Taliban Murders Afghan Elder, Thanks Wikileaks for Revealing "Spies"

[unozero]

It's been a nightmarish last few months for U.S. Military officials. First they discovered that a young soldier serving in Iraq had acted as a spy passing documents to the site Wikileaks. Then they endured Wikileaks release of 90,000 U.S. Military documents -- many of them classified -- detailing their operations in Afghanistan.

The Taliban, a radical Islamic militia in Afghanistan, announced its gratitude to Wikileaks for the release and vowed to hunt down those revealed in the documents to be collaborating with the U.S. It appears that they have now made good on that threat.

Khalifa Abdullah, a tribal elder, was removed from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, by gunmen. He was then executed.

http://www.dailytech.com/Taliban+Mu...ikileaks+for+Revealing+Spies/article19250.htm

 

[Robbo]

Why the hell would Wikileaks not censor out peoples names from the documents they release... I mean thats just common sense??!?!?!?

 

[Stigmata]

Because that sets a dangerous precedent where everyone, including Wikileaks, is censoring the documents they release. The whole point of Wikileaks is freedom of information. Sometimes it results in death, and that is hugely unfortunate. But in the end, one death from information is better than millions from a lack thereof.

 

[Raziaar]

I wonder how long it takes before this becomes a talking point against the Obama administration.

I mean shit, it's already being used as widespread blanket generalizations about liberals.

I personally don't know how I feel about the leaks. Though stuff like this certainly is a tragedy.

 

[Robbo]

Because that sets a dangerous precedent where everyone, including Wikileaks, is censoring the documents they release. The whole point of Wikileaks is freedom of information. Sometimes it results in death, and that is hugely unfortunate. But in the end, one death from information is better than millions from a lack thereof.

.... I really doubt that censoring the names of informants will lead an organisation like Wikileaks down a slippery path to where they no longer represent freedom of information.
It's about taking responsibility for your actions, you can't just release information like this without considering that it will put peoples lives at risk. They could have easily achieved the same objectives while removing those names.

 

[Laivasse]

They claim to have been removing names, anyway, so I think Stigmata is off the mark.

The blog entry (because that's what it is) linked in the OP is vague as hell and isn't impartial by any stretch. It's worth noting that no one seems able to point out exactly where these elders were named in the Wikileaks data, despite the fact that all our major news agencies are surely trawling through it as eagerly as the Taliban say they are. Even the Newsweek article which breaks this story about the Taliban 'thanking' Wikileaks for the data says (quote) '...it is unknown whether any of the men were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents'. Surely it should be easy to confirm, no?

Another possibility here is Pakistani Taliban insiders are trying to discredit Wikileaks in light of the incriminating funding links with Pakistan that the data supposedly shows. My own view is to have US military figures claiming that Assange has 'blood on his hands' is the hypocritical laugh of the century.

 

[Stigmata]

They claim to have been removing names, anyway, so I think Stigmata is off the mark.

The blog entry (because that's what it is) linked in the OP is vague as hell and isn't impartial by any stretch. It's worth noting that no one seems able to point out exactly where these elders were named in the Wikileaks data, despite the fact that all our major news agencies are surely trawling through it as eagerly as the Taliban say they are. Even the Newsweek article which breaks this story about the Taliban 'thanking' Wikileaks for the data says (quote) '...it is unknown whether any of the men were indeed named in the WikiLeaks documents'. Surely it should be easy to confirm, no?

Another possibility here is Pakistani Taliban insiders are trying to discredit Wikileaks in light of the incriminating funding links with Pakistan that the data supposedly shows. My own view is to have US military figures claiming that Assange has 'blood on his hands' is the hypocritical laugh of the century.

It just dawned on me that these are probably CIA "wag the dog" tactics.

 

[15357]

Because that sets a dangerous precedent where everyone, including Wikileaks, is censoring the documents they release. The whole point of Wikileaks is freedom of information. Sometimes it results in death, and that is hugely unfortunate. But in the end, one death from information is better than millions from a lack thereof.

What? No.

How are millions going to die because of lack of classified , military information?



Also, the whole point of Wikileaks is for the founder to be a presumptious asshole.

