Topic: Soldier charged w/leak after Wikileaks publishes 90K AFG files

[Jim Seggie]

There's quite a bunfight going on on cbc.ca under the article 'Military Rejects Wiki leaks' and to a lesser extent, 'Hillier Slams Wiki report'.

I am curious, and I know everyone likes their PerSec, but is anyone on this forum also one of the sane fellows saying their was no cover-up?

I haven't seen the CBC site, but as the dad of a fallen, and a member, the CF was upfront with us all the way.

As for the "soldier" who leaked these documents, I can only hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, along with the people who run that organization that publicized the documents.

These people are nothing more than fifth columnists who seek to make money off the misfortune of others. I can only imagine how those parents feel right now.

 

[0tto Destruct]

The hardest thing to try and convince civilians that just because its on paper this stuff isn't gospel...its what some overworked staff guy transcribed listening to a radio, who may not necessairly be a native english speaker (welcome to NATO).

Ask any civvy to listen to a hockey game on the radio and write down everything that they hear. How accurate is that going to be? Now imagine that the announcer is the team captain, trying to play the game, coordinate his players, and describe what they're seeing/doing.

Oh, yeah...they're also being shot at...in complex terrain...spread out over a wide area...sometimes with other teams in the field, who are trying to do the same bloody thing.

Confusing? Damn right. Its takes a hell of a lot of effort to sift through the raw reports, and try to piece the facts together. This is as a staff weenie. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be to be be the guy who was actually there, and seeing reports coming out that describe the worst day of your life to that point that don't get the facts right.

[Nauticus]

I haven't seen the CBC site, but as the dad of a fallen, and a member, the CF was upfront with us all the way.

As for the "soldier" who leaked these documents, I can only hope he is prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, along with the people who run that organization that publicized the documents.

These people are nothing more than fifth columnists who seek to make money off the misfortune of others. I can only imagine how those parents feel right now.

 

I appreciate the sacrifice your son (or daugher) and your family made, and there is no such thing as giving more to our country.

With that said, and I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the documents leaked were not written by those who posted it. Yes, much of it is classified, and that is illegal, and will be taken care of as required,

With that said, now that they ARE leaked, who should be at fault for what is written, in this specific case? The person who leaked it? Or the person or organization to wrote it?

[Jim Seggie]

Nauticus:

Thank you for your kind words.

The "soldier" who leaked it has to be prosecuted. He was entrusted with it and he chose to give it to Wikileaks. He violated a trust.

Second, as far as I'm concerned Wikileaks should prosecuted, knowingly publishing classified material.

[Nauticus]

Nauticus:

Thank you for your kind words.

The "soldier" who leaked it has to be prosecuted. He was entrusted with it and he chose to give it to Wikileaks. He violated a trust.

Second, as far as I'm concerned Wikileaks should prosecuted, knowingly publishing classified material.

And I agree on both points.

On that, though, I am wondering why the report that suggests our soldiers were the result of friendly fire is obviously wrong. There could be a look into the accuracy of some of these reports.

[ArmyRick]

This is one ugly mess.  suggest to people (40 below?) not speculate or make comments unless they know for sure or were there to witness it.

[Michael O'Leary]

With that said, now that they ARE leaked, who should be at fault for what is written, in this specific case? The person who leaked it? Or the person or organization to wrote it?

On that, though, I am wondering why the report that suggests our soldiers were the result of friendly fire is obviously wrong. There could be a look into the accuracy of some of these reports.

It's a question of context for each and every document.

The document suggesting it was friendly fire could have been written from a very specific viewpoint with information available to the writer at that time.  If it was subsequently proven wrong, it is still part of the evolving collection of documents on the incident which leads to the official report that gets issued after all the facts are considered.  Just because an earlier report turns out to be wrong doesn't mean you root out every copy and delete it, it's still part of the process, and how it happened to be created is also worth sturdy to minimize confusion in early reporting of future incidents.

With the dumping of thousands of documents that were never meant to be public, for many reasons including that some may have been from early stages of analysis and investigation and did turn out have wrong conclusions, leading to the uninformed accepting of isolated reports as fact simply because they exist (including dis-proven reports now seen outside of the context of their full evolution), it is the unplanned release of a document that was superseded that is the greater wrong.

[Nauticus]

It's a question of context for each and every document.

The document suggesting it was friendly fire could have been written from a very specific viewpoint with information available to the writer at that time.  If it was subsequently proven wrong, it is still part of the evolving collection of documents on the incident which leads to the official report that gets issued after all the facts are considered.  Just because an earlier report turns out to be wrong doesn't mean you root out every copy and delete it, it's still part of the process, and how it happened to be created is also worth sturdy to minimize confusion in early reporting of future incidents.

