So it's been over a week now that the wikileaks documents came out

[no limit]

When they first came out the argument was that these documents put american troops in danger. The problem was the people making this argument couldn't actually provide any examples of anything in these documents that would hurt our troops. The excuse ofcourse was that it wasn't enough time to point out any examples.

So 24 hours passed, no examples.
48 hours...still no examples.
72 hours...still nada.

Well it's been over a week now. Still nothing as far as I know. So for anyone that thought these documents would hurt our troops do you have any examples or have you changed your mind on the matter? Because I think a week is more than enough to go through these documents and be able to easily point out specific examples of these documents hurting our troops or our national security. The pentagon must have had hundreds if not thousands of people working on finding such examples. Yet they found nothing.

And more importantly will our media ask any of the policy makers that used this "it hurts our troops" argument why they can't point to any specific examples?

[msongs]

1. neocon militarists who are killing100K+ think wikileaks is immoral lol nt

[zipplewrath]

2. "we" may never know

The biggest risk of most of these documents is that the information was occasionally obtained from Afghans and it could expose their cooperation. Even if not mentioned by name, a knowledgeable person inside the Taliban may be able to figure out the source. We may not be able to see this, because the information seems generic. And the Taliban may not use a "reasonable doubt" criteria and just decide instead to kill a whole family, or all 20 something men in a village.

[arbusto_baboso]

3. Doesn't funding Pakistan (thereby aiding the Taliban indirectly) also endanger American troops?

Why has no one asked THAT question?

[BootinUp]

4. did you see this one?

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/taliban+hunt+wikileaks+outed+afghan+informers/3727667

In one leaked intelligence report, a named villager reports the location of a forthcoming meeting where 300-400 Taliban are due to assemble. Details of his tribe and his village are provided as is his designation: "Informant".


In another example, a pro-government Mullah and his son – who are named – are reported to have disclosed the location of a roadside bomb, intended to target coalition forces. Now the Mullah and his son can themselves be targeted.


Ironically, the coalition reconstruction teams – who work in villages to improve infrastructure and security for local people – are the source of the reports naming Afghan village elders who assist them.


A report in 2004 said:
While patrolling near the village of ###########, US special forces spoke with ###### ##### of the ###### tribe. ###### stated that one of the locals was working in the vicinity of a mountain region called ###### ### #### located (Grids). While in the ###### ### #### mountain range he saw rockets getting launched on ## ### 04. ###### also stated that rockets had been fired from the village of ##### ### in the vicinity of (grid). Which is the same area that the Mujahideen had used against the Russians.

While speaking to ###### ####, ### security found a freshly dug area on the outskirts of the compound. ### began to dig and found 20 cases of ### ammunition. The compound belonged to ########## whose father is in #### ####. This individual had no explanation why the ammunition was recently buried, but was honest about the weapons that he had. ########## assumed his father had buried it without telling him. US special forces then secured ##########.

Once secured, other locals began to bring US special forces ammunition they had buried or stored within their compounds. ####### had 30 cases of ### ammunition and ####### had 14 cases of ### ammunition. All families had the same answer for having the ammunition. They stated it was left over from the Mujahideen time and they had buried it about two years earlier to hide it from the Taliban. They made no attempt to hide their weapons and offered them to US special forces without incident.

[no limit]

5. If true that should have not been released. But why would these people give their names?

One thing to give information when talking to US troops passing by but why in the world would they give their name and the name of their fathers? That doesn't add up for me.

[librechik]

7. Indee, Afghan citizens are in too much danger--how did these examples hurt our troops?

(as in the OP) I perceive not at all.

[lawwolf]

10. how about this?

It (may) hurt our troops because when these afghan citizens get publicly executed for helping others refuse to help. Then we don't get warnings about road side bombs and troops die when they might have previously been warned about them and not die. I clearly admit this is a lot of maybe and might and if, but that is all you are ever going to get when dealing with something like this.