 

[Stigmata]

Well presumably these documents are being leaked for a reason. They don't teleport from a folder to Wikileaks; someone with physical access to these has to get them out there. Nobody's going to risk their jobs and/or lives to leak documents that they haven't read or don't know anything about, so the mass majority of these leaked documents will be leaked because someone thinks important information is being hidden from the public by corrupt officials, for corrupt reasons.

 

[15357]

Or the guy gets a hard-on when he leaks stuff. "Oooh secrets! Let's take it all out to the public! I don't care what it contains!"

Seriously, I don't see how tens of thousands of documents leaked by wikileaks could have saved lives. Important information is hidden precisely because it's important. It couldn't matter less if it were because of corrupt individuals. What matters is that the public don't know important secrets.

Sure, corruption, etc, etc, would be good stuff to expose, but I hardly think that someone would keep a record of what bribes they received in military document storage.

EDIT: The reason that somebody would leak documents is because of their probably misplaced sense of self-righteousness that has caused enough damage already, or more likely, is because they were paid by the founder.

 

[Stigmata]

Or the guy gets a hard-on when he leaks stuff. "Oooh secrets! Let's take it all out to the public! I don't care what it contains!"

That doesn't make any sense.

Seriously, I don't see how tens of thousands of documents leaked by wikileaks could have saved lives. Important information is hidden precisely because it's important. It couldn't matter less if it were because of corrupt individuals. What matters is that the public don't know important secrets.

Sure, corruption, etc, etc, would be good stuff to expose, but I hardly think that someone would keep a record of what bribes they received in military document storage.

Your pro-state stance is incredibly ingrained in you, to the point where you are actively rejecting everything that opposes it. You're literally too biased to be taking part in this debate.

EDIT: The reason that somebody would leak documents is because of their probably misplaced sense of self-righteousness that has caused enough damage already, or more likely, is because they were paid by the founder.

Case in point; also refer to your first paragraph. You're just slandering people who do this thing that you disagree with, for no logically-sound reason.

I mean, really. You don't think that people in a position of immense power, who use their power for their own ends rather than the ends of the people they represent, might, sometimes, occasionally be doing things that are not in the interest of the public, and may actually cause a detriment to their livelihoods and living standards?

Not even once?

 

[Sloth]

Stigmata, do you honestly believe that classified material is just given that label so that the military can feel important about itself?

If it was information about UFOs and Area 51 that was leaked I'd be happy for it to become public information. If it was an operational document that outlined human rights violations during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts it would again be better to be leaked.

But leaking documents of current operational significance? Giving out information that would increase the risk to troops within minutes of the Taliban and other militant groups reading it? Sounds to me like whoever leaked them is a man with an Ego-Trip not a soldier, as he has no care for the consequences of his actions.

 

[Warped]

America is evil, I think even a Caveman could figure that out, but at the same time we're good because we "Liberate" many people from uhhhhh...even worse bad people???

Actually just like any country out there, we have our favorites but all in all we use and abuse too many nations out there to count

 

[Solaris]

Stigmate, you're argument is built on the assumption that the man who leaked the articles is a sane man who thinks the war is wrong and needs to be stopped.

However, even given that, it's retarded to conclude that the leaks will save 'millions of lives'. They won't. At best, it seems they will undermine US military tactics in the region giving the Taliban an upper hand.

 

[Stigmata]

Any sweeping generalisations I made were completely accidental.

Also, wouldn't having military strategies and schedules leaked be an excellent reason to pull out, at least temporarily?

 

[15357]

That doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does.

Your pro-state stance is incredibly ingrained in you, to the point where you are actively rejecting everything that opposes it. You're literally too biased to be taking part in this debate.

And you aren't? Come on, you think leaking secrets is a good idea, no matter the content. Or at least you imply so. Or I'm misunderstanding you.

Case in point; also refer to your first paragraph. You're just slandering people who do this thing that you disagree with, for no logically-sound reason.

Or you could be defending their actions without much logically-sound reason. You said that those documents could save lives. How?

I mean, really. You don't think that people in a position of immense power, who use their power for their own ends rather than the ends of the people they represent, might, sometimes, occasionally be doing things that are not in the interest of the public, and may actually cause a detriment to their livelihoods and living standards?

I never said that. I said I doubted "that someone would keep a record of what bribes they received in military document storage."

Any sweeping generalisations I made were completely accidental.

Also, wouldn't having military strategies and schedules leaked be an excellent reason to pull out, at least temporarily?

