Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter
  5
Share on Facebook
  17
Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend
  2
24 Shares     
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Article Stats
30 comments

OpEdNews Op Eds

The Danger of the Wikileaks' Leak: You Might Stop Thinking Like an American

Become a Fan
  (65 fans)
By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 3 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (more...) ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags  (less...) Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 5   Valuable 5   Well Said 1  
View Ratings | Rate It

Headlined to H1 7/28/10

opednews.com


Wikileaks leaks Afghanistan War Logs to press by Kevin Gosztola

Days after the release of tens of thousands of documents that were once classified information and are now known as the "Afghanistan War Logs," the focus on the documents has shifted from the contents of the incident reports to what the effect or impact of the leak by Wikileaks will be on the war in Afghanistan.

The leak of more than 70,000 incident reports (and the news that 15,000 more incident reports are to be released after undergoing what Wikileaks founder Julian Assange calls "a harm minimization process" to protect Afghani civilians) created two direct challenges to what can be considered as two branches of government in the United States: the White House and Pentagon (Executive Branch) and the press (often regarded as the "Fourth Branch" of government).

This is part of the official statement released by the White House on Sunday, July 25th:

"We strongly condemn the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organisations, which puts the lives of the US and partner service members at risk and threatens our national security. Wikileaks made no effort to contact the US government about these documents, which may contain information that endanger the lives of Americans, our partners, and local populations who co-operate with us."

In a press conference on Monday, July 26th, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs showed their was a small evolution in the White House response to the leak. Similar to the official statement, he said the White House's reaction to this "breach of federal law" is that it has the "potential to be very harmful to those that are in our military, those that are cooperating with our military, and those that are working to keep us safe."

Gibbs also said, "I don't think that what is being reported hasn't in many ways been publicly discussed, either by you all or by representatives of the U.S. government, for quite some time," and went on to discuss how the press was fully aware of how Pakistan may have "safe havens" that were aiding the Taliban and the White House had been making progress in addressing this problem.

Those who remember the Obama Administration's blocking the release of photos allegedly showing troops abusing detainees at prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan have likely heard this argument about risks to troops before. In a video posted by The Guardian, Assange responded to the argument and said, "Militaries keep information secret to prosecute their side of a war but also to hide abuse." He noted there is a military argument for information on "where troops are about to deploy" from, but, since the information is all from 2004-2009, none of the information is particularly sensitive.

Gibbs' remarks that there's nothing new here with Pakistan shows part of the evolution from the initial response released to the press and public. The Obama Administration appears to have made a calculation that the nature of Wikileaks is too remarkable to wholly dismiss solely with an argument that they have used to argue for the protection of government information.

Admiral Mike Mullen's tweet and other remarks show that the Obama Administration has chosen to attempt to curb enthusiasm for the leak and forewarn those who are interested that if they take interest in them they will likely find no new information. If the public thinks there is nothing to be gained from the leak, then it's possible to push the public to question Wikileaks and possibly convince them that what was done was a kind of publicity stunt.

The initial response also demonstrated the White House believed Wikileaks should have consulted them before leaking the classified information to the press. That's interesting given the fact that the U.S. government has been hunting Julian Assange and displayed a zealous thirst to halt the operations of Wikileaks. Even more interesting is the fact that there was some back and forth prior to the publishing of the documents thanks to two reporters with the New York Times who consulted the White House and asked the White House for permission and guidance on what to publish and what not to publish. The meeting gave the White House time to prepare for the oncoming document dump by Wikileaks.

A file circulated to press, which features many of the president's and the administration's leaders' remarks on the role of Pakistan in the Afghanistan War, indicates there was likely a development of a media or public relations strategy between the White House and the New York Times before the "war logs" went public July 25th. This file provided a way for journalists uncomfortable with the ethics of Wikileaks to cover the contents of the documents leaked. It seems like this .PDF file became the basic talking points for critical conversation among the press on the Monday after the leak.

The effect was that possibility of war crimes committed was, for the most part, conveniently omitted or glossed over; illumination of the US-assassination squad Task Force 373 was virtually absent from the publication's analysis of the logs on Sunday. Examine Der Spiegel and The Guardian and compare what is central to the editorials and reports with what is central to the editorials and reports posted by the New York Times. You will likely find media spin that focuses on Pakistan and the Taliban.

