CBS News wrote:Hundreds of Afghan civilians who worked as informants for the U.S. military have been put at risk by WikiLeaks' publication of more than 90,000 classified intelligence reports which name and in many cases locate the individuals, The Times newspaper reported Wednesday.
The article says, in spite of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange's claim that sensitive information had been removed from the leaked documents, that reporters scanning the reports for just a couple hours found hundreds of Afghan names mentioned as aiding the U.S.-led war effort.
One specific example cited by the paper is a report on an interview conducted by military officers of a potential Taliban defector. The militant is named, along with his father and the village in which they live.
The Taliban themselves have issued statements that they would go after listed informants.
I'm aware that the Pentagon has both denounced Assange/Wikileaks, while simultaneously publicly downplaying any damage done by the leaks. Similarly, just in the last few days, Hilary has stated that the leaked State Department cables would not damage US diplomacy, even though that's very hard to imagine given what was leaked. It seems that one of the government's tactics for minimizing damage is to publically deny that damage has been done at all.
EDIT: link
"They're not triangular, but they are more or less blade-shaped"- Thrawn McEwok on the shape of Bakura destroyers
"Lovely. It's known as impugning character regarding statement of professional qualifications' in the legal world"- Karen Traviss, crying libel because I said that no soldier she interviewed would claim that he can take on billion-to-one odds
"I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands"- Dark Moose on supporting your claims
[quote=""Officials may be overstating the danger from WikiLeaks"]
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.
"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11. But "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."[/quote]
AFP wrote:
Lawmakers expressed outrage in July when WikiLeaks released a batch of some 90,000 logs about the Afghanistan war, charging the site had exposed US troops' Afghan informants to potentially deadly retaliation by releasing their names.
US officials have yet to document any fatalities linked to the disclosures.
Keevan_Colton wrote:From what I can tell the accusation isn't that the sex was non-consensual, but has to do with the use or lack of a condom.
Supposedly, Assange's side of the story is that it was consensual sex without "protection", so I'm presuming bareback rather than broken condom.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
Keevan_Colton wrote:From what I can tell the accusation isn't that the sex was non-consensual, but has to do with the use or lack of a condom.
Supposedly, Assange's side of the story is that it was consensual sex without "protection", so I'm presuming bareback rather than broken condom.
How does that happen? Did she keep her eyes closed and not watch? It's not like you can put one on in the blink of an eye.
This is almost comical, except that this is the anniversary of the assassination of Fred Hampton. One should always keep in mind that outright murder is always on the table for the government when other methods to "neutralize" a troublemaker should fail.
Keevan_Colton wrote:From what I can tell the accusation isn't that the sex was non-consensual, but has to do with the use or lack of a condom.
Supposedly, Assange's side of the story is that it was consensual sex without "protection", so I'm presuming bareback rather than broken condom.
How does that happen? Did she keep her eyes closed and not watch? It's not like you can put one on in the blink of an eye.
This is almost comical, except that this is the anniversary of the assassination of Fred Hampton. One should always keep in mind that outright murder is always on the table for the government when other methods to "neutralize" a troublemaker should fail.
It's possible it slipped off in the middle of fucking considering how slippery it can get down there. Of course it's a bit of a stretch to classify that as rape.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory.Leonard Nimoy.
Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.
If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy
D.Turtle wrote:[quote=""Officials may be overstating the danger from WikiLeaks"]
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell has said previously that there was no evidence that anyone had been killed because of the leaks. Sunday, another Pentagon official told McClatchy that the military still has no evidence that the leaks have led to any deaths. The official didn't want to be named because of the issue's sensitivity.
"We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents," Morrell told the Washington Post on Aug 11. But "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."
AFP wrote:
Lawmakers expressed outrage in July when WikiLeaks released a batch of some 90,000 logs about the Afghanistan war, charging the site had exposed US troops' Afghan informants to potentially deadly retaliation by releasing their names.
US officials have yet to document any fatalities linked to the disclosures.