THAT IS NOT A GOOD THING OH GOD FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF



I acknowledge that somebody needs to blow the whistle in case of gross incompetence and corruption. But in this case, the documents that were leaked included US grand strategy in the region, the identities of individuals whose survival may be vital to the long-run success of ground operations. It might have included known locations of Taliban high command - which are now obsolete since they've been leaked.

You said something about how censorship is bad some posts back. THE WHOLE POINT OF CENSORSHIP IS TO SAVE LIVES, AND MAKE PEOPLE HAPPY AS THEY WALLOW IN THEIR ON IGNORANCE. Havn't you ever heard of the phrase, "Ignorance is Bliss"? That's actually not too far from the truth; the ignorance of the enemy is bliss for you and your people.

One should never ever assume that military information, OPSEC, or whatever, is something that should be leaked. As I've said over and over again, they are secret for a reason. They are secret because public knowledge of such information could lead to people dying, battles being lost, and the loss of military superiority over nations and groups that are hostile and would love to see you and countless others dead. Did wikileaks leak anything about how a politician accepted bribes, or et cetera, out of those military secrets? No. And that's not because they haven't gone deep enough, that's because the don't store those things in military file cabinets. If you want to be deep throat, that's fine by me, but the secrets that you are looking for is far far away from military hands.

 

[Sparta]

Stigmata, do you honestly believe that classified material is just given that label so that the military can feel important about itself?

If it was information about UFOs and Area 51 that was leaked I'd be happy for it to become public information. If it was an operational document that outlined human rights violations during the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts it would again be better to be leaked.

But leaking documents of current operational significance? Giving out information that would increase the risk to troops within minutes of the Taliban and other militant groups reading it? Sounds to me like whoever leaked them is a man with an Ego-Trip not a soldier, as he has no care for the consequences of his actions.

Has anyone here actually read up about Brad Manning and his conversations with Adrian Lamo before commenting on this thread? Because, the kid really was a kid who thought he was doing the right, moral thing for the good of his country, not some crazy kid with an ego-trip. Ironically, it's the very hacker that turned him in that's the one who's constantly in need of an ego-trip.

Wikileaks didn't just get the information and leak it immediately without considering the consequences of their actions. They took their leaks and the information to several different news organizations (Der Spiegel, The Guardian, The New York Times) to help verify and potentially deseminate and limit the potential harm caused by leaking these documents.

I seriously cannot believe the amount of people in this thread who would otherwise be standing up for free speech at the drop of a hat, who are saying this is irresponsible and it shouldn't have happened yada yada yada.

Except Numbers of course, that adorable fascist rascal.

THE WHOLE POINT OF CENSORSHIP IS TO SAVE LIVES, AND MAKE PEOPLE HAPPY AS THEY WALLOW IN THEIR ON IGNORANCE

Ok, not so adorable anymore. This is seriously bad that you believe this. This is Orwellian.

 

[<RJMC>]

Also, wouldn't having military strategies and schedules leaked be an excellent reason to pull out, at least temporarily?

right cuz the taliban wouldnt do nothing bad to every afghan that didnt want to shoot a foreign soldier and the taliban would give time to the usa to prepare while it come back

my stance on this leaks stuff is that even this may uncover cases of humans right violations it can also lead to problems at the long run which the taliban and other terrorists can use

 

[15357]

Wikileaks didn't just get the information and leak it immediately without considering the consequences of their actions. They took their leaks and the information to several different news organizations (Der Spiegel, The Guardian, The New York Times) to help verify and potentially deseminate and limit the potential harm caused by leaking these documents.

Yes, because leaking information to as many news agencies as possible has helped in limiting the information disseminated.

Ok, not so adorable anymore. This is seriously bad that you believe this. This is Orwellian.

Oh come off it. You'd all be better off not knowing. It wouldn't matter in the slightest to you if you all believed and had very good reason to believe that there was no war in Afghanistan and all your troops were in Haiti handing out teddy bears to little children. What is this obssession with your "truth"? Does it matter? As an extreme example, let's say that this was all a dream, a dream that you had no hope of ever waking up from. Would that knowledge make you more happy, or help you in any way? No it just causes nightmarish existantial problems that you have absolutely no hope of solving. In the end, it's what you think that matters.

also, http://gawker.com/5515720/stephen-colbert-grills-wikileaks-founder-on-helicopter-video

Man, I love Colbert.

