Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - changing how you think about afghanistan: a massive leak of military documents.

roachboy · 08-01-2010, 07:25 AM

slims...interesting.

if you remember, wikileaks provided access to the materials well in advance to der speigel, ny times and the guardian. there was no simple dump of documents. there was investigative reporting. what makes the way the release happened unusual is that (almost) all the primary material was made public, which changed the nature of editorial decisions for the papers. but there was work done in advance. some of it quite good. check out the guardian stories.

second: if wikileaks approached the us government or dod in particular up front and told them of the release and asked for help in editing the material so as not to compromise operations or people and the us dod chose not to take them up on it---knowing that the material was going to be released anyway---then it looks to me like you've got nothing really to complain about because everything you mention coulda been stopped or mitigated by your employer but your employer chose not to do it.

and i doubt seriously that anyone suggested the editing go the way you note, btw. "o give us a list of all your intelligence assets so we can check to see if they're here." i think--but do not know---that the offer of space to edit was serious and would have involved--you know--editing.

no matter the arrangement that was (or wasnt) proposed, the fact is that almost all the consequences you outline above follow as much from that refusal to assist as from the leak itself. which means that there had to have been a calculation about damage and a decision taken that they were worth incurring.

but past that i cannot go because i don't know enough to not just make things up.

more later.

interesting posts, btw. thanks for them.

08-01-2010, 07:25 AM	#52 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	slims...interesting. if you remember, wikileaks provided access to the materials well in advance to der speigel, ny times and the guardian. there was no simple dump of documents. there was investigative reporting. what makes the way the release happened unusual is that (almost) all the primary material was made public, which changed the nature of editorial decisions for the papers. but there was work done in advance. some of it quite good. check out the guardian stories. second: if wikileaks approached the us government or dod in particular up front and told them of the release and asked for help in editing the material so as not to compromise operations or people and the us dod chose not to take them up on it---knowing that the material was going to be released anyway---then it looks to me like you've got nothing really to complain about because everything you mention coulda been stopped or mitigated by your employer but your employer chose not to do it. and i doubt seriously that anyone suggested the editing go the way you note, btw. "o give us a list of all your intelligence assets so we can check to see if they're here." i think--but do not know---that the offer of space to edit was serious and would have involved--you know--editing. no matter the arrangement that was (or wasnt) proposed, the fact is that almost all the consequences you outline above follow as much from that refusal to assist as from the leak itself. which means that there had to have been a calculation about damage and a decision taken that they were worth incurring. but past that i cannot go because i don't know enough to not just make things up. more later. interesting posts, btw. thanks for them. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 08-01-2010 at 07:29 AM..