspect to have caused innocent people their lives (including Assange) and that they should all receive an appropriate punishment for their actions. I am, however, not too hopeful of that happening in anyone else's case or Assange; if someone like Polanski can escape extradition with the kinds of charges against him, I'm sure there are a number of countries who would also be willing to give refuge to someone like Assange.

Sixtycandles, BBE, Scanner, Poorsinner, Waleed, thanks for reading and for your comments. Americans need to know more than they do about the war in Afghanistan, and about the wrongs that have been and still are being perpetrated there by us and our proxies in the Kharzai government. In that context, it's good to make information available as Julian Assange has done. My problem with Mr. Assange isn't that he wants the information to be available to the world; it's that he doesn't care who gets thrown under the bus in the process. Progressive Liberal's argument is nonsense, and is based on what he wishes were true rather than on what is true. The Taliban aren't omniscient, no more than we are. Like any side engaged in a war they are always seeking intelligence, and WikiLeaks has provided them with a windfall of it, including the names of people to send their assassins against. Those are people who are alive now but who will be dead if and when they're found by the Taliban. As I said earlier in the thread, the people who will die as a result of the leaked documents are only a drop in the bucket when measured against the slaughter taking place every day, but I doubt that will be much comfort to them or their families.

And you're right Waleed; I don't see Assange as being in much danger of arrest or prosecution, not unless he comes to the States, and even then I'm not sure they'd have that good a case against him.

Back one more time. Can't disagree with you on any of the specifics you cite. Would note that it's easier to start wars than to end them. And easier to get indignant about leaks in a war whose motives and conduct have not yet been thoroughly discredited. (See: Vietnam, Iraq.) As long as there's the fog of war, I want to be able to see the fog machine.

The fog machine is plain to see for anybody who bothers looking, and it's not necessary to kill people to improve our view of it. I'm not indignant about leaks is the thing Sixtycandles; leaks are part and parcel of politics and war, and they often serve useful purposes. I am though a little sickened that the very people who (rightly) decry collateral damage when perpetrated by an army think it's OK when perpetrated by a journalist.

He does sound like a nut. As usual, you have made a good call.

Hi Delia. Something seems off about the guy to me. When I think of someone like Seymour Hersh breaking the My Lai massacre, or reporting on the Copper Green program during the Dubbya years, I think "investigative journalist." When I think of Julian Assange a lot of words come to mind, but journalist isn't really one of them.

I think I get what dude is saying. He says that the military classified the leaked documents in such a way as to make him believe that they did not contain any information that could get any Afghans killed. That seems facile. It would make sense for him and his collaborators to look at what they intended to release first and not assume that the thousands of documents contained material damaging only to the American military.

Is Progressive Liberal really one of ours? Can we trade him to the right wing, or do they have enough?

I'm surprised how quickly this dialogue has drifted into swearing and name-calling. I thought opensalon was a different kind of internets!

It's a drag that anyone might be condemned to die: whether by the Taliban, the U.S. government, or other. Let us recall the wise words of Gandalf: "Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? ... Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."

But the Taliban is responsible for who the Taliban kills. Not a journalist. That's common law.

Hey man, answer your phone. Good post, Rated, blah blah.

This is a different look for you, right? I do like it better than the fat ballet dancer in drag.

I don't know how you come to this conclusion. The man revealed what a corrupt military we have! We started two unnecessary wars, that will breed terrorism for years to come. We murdered innocent people, and tortured scores of others. You say you are proud of this shit?

Sorry Killem, I don't buy it. Assange is a creep, and an egomaniac, and his actions most likely have caused people to die who'd otherwise be alive now. Killing for peace seems a little...fucked up.

Fucked up is too mild of a term actually. I don't get my info from US papers, I get it from many sources, and however you slice it Assange is a turd.

Killem, the documents Assange released told me, and anyone who's been following the wars closely, nothing we didn't already know. Nothing. What they did do is lay people who are mentioned in said documents open to reprisal from assholes who will happily cut their fucking heads off, or, failing that, slaughter their entire fucking families.

To reiterate, I just don't see Assange as a hero; he is more of a murderer as far as I'm concerned.

You're right. The focus shouldn't be on Assange. The focus should be on lots of issues, starting with but not limited to: why are involved in two land wars in Asia? To be honest, I'm a callous bastard and view these issues from the perspective of Realpolitik rather than humanitarian concerns. Looked at in a geopolitical sense, we're fucking ourselves big time by wasting resources in unwinnable and unnecessary wars at a period of history when we need to be focused on other stuff.

heeheeheehee!

He was the smartest man in the world, supposedly. Little potbellied Corsican lookin' dude. He was actually quoting one of the "Wise Men" of 1950s era U.S. foreign policy, one of Eisenhower's or Kennedy's advisers.

What a great movie!

Hello. My name is Iñigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

Go not quietly into that indivisibility.