Assange responded that Wikileaks promises their sources that they will "try and get the maximum possible political impact for the material the give us." According to Assange's formulation, Wikileaks is essentially an advocacy group whose strength lies in its ability to secure incriminating documents.

 

[No Limit]

Yeah, lets invade south korea and not tell anybody about it while killing as many innocent civillians as possible. Who gives a shit, **** those chinks anyway. Doesn't sound so kosher anymore, does it numbers? But when we do it to people you don't like all of the sudden you have no issues with it.

 

[15357]

Yeah, I'm hypocritical that way. Also, I don't mean that I should also be ignorant. I want to know as much as humanly possible while simultaneously maintaining the ignorance of others.

I also could argue that they aren't the same things, because the motives for which I suppress information have suddenly been destroyed to a point where I would actively disseminate information regarding this hypothetical masscre of civillians. See, now, I support the suppression of information only on times when the safety and stability of the group or groups are threatened by the public knowledge of secret information. In your example, it would be in the best interests of the Korean people for everybody to know this information.

 

[No Limit]

But according to your logic it would not be in the best interest of the american people to know that innocent Koreans were being slaughtered by the US government.

How can a democracy function without this kind of information? I know it's hard for someone like you to understand but most americans don't want to slaughter innocent south koreans, just as we don't want to slaughter innocent Iraqis or Afghanis (yet in the later cases we are doing just that while trying to hide this information).

You seem to have this mentallity that life is not important (unless it's your own).

 

[<RJMC>]

I think I will try to explain to numbers whats the concerns of everyone whit his views

imagine if the terran confederacy....no wait the terrans are allways in war whit each other

well them imaginate the most powerfull of the protoss tribes that invaded the planet of another and is in a war that is not very accepted by the dwelers of the main protoss tribes

and them the main tribe authorities say they are not doing killing any civilians and only attacking rebels or irsurgents or terrorists

and them a information leaks about the main tribes killing and torturing inocents that where jailed for suspicions or civilians that where killed by a error or something like that,them the dwelers of the main protoss tribe gets mad cuz thats what not the goverment said

the goverment apologies but the dwelers started to lose trust in them

and then there is another leak that shows again that the goverment wasnt saying all true though it indicate information that is valuable tot he enemyes so defendants of the goverment say this information shouldnt have been know but others say that it must be know so everyone know whats happening since not everyone is going to trust the goverment again

though the protoss are mind linked by the khala so I think they cant kept secrets from eachother but I think you get the point

 

[15357]

But according to your logic it would not be in the best interest of the american people to know that innocent Koreans were being slaughtered by the US government.

How can a democracy function without this kind of information? I know it's hard for someone like you to understand but most americans don't want to slaughter innocent south koreans, just as we don't want to slaughter innocent Iraqis or Afghanis (yet in the later cases we are doing just that while trying to hide this information).

You seem to have this mentallity that life is not important (unless it's your own).

I've never said that massacring civillians was ok. It's a horrendous, morally reprehensible thing to do. That said, we must weigh in carefully the consequences of leaking that information. What would the effects be to national will? To public trust and support of the military and the administration? To the morale of the rest of the military who are not trying to kill every living thing out there?

That said, I yield on your point that democracy requires public knowledge of certain stuff.

What I do not believe, is, as people have previously mentioned, that military secrets that could threaten the lives of people should be exposed. That has been my argument. I have not justified the murder of innocent iraqis, nor will I ever do so. I am saying that it was also a reprehensible act on the part of Wikileaks to carelessly disseminate information that has endangered the lives of many people, and has had significant deleterious effects on the long-term success of operations in the middle east by the free world.

Also, I believe that human lives are all important, and I do not believe that my life will be of any significance compared to everyone else.

I think I will try to explain to numbers whats the concerns of everyone whit his views

imagine if the terran confederacy....no wait the terrans are allways in war whit each other

well them imaginate the most powerfull of the protoss tribes that invaded the planet of another and is in a war that is not very accepted by the dwelers of the main protoss tribes

and them the main tribe authorities say they are not doing killing any civilians and only attacking rebels or irsurgents or terrorists

and them a information leaks about the main tribes killing and torturing inocents that where jailed for suspicions or civilians that where killed by a error or something like that,them the dwelers of the main protoss tribe gets mad cuz thats what not the goverment said

the goverment apologies but the dwelers started to lose trust in them

and then there is another leak that shows again that the goverment wasnt saying all true though it indicate information that is valuable tot he enemyes so defendants of the goverment say this information shouldnt have been know but others say that it must be know so everyone know whats happening since not everyone is going to trust the goverment again

though the protoss are mind linked by the khala so I think they cant kept secrets from eachother but I think you get the point

....yeah, that's actually why you should make sure stuff doesn't get leaked.



