Wikileaks to release the largest cache of secret US Documents in History

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
Just broke on the Zerohedge site

The Pentagon is not too happy this morning. As the AP reports, WikiLeaks is about to release what the Pentagon fears is the largest cache of secret U.S. documents in history — hundreds of thousands of intelligence reports compiled after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. While WikiLeaks has not commented on the imminent announcement, it tweeted earlier that there is "major WikiLeaks press conference in Europe coming up." And as this disclosure would be the "most massive leak of secret documents in U.S. history" defense officials are racing to contain the damage. As a reminder WikiLeaks' last release of Adghanistan war logs made founder Julian Assange some of a persona non grata in most of the developed world. Of course, the buzz about who may be behind Wikileaks still seems to circulate every now and then. Additionally, Wiki advised interested parties who wish to book the announcement in advance to email the following address, sunshine.booking@mail.be, which however appears to be a broken one. Of course, it merely adds to the "mystery." Regardless, we will follow this and present wiki's findings as they become available.

More from the AP:

A team of more than a hundred analysts from across the U.S. military, lead by the Defense Intelligence Agency, has been combing through the Iraq documents they think will be released.

Called the Information Review Task Force, its analysts have pored over the documents and used word searches to try to pull out names and other issues that would be particularly sensitive, officials have said.

The task force has informed the U.S. Central Command of some of the names of Iraqis and allies and of other information they believe might be released that could present a danger, officials have said, noting that — unlike the WikiLeaks previous disclosure of some 77,000 documents from Afghanistan — in this case they had advance notice that names may be exposed.

That previous leak, back in July, outraged the U.S. military, which accused WikiLeaks of irresponsibility.

But The Associated Press has obtained a Pentagon letter reporting that no U.S. intelligence sources or practices were compromised by the posting of secret Afghan war logs.

Although U.S. officials still think the leaks could cause significant damage to U.S. security interests, the assessment suggests that some of the administration's worst fears about the July disclosure have so far failed to materialize.

In the meantime, here is some video entertainment from Wikileak's last release.
WikiLeaks Prepares To Release "Largest Cache Of Secret U.S. Documents In History" | zero hedge
 


niropiro

Active member
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
226
This is totally irresponsible.
The U.S. operates a huge network of informers and spies inside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda groupings in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.
These networks are vital if the U.S. hope to foil plots, gather intelligence on the activities of terrorists and capture or kill leaders.
Leaking information like this reveals the methods used to gather intelligence to the enemy, helps terrorists to learn how to avoid detection, undermines clandestine operations and puts the lives of sources at risk.
Do the owners of Wikileaks have a clue?
Do they want to hamper the war on terror, give a victory to our enemies and make it harder than ever to defeat terrorists?
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
This is totally irresponsible.
The U.S. operates a huge network of informers and spies inside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda groupings in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.
These networks are vital if the U.S. hope to foil plots, gather intelligence on the activities of terrorists and capture or kill leaders.
Leaking information like this reveals the methods used to gather intelligence to the enemy, helps terrorists to learn how to avoid detection, undermines clandestine operations and puts the lives of sources at risk.
Do the owners of Wikileaks have a clue?
Do they want to hamper the war on terror, give a victory to our enemies and make it harder than ever to defeat terrorists?
Do you still believe in Goblins and Pixies too?
 

Ulster-Lad

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 26, 2006
Messages
9,989
Any chance Wikileaks could open an office in Dublin? :)
 

constitutionus

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
23,265
this actually made mainstream radio news too.

lots of worried gov types in the states over it.
 

DCon

Well-known member
Joined
May 5, 2009
Messages
5,889
Any chance Wikileaks could open an office in Dublin? :)
No way their server could take all the FF dodginess.

Frank Fahey would probably require half the bandwidth available..
 

splashy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 15, 2010
Messages
308
This is totally irresponsible.
The U.S. operates a huge network of informers and spies inside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda groupings in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.
These networks are vital if the U.S. hope to foil plots, gather intelligence on the activities of terrorists and capture or kill leaders.
Leaking information like this reveals the methods used to gather intelligence to the enemy, helps terrorists to learn how to avoid detection, undermines clandestine operations and puts the lives of sources at risk.
Do the owners of Wikileaks have a clue?
Do they want to hamper the war on terror, give a victory to our enemies and make it harder than ever to defeat terrorists?
This is a story about a Swedish-based organisation releasing American documents about a war in the Middle-East; what have we got to do with it?