[librechik]

17. speculation is not evidence--as you point out.

and I realize there is danger there--but they are already in mortal danger. Bring them home, if safety of our troops is paramount.

[lawwolf]

22. I think the question is

are they in more danger after this release than before. Nobody is questioning that they were already in danger, just if this leak makes it worse. If someone is driving 150 mph down the highway they are in danger, that doesn't make it ok to throw something in the road in front of them. Just because these soldiers are already in danger doesn't make it ok to put them in more danger.

Again, I want to make it clear that I don't know if this has put them in more danger or not. I don't think there is really going to be any way to know for sure because how do you find out after an explosion that someone could have warned them but didn't because of this. I also don't think one week is really a way to judge something like this. If there are things in here beyond just the scaring people into not helping, it is going to take time for the enemy to read it, decide on a way to exploit it, prepare for it,train for it, and then actually do it (whatever it might be.)

[Tailormyst]

6. I think the big issue in not something happening to Americans because of it

But instead that some Afghanis and Pakistanis might find themselves in trouble for helping. I personally don't think it hurts us as much as it shines an embarrassing light on our military and foreign policies.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

8. It's the other way around.

They've been able to show why releasing the documents is a threat to security, but none of the pro-leaker faction has been able to show why it's in the public's best interest to release them.

[no limit]

9. So nothing in these documents should have been made known to the american people?

I'm sure when the new york times leaked that the Bush admin was doing warrentless wiretapping you were outraged at the new york times. Amirtie?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. warrantless wiretaping is a serious issue.

what's in the "wikileaks" that's so important?

I mean, a few weeks ago they were all excited about potential war crimes. But that sort of fell through, didn't it?

Like that whole helicopter gun camera footage. A lot of fuss, but it turned out they were following rules of engagement the whole time.

[BootinUp]

13. I wouldn't be surprised if there are conflicts

between these raw data records and the official story on certain incidents. The official story may be more accurate (review of all data on an incident) but try explaining that to people who do not trust official stories.

[no limit]

19. So the officials are always honest. Right?

[no limit]

18. Wow. So shooting up an ambulance with no provacation was following rules of engagement? really?

And before you jump on the "ambulance" word look up what the word ambulance means.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. With no provocation? No.

In the case of the video? Sure.

Hell, if anything, the transcripts proved they were following the rules the whole time.

[no limit]

21. What? Yes, it was without provocation. The ambulance came up long after the shooting stopped

and it came to help the wounded. Without any kinds of checks they shot this ambulance up badly hurting 2 children and killing their father while they laughed.

You say this was following the rules at all times. I call bullshit. But lets pretend they were following the rules. If the rules of engagement allow us to shoot at unarmed ambulances without provacation do you not think Americans should be made aware of that fact? Or should those facts be hidden?

[KittyWampus]

11. It was about compromising people helping Americans. Was outing Valerie Plame bad?

Hypocrites.

The same DU'ers who were universally beside themselves condemning the outing of Valerie Plame and the danger it caused to her sources are perfectly happy to pretend the same probably might be true here.

[JoePhilly]

16. +100000

The jerk offs can't even imagine that the leak might put current American soldiers at greater risk ... and yet they demand that you prove some one got killed as a result.

They might as well argue that drunk driving should only be a crime if you kill some one while doing it.

And let's be honest ... even if you could provide evidence, they'd claim the government was lying about it ... probably doing so from the safety of mom's basement.

[upi402]

14. Haliburton, Xe, killed more troops in the shower

I think Assange needs to be careful even if in Australia. Hope he doesn't fly in small planes... and I wouldn't get on a commercial flight he was on, myself. Pope mobile transport for Assange I hope.

[Green_Lantern]

15. if the US was so worried about Afghanis being killed for helping us

Why would we be putting such a big Western face on Afghan govt. and military.

The Taliban doesn't need Wikileaks to give them names of collaborators when they can just kill govt. representatives.