The New York Times' decision to take this to the White House and to not further explore possible war crimes committed or even the alarming number of civilian casualties detailed in the logs could have something to do with what Illinois State University Professor Anthony DiMaggio wrote in his book When Media Goes to War on the media's role in foreign wars:

"American journalists see their role in foreign conflicts as dutifully reflecting the range of opinions expressed in Washington. In the case of Afghanistan, both Democrats and Republicans lent their support to escalating war as of early to mid 2009. "Responsible" criticisms were limited to questions of whether the war is unwinnable or too costly. The Obama administration paternalistically denigrated the Afghan government for complicity in corruption, ballot-tampering, collusion with warlords, narcotics dealing, and a lack of democratic responsiveness. These criticisms were echoed in news stories and editorials."

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3

 

Kevin Gosztola is a writer and curator of Firedoglake's blog The Dissenter, a blog covering civil liberties in the age of technology. He is an editor for OpEdNews.com and a former intern and videographer for The Nation Magazine.And, he's the (more...)
 
Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

We Do Not Consent to Warrantless "Porno-Scanning" in Airports

Do They Put Lipstick on Pigs at the Funny Farm?

How Private Prison Corporations Hope Arizona's SB1070 Will Lead to Internment Camps for Illegals

Why the Battle Against TSA Groping and Body Scanners is Justified

Give Obama a Chance to Do What?

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
20 people are discussing this page, with 30 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

Your writing haad become even more powerful. Obvio... by Mark Sashine on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:20:40 AM
At a media summit I co-chaired and organized in Ch... by Kevin Gosztola on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:26:13 AM
I was going to tell you, but I see you fixed it al... by Ned Lud on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:07:33 AM
Maybe better stick with Khayyam.Americans are trai... by Ned Lud on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:04:28 AM
I try to find value in comments of this tenor but ... by Kevin Gosztola on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:13:47 AM
I would assume most Opednews.com readers and write... by Steven G. Erickson on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:37:56 AM
Part of that conversation should involve giving at... by Kevin Gosztola on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:59:49 AM
We the people have been ripped off. If we've been ... by Steven G. Erickson on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 4:43:31 PM
Apparently, Mr. Assange recently went on record di... by Bill Cain on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:48:59 AM
I think the 9/11 Truth movement needs to evaluate ... by Kevin Gosztola on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:10:06 PM
I guess if 9-11 Truth is "toxic to the left", it s... by Bill Cain on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 2:15:42 PM
Assange also vehemently denied having the leaked d... by BaronVonRothschild on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:44:41 PM
The speculation they generate is Pakistan losses m... by Mike Preston on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:27:13 PM
when America took pride in how it conducted a war ... by Michael Morris on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 10:49:02 AM
you'll have to refresh my memory .... which war wa... by dai chai on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:47:22 PM
that until now, there was no intent to cause civil... by Michael Morris on Thursday, Jul 29, 2010 at 8:02:16 AM
Perhaps you have forgotten about dropping the big ... by david haynes on Saturday, Jul 31, 2010 at 7:12:49 PM
and you will see that Japan was to end the war. T... by Michael Morris on Sunday, Aug 1, 2010 at 7:02:59 AM
Maybe this: Do you want your Social Security, or d... by bruce powell on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:37:55 AM
Amen!  Unfortunately most of Amerikans are anesth... by thepiffler on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:47:58 AM
Much of personal experience I reference took place... by Margaret Bassett on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:58:27 AM
If have if thisBradley dude, putting out 92,000 do... by marko polo on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:58:53 AM
Seriously... Why don't we all just join forces wit... by Kevin Gosztola on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:17:41 PM
Col. Fletcher Proudy, in his fascinating but ultim... by Maxwell on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 1:10:24 PM
Despite the uncalled for sarcasm below, your post ... by Bill Cain on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:43:08 PM
What a pathetic shame for what could be one of the... by Daniel Geery on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 12:18:14 PM
Do ask the question how such a voluminous trove of... by boomerang on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:31:11 PM
When an informed gaze is effected into the differe... by kalaharichi@gmail.com kalaharichi@gmail.com on Wednesday, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:11:38 PM
they love it too much.....because it keeps the pub... by Ernest on Thursday, Jul 29, 2010 at 3:03:54 AM
You state: Historically, the US does not want the ... by Doc "Old Codger" McCoy on Thursday, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:53:20 PM