With the dumping of thousands of documents that were never meant to be public, for many reasons including that some may have been from early stages of analysis and investigation and did turn out have wrong conclusions, leading to the uninformed accepting of isolated reports as fact simply because they exist (including dis-proven reports now seen outside of the context of their full evolution), it is the unplanned release of a document that was superseded that is the greater wrong.

That's fair.

Obviously I'm referring to this specific document, since this thread is about this one document and not the entire leak (there's another thread for that), but yes. Your explanation is fair.

I just hope there's some criminal action taken as a result of all these getting leaked. Treason wouldn't be a bad charge, especially since this isn't the first time the accused has done it, but I doubt such a charge will be laid. I'd love to be proven wrong

[ArmyRick]

On a different note but same topic, I read the comments made by people on CBC.ca. Man is there ever alot of conspiracy theorist. Even when people who were there made comments, they were being ignored or discredited.

My beleif is this, there are lots of people with "agendas of their own" that are exploiting this unfortunate incident to spread their own message. that is absolutely unacceptable in my view.

Lets not forget that it was four brothers that have fallen, and many were there when it happened.

No conspiracy, no cover up. There never was.

[Retired AF Guy]

I wonder how long Julian Assange is going to be allowed to remain a free man?  What he has gone and done now, is cross a very fine line.  I am sure his Wikileaks will soon be closed down, and his finding himself jailed.

My understanding is that his server is located in Sweden which has very strong laws that protect whistleblowers from revealing their sources. Plus, the fact that the reports were published in three different newspapers, in three different countries, and nothing has been done to shutdown the three sites would suggest that nothing is going to happen. However, if I was Mr. Assange, I would be very careful when making any travel plans in the future.

[E.R. Campbell]

On a different note but same topic, I read the comments made by people on CBC.ca. Man is there ever alot of conspiracy theorist. Even when people who were there made comments, they were being ignored or discredited.

My beleif is this, there are lots of people with "agendas of their own" that are exploiting this unfortunate incident to spread their own message. that is absolutely unacceptable in my view.

Lets not forget that it was four brothers that have fallen, and many were there when it happened.

No conspiracy, no cover up. There never was.

So many people have a real need to find some way to validate their ingrained anti-American and, consequentially, anti-war (any war in which the US is involved?) feelings. This erroneous report provides them with a 'hook' upon which they can hang those feelings.

Despite all the red T-shirts and bumper stickers, the "support" for the troops is very, very shallow - wide, perhaps, but not deep. Our four friends, comrades-in-arms, members of our regimental families, etc are lost and forgotten n the firestorm of righteous indignation that has been ignited by an act of journalistic vandalism. The same applies to the nearly 150 others - they have become inconvenient truths in an ideological debate.

[sprl]

Perhaps the source of the story mixed up Tarnak Farms with the 2006 incident?  Wouldn't be the first time a civilian got military-related facts just plain wrong.

[Jammer]

No.
Look up the incident. Tarnak farms happened in 2002.

[milnews.ca]

It's a question of context for each and every document.

Zackly!  Best summary I've seen today about this issue is here via The Atlantic:

.... It's like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle. You maybe have 200 pieces of the puzzle. The first thing you don't know is, is this a 500-piece or 1,000-piece puzzle? And then with the 200 pieces you have, maybe half of them don't belong to this puzzle at all. They're in the wrong box. And then every hour or so, someone comes along and dumps 10 more pieces on your desk -- and nine of them aren't even part of it ....

[sprl]

No.
Look up the incident. Tarnak farms happened in 2002.

I know.  I meant mixing up the 4 friendly fire deaths in 2002 with the 4 in Panjwaii 2006.  Same number; mixed up dates, mixed up reasons.  Why attribute to malice something that could be explained by stupidity?  (Understanding that stupid malice is always a possibility.)

[milnews.ca]

.... via Juliet O'Neill of Postmedia News, shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act. - highlights mine:

A WikiLeaks document categorizing the deaths of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan on Sept. 3, 2006 as a "friendly fire" incident has been discounted by witnesses and the public record, supporting the Defence Department's finding Tuesday that the leaked military document is "obviously incorrect."

Survivors of the battle say there was friendly fire in the form of a one-tonne bomb dropped by coalition aircraft through Canadian lines during Charles Company's intense firefight that day at the epicentre of the Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan.

But it has previously been documented the bomb did not explode, and the Canadians were killed by grenades, rifle fire and rockets from Taliban insurgents who surrounded them on three sides, hiding in trenches and fortified buildings.

