Qui veut trinquer avec Wikileaks ? 1/? Pour ceux qui aiment ouvrir le robinet de l’information, il est question aujourd’hui du site Wikileaks.org, spécialisé dans la diffusion d’informations confidentielles et qui n’est pas trop du genre à se mouiller pour évoquer ses sources. Ses révélations, elles, en revanche sont connues et couvrent un large éventail de sujets allant de la liste des très britanniques et très nationalistes membres du British National Party en passant par les rituels d’une confrérie universitaire.
Wikileaks s’est illustré plus tôt cette année en partageant une vidéo de guerre en Irak intitulée dommage collatéral, qui fut relayée y compris sur des chaînes télévisées de pays ne participant pas à ce conflit. Les fuites orchestrées par le site auraient pu nous laisser croire qu’il poussait le bouchon un peu loin, mais la diffusion au mois de juillet de 76 911 documents traitant de la guerre en Afghanistan a repoussé les limites de l’imagination. Qu’a-t-on appris au final ? 1. Ah les mânes! Leaked U.S. archive fuels doubts on Afghan war. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration scrambled on Monday to manage the explosive leak of secret military records that paint a grim picture of the U.S.
-led war in Afghanistan and raise new doubts about key ally Pakistan. The release of some 91,000 classified documents is likely to fuel uncertainty in the U.S. Congress about the unpopular war as President Barack Obama sends 30,000 more soldiers into the battle to break the Taliban insurgency. The documents, made public by the whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks, detail allegations that U.S. forces sought to cover up civilian deaths as well as U.S. concern that Pakistan secretly aided Taliban militants even as it took billions of dollars in U.S. aid. The White House condemned the leak, saying it could threaten national security and endanger American lives. The Pentagon called the release a "criminal act" and said it was reviewing the documents to determine the potential damage to U.S. and coalition troops.
2010 Afghan War documents leak. The leak, which is considered to be one of the largest in U.S. military history,[5][12] revealed information on the deaths of civilians, increased Taliban attacks, and involvement by Pakistan and Iran in the insurgency.[1][13][14] Wikileaks says it does not know the source of the leaked data.[15] The three outlets which had received the documents in advance, The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel, have all concluded that they are genuine when compared to independent reports.[1] Some time after the first dissemination by WikiLeaks, the US Justice Department were considering the use of the U.S.
Espionage Act of 1917 to prevent WikiLeaks from posting the remaining 15,000 secret war documents it claimed to possess.[16][17][18] Background[edit] Wikileaks describes itself as "a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public Issues raised[edit] Pakistan[edit] Iran[edit] Three digital myths. The release of the Afghan War Diaries on Wikileaks, with stories published in The Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel by agreement with Wikileaks, has made news around the world. Le Monde Diplomatique, in conjunction with Owni and Slate.fr, have also made the documents available online via a dedicated website.
The security implications of the leaked material will be discussed for years to come. Meanwhile the release of over 90,000 documents has generated debate on the rising power of digital journalism and social media. Many of the discussions are rooted in what I call internet or digital myths — myths which are rooted in romantic, deterministic notions of technology.
Myth 1: The power of social media Media experts and commentators are commonly asked what the Wikileaks case tells us about the power of social media in contemporary society, particularly in the coverage of war. Myth 2: The nation-state is dying Myth 3: Journalism is dead (or almost) Some Pakistanese reactions. Raza Rumi The Wikileaks’ damning half-truths pertain to the anti-war movement within the US. This has caused embarrassment to the US war architects and stirred the military industrial complex and its cousin, the corporate and embedded media. Similarly, what has been said about the role of Pakistan and its globally famed Inter Services Agency (ISI) is not something that is really a revelation and is more or less an open secret. Three important questions need to be considered before Wikileaks can be taken seriously.
Do field reports from individual sources, especially disgruntled, anti-Pakistan Afghan nationals constitute ‘evidence’? No. The ‘leaks’ identify that Pakistan, India and Iran are fully involved in the Afghan drama and singling out the ISI is not the whole truth regardless of whatever the western media says. However, this does not mean that conspiracy theorists in Pakistan are right. It would be unwise to dismiss these leaks.