What the Iraqi's will do to those aiding the occupiers of their country is their business, not ours. If the Yanks don't like it, they can go home whenever they choose.
 

richie268

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Messages
2,143
This is totally irresponsible.
The U.S. operates a huge network of informers and spies inside the Taliban and Al-Qaeda groupings in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan.
These networks are vital if the U.S. hope to foil plots, gather intelligence on the activities of terrorists and capture or kill leaders.
Leaking information like this reveals the methods used to gather intelligence to the enemy, helps terrorists to learn how to avoid detection, undermines clandestine operations and puts the lives of sources at risk.
Do the owners of Wikileaks have a clue?
Do they want to hamper the war on terror, give a victory to our enemies and make it harder than ever to defeat terrorists?
Can anybody in the huge network of informers you speak of control aircrafts or have the ability to teach others to do so?
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,888
The most interesting one so far is

The logs also illustrate the readiness of US forces to unleash lethal force. In one chilling incident they detail how an Apache helicopter gunship gunned down two men in February 2007.

The suspected insurgents had been trying to surrender but a lawyer back at base told the pilots: "You cannot surrender to an aircraft." The Apache, callsign Crazyhorse 18, was the same unit and helicopter based at Camp Taji outside Baghdad that later that year, in July, mistakenly killed two Reuters employees and wounded two children in the streets of Baghdad.
So trying to give up and then executed because a lawyer says they weren't allowed to surrender. It's something you'd see on the Onion.
 

Chuck de Mawl

Active member
Joined
Aug 13, 2008
Messages
267
This is a story about a Swedish-based organisation releasing American documents about a war in the Middle-East; what have we got to do with it?

What the Iraqi's will do to those aiding the occupiers of their country is their business, not ours. If the Yanks don't like it, they can go home whenever they choose.
When was the last time you saw Shannon airport?
about 700 troops per day en route to Iraq or Afghanistan or transiting home from there, plus cargo flights.
If you think that's not assistance (and the High Court thinks it is ) then imagine allowing Iranian troops or Iraqi rebels to refuel heading west.

Shannon Watch: Home
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
Yepl, for an illegal war for nothing, after weapons that never existed. Too bad wikileaks weren't about in the 1930s, maybe we could have avoided world war 2, dropping gold and avoiding the affliction of having to learn Keynesian economics....
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
When was the last time you saw Shannon airport?
about 700 troops per day en route to Iraq or Afghanistan or transiting home from there, plus cargo flights.
If you think that's not assistance (and the High Court thinks it is ) then imagine allowing Iranian troops or Iraqi rebels to refuel heading west.

Shannon Watch: Home
+1

We should have the least the dignity of being a neutral country despite being a dictatorship, but alas at Shannon we aided and abetted this murder.

Sickening.
 
J

john moriarty

Have a shufti here. (This article is from
a techie site).

"Young doesn't appear to need Assange's
theatrical garb - such as never staying in
the same location for two nights, requiring
cryptography, and changing his number
and email constantly. Young's name and
address are prominent on his website,
and haven't changed for 15 years.


And here's the referenced link within. If the
author is correct, Assange is merely playing
to the right-on among us.
 

Right is right

Active member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
262
+1

We should have the least the dignity of being a neutral country despite being a dictatorship, but alas at Shannon we aided and abetted this murder.

Sickening.
Yeah sure just leave Saddam execute thousands of his own citizens and that is fine alright...I'd say if you had been around in the 40's you'd have wanted the Americans to let the Germans keep killing as well..
 
J

john moriarty

Why doesn't Shannon airport ban u.s. troops? Isn't Ireland supporting state terrorism by allowing u.s. troops to use there airports to go to Iraq?
Why should a regional airport hobbled
by looney state policy refuse transit to
customers?
 

Dorris

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2010
Messages
658
The tautist I've heard so far is the pilot(s) asking what to do with surrendering Taliban and the answer was to shoot them, which was duly done. When you support that kind of regime, it eventually appears at home, as the "brave" combatants, relive the nightmares they visited on a foreign land, onto their own people, who just don't understand hat went on. Tom Cruise made one good movie, guess which one.

I've seen the helicopter, in the cradle of civilisation(Baghdad), shooting up the insurgents from miles away, very brave soldiering, they were journalists and then a person was trying to rescue them after they were shot by high calibre gunship weaponry, then they shot the rescuer and his child(ren?). Attrocity's are carried out by those who believe they will get away with it. If Wikileaks closes them down, then human rights have been served. Our so called leaders, will always be our enemies.
 

Cassandra Syndrome

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
16,885
Yeah sure just leave Saddam execute thousands of his own citizens and that is fine alright...I'd say if you had been around in the 40's you'd have wanted the Americans to let the Germans keep killing as well..
No, I wouldn't. I am anti-war. While you are on your populist mind numbing soapbox, here some more Orwellian double-speak for you, in the form of an inconvenient video clip, to beat your neo liberal chest with.

Get back to me when you see this and also, now you mention it, when you have ascertained how Hitler was elected democratically to power with 32% of the vote in 1932 after only receiving 4% of the vote in 1928.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaP7ZrmkcuU]YouTube - Donald Rumsfeld meets Saddam Hussein 1983 (full)[/ame]
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top