Military blogs and Twitter postings Tuesday contained first-hand statements from some of the 50 or so Canadians who were at the scene, asserting the American operations report released by the website WikiLeaks wrongly categorizes the casualties as "friendly fire, blue-blue."

"I was there and our boys were not killed by friendly fire," Corp. Jody Mitic wrote on Twitter. "Ask anyone from Charlie Company. Friendly fire my *** . . ." (link to Mitic Twitter post)

Mitic was a sniper who lost both legs when he stepped on a land mine during another mission in Afghanistan in January, 2007; he has since made a name for himself as an athlete.

Lt. Col. Norbert Cyr, a Department of National Defence official, told Postmedia News the document drafted by a U.S. unit and released by WikiLeaks appears to be an authentic military situation report of the events in "real time" with an erroneous heading of friendly fire.

"It is a mistake," he said, adding the department is looking into whether it was later corrected.

The Defence Department delayed characterizing the report when it first came out because officials wanted to try to get to the bottom of it. They are still waiting for answers to queries about the source of the report, listed as 205th Regional Corps Assist Group.

The 205th is the Afghanistan military unit that American, Canadian and other coalition forces train and mentor.

The date, time, operations, and casualties listed in the report match up to the fight in which the four Canadians were killed.

One soldier who was at the scene wrote on a military blog about how he was almost killed during the Taliban ambush and treated Shane Stachnik — an engineer sargeant who died — and others in a vehicle that had been hit by Taliban fire. The bomb was a dud, causing the commander to redeploy his troops, he wrote.

A 2007 account of the battle in Legion Magazine by Adam Day tells how "there was little left to do but retreat" after the errant bomb landed in front of the Canadians during hours of fighting in which "the radios were full of screaming voices, some calling for medics, some just looking for help."

Capt. Derek Wessan radioed in after the bomb landed, the Legion account says. "We've gotta get the f—k out of here. And then we've gotta blow this place up."

Cyr said any suggestion the American report is accurate in its use of the term "friendly fire", and that Canada tried to cover it up, "is ludicrous."

"There were so many witnesses that it never could have been hidden," Cyr said. "And there's no reason to hide it."

I'm guessing the word of people who were there, and a military official saying it was a mistake aren't going to be enough for the nay-sayers, but there it is.

[Dog Walker]

If the media wants to better understand these documents they should first look at how they themselves conduct their business.

When a major news story breaks, the media receives reports from many sources and then rushes to get the information on the air or in print as soon as possible, because they all want to be the first. Those first news stories always contain incomplete information, and errors both in fact and in context, or are just plain wrong. Sometimes the media will tell the public that these are raw reports that have not being confirmed, but not always. Stories are updated and corrected as more verified information becomes available. However, viewers who only saw the first reports and not the updated or corrected reports are left with the wrong impressions.

I suspect that in the military, the early or raw reports are just filed away and forgotten about until some idiot finds them and thinks that he has found evidence of a great conspiracy or cover-up.

[aegishjalmar]

I wonder how long Julian Assange is going to be allowed to remain a free man?  What he has gone and done now, is cross a very fine line.  I am sure his Wikileaks will soon be closed down, and his finding himself jailed.

The publication of the documents is legal because the Wikileaks\Julian Assange did not solicit the documents. Julian Assange never asked anyone to get him the secrets so he could publish them, as they were provided to him anonymously. The person who provided the leaked documents can be charged, but Julian Assange hasn't done anything which he could be charged for.

[milnews.ca]

I suspect that in the military, the early or raw reports are just filed away and forgotten about until some idiot finds them and thinks that he has found evidence of a great conspiracy or cover-up.

Or until they're corrected.  Gotta wonder how many folks have time to look through the 92K reports to find any updates of earlier ones (or whether those updates have been shared by the leaker?).

As for the "first, fragmentary, far-from-full-picture report" nature of these documents, here's something from an embeded blogger/journalist going over what he saw, compared to what the reports showed:

Echo company got into a gunfight last Aug. 25 in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. You'll learn that by reading the report found in WikiLeaks's database of Afghan war documents released on Sunday night. You'll learn that, after a chase, the Marines killed one insurgent. You'll learn that the insurgents supposedly fled and that the troops decided to stay the night in the area in case the militants returned.

What you won't learn is that a Marine sniper team sparked the shoot-out with a surprise assault on the insurgents; that every member of that team was nearly killed in the battle; or that the incident would kick off a three-day siege in which the Taliban nearly surrounded the Echo company squad.