Leaking the war in Afghanistan. Here are five initial comments on Wikileak's latest coup — the leak of some 90,000 US military files on the war in Afghanistan: Going on the initial analysis of the information by the three newspapers given the material by Wikileaks (The Guardian, The New York Times, Der Spiegel), much of it seems pretty unremarkable. Mostly, the files seem to confirm what we already knew, or strongly suspected: the success of the Taliban improvised explosive device strategy, the fact that the coalition was killing lots of civilians by an over-reliance on airpower, the growing use of unmanned aerial vehicles, corruption in the Afghan government, Pakistan’s double-dealing in Afghanistan etc — all of this and more has been variously reported in the past.A notable exception is the information on man portable missile (MANPADS) attacks on coalition aircraft.
This is evocative because it was the Afghan Mujahideen's use of such weapons in the 1980s that helped cripple the Soviet war effort in Afghanistan. WikiLeaks: Afghan war logs will get people killed. Make no mistake — people in Afghanistan will die because WikiLeaks has chosen to publish classified military documents this week. Let me explain why. WikiLeaks spokesman Julian Assange was asked in a press conference yesterday whether he thought his actions would compromise soldiers on the ground. His reply? 'There’s no tactically significant information in this material. We have looked at it'. Wrong. There is plenty of tactical information in these documents that will have the Taliban rubbing their hands together with glee.
Intelligence sources in Afghanistan will need to tread carefully too. Speaking yesterday at London's Frontline Club, Julian Assange proudly declared 'this will give us an intellectual understanding of the war'. I'm not a medical professional, so I wouldn't trust myself to pick up a medical chart and deliver a prognosis to a seriously ill patient. The WikiLeaks documents aren’t the Pentagon Papers. Photo by Flickr user biatchOr, used under a Creative Commons licence. Are the WikiLeaks War Docs Overhyped Old News? | Danger Room. Longtime Afghanistan watchers are diving into Wikileaks’ huge trove of unearthed U.S. military reports about the war. And they’re surfacing, as we initially did, with pearls of the obvious and long-revealed. Andrew Exum, an Afghanistan veteran and Center for a New American Security fellow, compared the quasi-revelations about (gasp!) Pakistani intelligence sponsorship of Afghan insurgents and (shock-horror!) Special Operations manhunts to news that the Yankees may have lost the 2004 American League pennant.
It’s a fair point, but it conceals what’s really valuable about the leaked logs: they’re a real-time account of how the U.S. let Afghanistan rot. For one thing — and this supports Exum’s argument — many, if not most, of these documents are frontline reports. It’s a helpful caveat. Adds a former intelligence contractor who used to produce intelligence summaries, “There will be a lot of interesting tidbits but nothing earthshaking.” See Also: That's the Way I Leak It - Tom Blanton | July 27, 2010 - Kevin Kline | ColbertNation.com. Re: <nettime> Nick Davies: The story behind the Wikileaks Afghanistan Wa. What the Russian papers say | What Russian papers say. Delovoi Vtornik Russia does not fully approve of NATO policy in Afghanistan Russia is interested in the success of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, but does not fully approve of their actions, Vladimir Nazarov, deputy head of the Russian Security Council, said in the wake of a visit to Washington.
During his visit, Nazarov held a series of meetings with Department of State and National Security Council officials, including U.S. special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke. Nazarov said Afghanistan was an important area of U.S. -Russian cooperation, adding that the U.S. Yet, we do not approve of "everything they are doing in Afghanistan," he went on, referring to the United States and its allies. Drug trafficking from Afghanistan is raising concern in Russia; but the coalition forces are not focusing on it as much as they should, he said. This approach would have reduced civilian casualties, which are unacceptably high now. Vedomosti RBC Daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta Vzglyad. Killing the Wrong People in Afghanistan.
Pratap Chatterjee is a freelance journalist, TomDispatch regular, and senior editor at CorpWatch who has worked extensively in the Middle East and Central Asia, including nine trips to Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq. He has written two books about the war on terror: Iraq, Inc. (Seven Stories Press, 2004) and Halliburton's Army (Nation Books, 2009). This article originally appeared on TomDispatch. "Find, fix, finish, and follow-up" is the way the Pentagon describes the mission of secret military teams in Afghanistan which have been given a mandate to pursue alleged members of the Taliban or al-Qaeda wherever they may be found.
Whatever terminology you choose, the details of dozens of their specific operations -- and how they regularly went badly wrong -- have been revealed for the first time in the mass of secret U.S. military and intelligence documents published by the website Wikileaks in July to a storm of news coverage and official protest. It had been no less awkward for Phillips.