EDIT: I get the feeling that I'm not being very convincing. I will end my argument with: "YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH"

 

[No Limit]

I've never said that massacring civillians was ok. It's a horrendous, morally reprehensible thing to do. That said, we must weigh in carefully the consequences of leaking that information. What would the effects be to national will? To public trust and support of the military and the administration? To the morale of the rest of the military who are not trying to kill every living thing out there?

That said, I yield on your point that democracy requires public knowledge of certain stuff.

What I do not believe, is, as people have previously mentioned, that military secrets that could threaten the lives of people should be exposed. That has been my argument. I have not justified the murder of innocent iraqis, nor will I ever do so. I am saying that it was also a reprehensible act on the part of Wikileaks to carelessly disseminate information that has endangered the lives of many people, and has had significant deleterious effects on the long-term success of operations in the middle east by the free world.

Also, I believe that human lives are all important, and I do not believe that my life will be of any significance compared to everyone else.

And yet our military does massicare innocent civilians. The only way to hold them accountable for that is to make sure the information gets released. Are you are against releasing this type of information or not? The apache attack wikileaks released showed our military shooting up an unarmed ambulance coming to help the wounded and laughing as they did it. Should that not have been released?

 

[15357]

I don't know.

Seriously, that is not for me to decide, and it sure as hell isn't Assange's. So, what good things happened because it was released? What bad things? Could this set a bad precedent? Too many questions to ask, not including the validity of the leak itself. Watch that colbert video.


EDIT: Seriously, I don't know. I can't decide if that leak was a good thing or a bad thing. I will say that if those people on that gunship failed to follow proper procedures, and that the people really were not armed, they need to be punished.

 

[No Limit]

Instead of punishing them the military instead decided to cover it up.

And what good comes of it? Again, this is a democracy. The only way to hold the people accountable for these kinds of actions is if the american people know about it. If Americans don't know about this it will continue to happen. So the hope is the military will be much more careful in their tactics. And if they continue to do this shit hopefully more of these leaks will come out and one day the american people might finally wake up to the fact that war isn't just some small after thought.

There is nothing that is not valid about the leak of that video. I did watch that colbert interview when it first aired, and it was one of the few times I was disappointed in colbert. He was upset that the wikileaks people editorialized the release of that video. He would have a good point if wikileaks was a news organization, they aren't. And I think their editorial on the video was dead on, it was murder.

 

[15357]

I suppose there isn't much room for self-improvement these days. Always need some pressure. I wonder why. Why can't people fix their own problems and have to have people point it out for them?

But if they did, it would nullify your argument.

Now, I can't argue against that, without saying stuff like "Well then maybe we shouldn't have a democracy after all". So, I'm just going to pull back to the point where I said stuff about how military secrets that could threaten the lives of people should not be exposed, and it is not up to an individual to decide which information can be leaked or not.


Off topic, but I thought we concluded that those people in that video were actually armed?

 

[No Limit]

Every Iraqi is armed, so that would have been nothing new. The gunner in that video thought he saw an RPG which would give them a good indication these were insurgents. That's fair enough. Of course I don't believe we should just shoot up a group of people based on a black and white video from miles away but I can't argue that there was some suspicion these were insurgents.

The point you can't argue with is what happened after the initial shooting stopped. A guy driving on a public road saw a bunch of shot up bodies and went to help the wounded. This guy was not armed and posed absolutely no threat. Yet they opened fire on him killing him and badly injuring 2 little kids that were in the van he drove up in.

And yes, if the military punished these people and changed the rules of engagement to ensure nothing like this would happen again that would nullify my argument. But they didn't, they covered it up instead. So that kind of nullifies your argument that this information should not be leaked.

 

[15357]

Well.... yes. Yes it does.

Damn it I lost my third argument in a row.




But I still maintain that wikileaks leaking of war plans and et cetera was bad.