You also won't learn that, in the midst of this battle, British and Afghan troops waged a more gentle counterinsurgency nearby, as they sat cross-legged under shady patches of farmland and talked with village elders. I know this because I was there with Echo company, reporting for Wired magazine.

(....)

Any time a signal gets compressed, information is lost. Think about the difference in sound quality between a live rock show and an MP3. Think about a news report of a political rally, and the feeling of actually being there.

These field reports are no different. The military needs a system that better captures the entirety of the Afghan campaign. The rest of us should be careful about putting too much stock in the WikiLeaks documents.

[Chapeski]

One soldier who was at the scene wrote on a military blog about how he was almost killed during the Taliban ambush and treated Shane Stachnik — an engineer sargeant who died — and others in a vehicle that had been hit by Taliban fire. The bomb was a dud, causing the commander to redeploy his troops, he wrote.

I wonder if the military blog they are reffering to is this one. Another reminder about watching what we say I guess. This thread seems to be a prime example of self control even when we just want to rant. Thank you to those that set the record straight on the subject, and here's to hoping the tin hat brigage has enough sense to listen for once.

[George Wallace]

The publication of the documents is legal because the Wikileaks\Julian Assange did not solicit the documents. Julian Assange never asked anyone to get him the secrets so he could publish them, as they were provided to him anonymously. The person who provided the leaked documents can be charged, but Julian Assange hasn't done anything which he could be charged for.

I don't think you understand the gravity of what he has done, nor the laws that he has broken.  Your conception that someone else passed him "Secret" documents absolves him of any responsibility and charges under the Law, are totally out to lunch.  It doesn't matter who has possession of these documents, if they are not properly protected it is a chargable offence.

Let's try something with your statement, by changing a few words:

The possession and sale of the items is legal because the Wikileaks\Julian Assange did not solicit the items. Julian Assange never asked anyone to get him the items so he could sell them, as they were provided to him anonymously. The person who stole the items can be charged, but Julian Assange hasn't done anything which he could be charged for.

It doesn't pass the litmus test.  Julian Assange was knowingly in possession of stolen items.  He is as guilty as the person who stole them and gave them to him.  That is the Law.

[BulletMagnet]

Chap

The Military Blog is this one, those were my comments and I stand by them as everything I said was already a matter of public record as detailed in the Legion magazine in an interview I was ordered to give by my CoC at the time. I stand by those comments then and now.

Any questions?

[Chapeski]

Absolutely no questions whatsoever. I thought that with how this thread has progressed, this was a great example of how we govern ourselves when there is a media pressence observing our interactions. Again, I thank and commend you for sticking to them as they are the truth. It is unfortunate that this whole issue has had to come up again as I'm sure it is bringing back many memories that some may or may not wish to bring back. What you and the rest of Charlie Company did that day will always have a place in history, and it drives me insane when some tin hatter tries to muddy that.

I will be the first to say I was not there, so I can not relate to how those that were feel. However I'm sure my disgust is well overshodowed by those more in the know.

On a side note,  I saw a report on the news last night that showed the American PFC that smuggled the documents out of the secure areas and released them to Wikileaks. Apparently he was already in military detention as of the time that story hit the air, so there is some good news there. They did not mention what charges he was faces, but I'm hoping they throw several volumes of the book at him.

[aegishjalmar]

I don't think you understand the gravity of what he has done, nor the laws that he has broken.  Your conception that someone else passed him "Secret" documents absolves him of any responsibility and charges under the Law, are totally out to lunch.  It doesn't matter who has possession of these documents, if they are not properly protected it is a chargable offence.

Let's try something with your statement, by changing a few words:

It doesn't pass the litmus test.  Julian Assange was knowingly in possession of stolen items.  He is as guilty as the person who stole them and gave them to him.  That is the Law.

I seemed to have missed the part in all of this where Mr. Assange sold these stories for profit. I didn't realize that Wikileaks was in the business of selling secrets to the highest bidders.

All joking aside, please do enlighten me. Name me the specific laws he has broken and provide me evidence that can stick to a conviction. Mr. Assange and his organization has been publishing leaked documents from other whistleblowers since 2006, so if he were guilty of anything, they would have slammed him by now. I don't even agree with what he has done, but legally, he appears to be almost untouchable. They WILL find the original source of the leak, there is no doubt about that, and that person will be brought to trial. Mr. Assange will remain as free as a bird and will keep doing what he is doing for a very long time.

[ModlrMike]

All joking aside, please do enlighten me. Name me the specific laws he has broken and provide me evidence that can stick to a conviction.

Are you at all familiar with the concept of possession of stolen property?