|
printable version
- js reader version
- view hidden posts
- tags and related articles
by General Joe and friends
Sunday, Aug. 22, 2010 at 11:03 AM
"But yesterday, WikiLeaks the DoD itself released a letter -- dated August 16 (two days before the Newsweek article) -- which makes clear that WikiLeaks did exactly that which DoD officials denied they did: namely, they asked DoD for help redacting these remaining documents. That letter, written by DoD Legal Counsel Jeh Charles Johnson to WikiLeak's counsel, Timothy Matusheski, explicitly recounts -- contrary to the emphatic denials in Newsweek -- that WikiLeaks' lawyer had contacted the Pentagon and requested help in the "harm minimization" process. The DoD, however, is explicitly refusing to offer any help whatsoever."
Why won't the Pentagon help WikiLeaks redact documents?
When the controversy first arose over the lack of redactions in the war documents released by WikiLeaks, the website insisted that, using the New York Times as an intermediary, it had asked the Obama administration for help in removing names of Afghans before releasing the documents, a claim the Pentagon vehemently denied. The New York Times, needless to say, sided with the Government -- that's what the NYT does -- but they did so by simultaneously confirming the truth of WikiLeaks' version of events. From the Associated Press article, July 31, on that controversy:
Also on Saturday, a New York Times reporter who has been the newspaper's liaison with Assange, dismissed Assange's claim that WikiLeaks had offered to let U.S. government officials go through leaked documents to ensure that no innocent people were identified. Assange told the Australian Broadcasting Corp. in an interview that aired Thursday that the New York Times had acted as an intermediary and that the White House hadn't responded to the offer.
Times reporter Eric Schmitt told the AP that on the night of July 23, at White House spokesman's Robert Gibbs' request, he relayed to Assange a White House request that WikiLeaks not publish information that could lead to people being physically harmed.
The next evening, Schmitt said, Assange replied in an e-mail that WikiLeaks was withholding 15,000 documents for review. Schmitt said Assange wrote that WikiLeaks would consider recommendations made by the International Security Assistance Force "on the identification of innocents for this material if it is willing to provide reviewers."
Schmitt said he forwarded the e-mail to White House officials and Times editors.
"I certainly didn't consider this a serious and realistic offer to the White House to vet any of the documents before they were to be posted, and I think it's ridiculous that Assange is portraying it that way now," Schmitt wrote to the AP.
On Friday, White House spokesman Tommy Vietor said it was "absolutely, unequivocally not true" that WikiLeaks had offered to let U.S. government officials go through the documents to make sure no innocent people were identified.
Do you see what happened there? Schmitt, wanting to side with his Pentagon friends, publicly suggested that Assange was lying when he claimed that he offered to allow the Government to suggest redcations, even as Schmitt himself acknowledged that "Assange wrote that WikiLeaks would consider recommendations made by the International Security Assistance Force 'on the identification of innocents for this material if it is willing to provide reviewers'," an offer Schmitt says he conveyed to the White House. In other words, Schmitt defended the Pentagon's denials that Assange made this offer even as he himself described the very events which proved Assange was telling the truth. At the very least, WikiLeaks clearly indicated its willingness to have government officials review the documents and make recommendations about redactions -- something those officials refused to do.
Exactly the same thing is happening now concerning the 15,000 remaining documents which WikiLeaks originally withheld in order to engage in "harm minimization." On Wednesday, Newsweek's Mark Hosenball wrote an article -- entitled "Pentagon Says WikiLeaks Is Fibbing" -- which quotes DoD officials essentially calling Assange a liar (again) because of Assange's "latest claims about alleged attempts he has made to establish some kind of working relationship, or at least cordial contact, with U.S. defense authorities." Hosenball repeatedly quotes these officials insisting that, contrary to Assange's claims, WikiLeaks has made no efforts to communicate with the Pentagon about obtaining help in redacting the rest of the documents in order to protect innocent Afghans.
But yesterday, WikiLeaks the DoD itself released a letter -- dated August 16 (two days before the Newsweek article) -- which makes clear that WikiLeaks did exactly that which DoD officials denied they did: namely, they asked DoD for help redacting these remaining documents. That letter, written by DoD Legal Counsel Jeh Charles Johnson to WikiLeak's counsel, Timothy Matusheski, explicitly recounts -- contrary to the emphatic denials in Newsweek -- that WikiLeaks' lawyer had contacted the Pentagon and requested help in the "harm minimization" process. The DoD, however, is explicitly refusing to offer any help whatsoever:
Why would the DoD refuse to offer this assistance? WikiLeaks -- in response to Pentagon threats -- has already stated emphatically that these documents are going to be released no matter what. No rational person would doubt that they mean this. Wouldn't it be vastly preferable -- from the Government's perspective -- to have those documents released with the names of Afghan sources redacted, rather than force WikiLeaks to guess at what needs to be withheld? The Pentagon routinely conveys to media outlets preparing to release classified documents its views about what specifically ought to be withheld, notwithstanding its objections to the release of all information. Why would they not do the same here?