In short, lots of screeching, nothing happened.[/quote]
How does that happen? The article you linked to does in fact state that informants have been outed. Is the Taliban just incompetent? That doesn't change the fact that they exposed people's names.
"They're not triangular, but they are more or less blade-shaped"- Thrawn McEwok on the shape of Bakura destroyers
"Lovely. It's known as impugning character regarding statement of professional qualifications' in the legal world"- Karen Traviss, crying libel because I said that no soldier she interviewed would claim that he can take on billion-to-one odds
"I've already laid out rules for this thread that we're not going to make these evidential demands"- Dark Moose on supporting your claims
Broomstick wrote:Or that they just didn't use a condom...?
Which brings us back to the point that it's kind of hard not to notice.
Or they did a very mild form of S&M with the woman being blindfolded or something to that effect. Not exactly a rare thing to do, I might add.
Which would still be pretty hard to spin as rape, because she'd have to agree to the blindfold. Frankly I'm having a hard time seeing how simply not using a condom can be considered rape at all. It's incredibly irresponsible but if neither party has the forethought to use one I'm just not seeing it.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
The argument goes that consent was given only for sex with condoms, the latter being a conditio sine qua non. Such, not using a condom invalidates said consent.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Thanas wrote:The argument goes that consent was given only for sex with condoms, the latter being a conditio sine qua non. Such, not using a condom invalidates said consent.
Which kind of brings us back to "how did she not notice?"
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Well, she could have struggled after noticing it, but once a man has achieved penetration it is very unlikely the women is in any position to resist effectively.
But the facts are very murky, I just wanted to point out that it can be regarded as rape.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Thanas wrote:The argument goes that consent was given only for sex with condoms, the latter being a conditio sine qua non. Such, not using a condom invalidates said consent.
Which kind of brings us back to "how did she not notice?"
Like I suggested, they had a an agreement that condom should be used and then he put a blindfold on her to make the fantasy stronger. After which he thought that it would be even better (for him) if he didn't put the condom on without asking her first.
Yes, that would constitute a rape or at least a form of sexual abuse. In many countries it would be difficult to get a conviction under these conditions, but I hear Sweden is different.
Maybe you guys should get a job at one of the 24h news channels, considering how easily you invent a huge amount of crap without actually having any details.
This is pre-WWII. You can sort of tell from the sketch style, from thee way it refers to Japan (Japan in the 1950s was still rebuilding from WWII), the spelling of Tokyo, lots of details. Nothing obvious... except that the upper right hand corner of the page reads "November 1931." --- Simon_Jester
Marcus Aurelius wrote:
Like I suggested, they had a an agreement that condom should be used and then he put a blindfold on her to make the fantasy stronger. After which he thought that it would be even better (for him) if he didn't put the condom on without asking her first.
That's a very big "if" without something more substantial to go on.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
How does that happen? The article you linked to does in fact state that informants have been outed. Is the Taliban just incompetent? That doesn't change the fact that they exposed people's names.
That depends just what sort of 'names' were leaked. If a log says 'Mohamed in Village X told us Y', then... well, that's not really a great help. There are probably lots of people called Mohamed. So, even though the guy's name was leaked, it's still basically useless information unless the Taliban are going to go around exterminating everybody called Mohamed. Not using an informant's full name seems like an obvious precaution to take in these sort of documents, just in case they happen to be leaked.
How does that happen? The article you linked to does in fact state that informants have been outed. Is the Taliban just incompetent? That doesn't change the fact that they exposed people's names.
That depends just what sort of 'names' were leaked. If a log says 'Mohamed in Village X told us Y', then... well, that's not really a great help. There are probably lots of people called Mohamed. So, even though the guy's name was leaked, it's still basically useless information unless the Taliban are going to go around exterminating everybody called Mohamed. Not using an informant's full name seems like an obvious precaution to take in these sort of documents, just in case they happen to be leaked.
I have no idea if that is the case, though.
Some of the documents included addresses and GPS coordinates.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