 

[No Limit]

If they leaked names of informants as has been reported they should not have done that, I totally agree.

But all the information they leaked about Pakistan helping the Taliban, about us under reporting civilian deaths, about our policy makers not believing this mission could be won, that the government we are trying to prop up is insanely corrupt, and about us not taking general care to protect innocent life should have been leaked. And I think that's mostly what these 90,000 documents contained.

 

[15357]

If they leaked names of informants as has been reported they should not have done that, I totally agree.

Yes.

But all the information they leaked about Pakistan helping the Taliban

Yes. - But would this help?

about us under reporting civilian deaths,

No. - If somehow this helped, yes.

about our policy makers not believing this mission could be won,

No. - Absolutely not. Defeatism loses wars.

that the government we are trying to prop up is insanely corrupt,

Yes. - And that government should be changed, really.

and about us not taking general care to protect innocent life should have been leaked

Yes. - All for improvement.

And I think that's mostly what these 90,000 documents contained.

It's more likely that those 90,000 documents were everything that this guy could get his hands on. I mean, who is going to look through 90K documents to see and verify if this posed a threat to the lives of people? Assange as sure as hell did not, and that's why we're having this argument that I lost now.

Also, the "no" stuff is mostly things that would harm morale and lose support for the war. In a democracy, support is what you need for war to continue, and to acheive victory. I'm actually not sure whose PoV I should look from, but in the interest of the free world in general, I believe that the US should win this war. Anything that prevents that, I will disagree with.


But yes, I think you're right on this one, if that matters.

 

[No Limit]

Yes. - But would this help?

Again our government is giving Pakistan billions of dollars each year which then gets funneled to the Taliban which is used to kill our troops. The government knew this yet they continued to give money to Pakistan. So yes, the american people need to know that our policy is ****ed up and our government refuses to change it.

No. - If somehow this helped, yes.

Again, the hope is that by exposing this information the military will have to change it's policies because of pressure from the people. People can only apply that pressure if they know whats actually happening.

No. - Absolutely not. Defeatism loses wars.

Umm...the point is the war is already lost and the government was hiding that fact from the people. So that's kind of an absurd argument to make.

--------------------

It's nice to know that we agree on a lot of this stuff and can disagree on others. For a while I used to think that you weren't actually serious with any of your posts around here, I guess I just didn't take the time to pay attention. :cheers:

 

[Sulkdodds]

Agree with Laivasse. There are two groups claiming that the leak endangers lives: the military and the Taliban. Neither of these are to be trusted, yet reporters are fully buying into their claims. It's entirely possible that the Taliban are just posturing, while the military does everything it can to ensure that everything it wants be kept secret. Oh, you can't tell us precisely which individuals were endangered and where they appear in the documents because that would further imperil their lives? What a surprise.

 

[15357]

snip

:cheers:

I will admit that some of my posts on this part of the forums weren't entirely serious - but you can still pick them out obviously enough. I sometimes just throw an idea in here to see if it's sound. That's just how I find out if my beliefs need to be refined or not.

Oh, you can't tell us precisely which individuals were endangered and where they appear in the documents because that would further imperil their lives? What a surprise.

Well, you know, they could be telling the truth. If not, oh well. We have no way of knowing.

 

[Sulkdodds]

We do of course have character witnesses from the last 100 years of military history. The references are not good.

 

[Stigmata]

Sulk and others have basically explained the rationale behind my perspective. I have never seen a good reason to trust, fully, any organisation that uses political or physical force. I have, however, seen many examples of disgusting behaviour by individuals and groups within these kinds of organisations.

 

[Krynn72]

Anyways, I wonder if the Taliban just realized who it was, or if Wikileaks actually missed a name when they were censoring them.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Yeah, the thing is that it's quite possible Taliban members could just work out who someone was from oblique references and by process of elimination; any small thing might tip the scales of realisation. But with no details forthcoming on exactly how that happened, we're being asked to trust A) an organisation that will say anything for publicity, and B) an organisation that repeatedly demands we believe that there is a reason for us to believe without ever letting us know what that reason is.

 

[Xevrex]

Well, giving Wikileaks the credit for aiding the capture and execution of the Afghan elder could also serve the purpose of wanting to weaken the right of free information we have in the US. Any more individual rights taken away from the American people would be a small victory for them against the country they despise.