After the last release, the Pentagon very flamboyantly accused WikiLeaks of endangering the lives of innocent Afghans, even accusing them of having "blood on their hands" (despite the absence of a single claim that anyone was actually harmed from the release of those documents). If Pentagon officials are truly concerned about the well-being of Afghan sources identified in these documents -- rather than exaggerating and exploiting that concern in order to harm WikiLeaks' credibility -- wouldn't they be eager to help WikiLeaks redact these documents? That would be the behavior one would expect if these concerns were at all genuine.
Instead, the Pentagon is doing the opposite: first lying by denying that WikiLeaks ever sought this help, then refusing to provide it in response. In the conflict between the U.S. Government and WikiLeaks, it is true that one of the parties seems steadfastly indifferent to the lives of Afghan civilians. Despite the very valid criticisms that more care should have been exercised before that first set of documents was released, the party most guilty of that indifference is not WikiLeaks.
UPDATE: Just to underscore how misleading the Pentagon has been in denying that WikiLeaks sought its assistance in redacting the documents, DoD Press Secretary Geoff Morrell gave a Press Conference on August 5 which alternatively threatened and pleaded with WikiLeaks. Watch how much Morrell had to parse his statement in order to deny WikiLeak's claims that it sought the Pentagon's help prior to release of the documents:
Recent reports claim WikiLeaks asked the department for help in reviewing these documents before releasing them to the public as part of a "harm minimization exercise," Morrell said. However, "WikiLeaks has made no such request directly to the Department of Defense," he added.
That awkward modifier -- "directly" -- is necessary precisely because WikiLeaks did indeed request redaction help from the Pentagon "indirectly": i.e., through The New York Times as mediator, just as Assange insisted from the beginning and the Pentagon denied. For whatever reasons -- because it wanted WikiLeaks to release the documents with the names of Afghan sources to damage its credibility, because it was indifferent to the potential harm -- the Pentagon simply failed to pursue that option, just as it is doing now with the next 15,000 documents. Are those the actions of officials with any genuine concern for the harm to Afghan civilians, other than to the extent it be can exploited to harm its arch-enemy, WikiLeaks?
UPDATE II: Sean-Paul Kelley, who very harshly criticized WikiLeaks for the lack of redactions in the released documents, today, to his immense credit, re-considers and retracts that criticism in light of the evidence presented here.
UPDATE III: Newsweek's Mark Hosenball follows up on the issues raised here in a new article today, with more evidence proving that WikiLeaks has been attempting to secure the Pentagon's cooperation in redacting names -- exactly as Assange has been explaining -- while the Pentagon has been issuing multiple false denials of these facts. Shouldn't anyone who criticized WikiLeaks for its lack of redactions also be criticizing the DoD for refusing WikiLeaks' requests for redaction assistance (and then falsely denying it happened)?
-----
Please help explain this very troubling “oversight” of our DoD officials. Please spread widely. General Joe
Report this post as:
|
Local News
GUIDE TO REBEL CITY LOS ANGELES AVAILABLE
A12 5:39PM
lausd whistle blower
A10 11:58PM
Website Upgrade
A10 3:02AM
Help KCET and UCLA identify 60s-70s Chicano images
A04 1:02PM
UCLA Luskin: Casting Youth Justice in a Different Light
A02 11:58AM
Change Links April 2018
A01 11:27AM
Nuclear Shutdown News March 2018
M31 6:57PM
Join The Protest Rally in Glendale on April 10, 2018!
M29 7:00PM
Join The Protest Rally in Glendale on April 10, 2018!
M29 6:38PM
Spring 2018 National Immigrant Solidarity Network News Alert!
M19 2:02PM
Anti-Eviction Mapping Project Shows Shocking Eviction Trends in L.A.
M16 5:40PM
Steve Mnuchin video at UCLA released
M15 12:34AM
Actress and Philanthropist Tanna Frederick Hosts Project Save Our Surf Beach Clean Ups
M06 12:10PM
After Being Told He's 'Full of Sh*t' at School Event, Mnuchin Demands UCLA Suppress Video
M02 11:44AM
Resolution of the Rent Strike in Boyle Heights
M01 6:28PM
What Big Brother Knows About You and What You Can Do About It
M01 3:30PM
Step Up As LAPD Chief Charlie Beck Steps Down
F14 2:44PM
Our House Grief Support Center Hosts 9th Annual Run For Hope, April 29
F13 12:51PM
Don’t let this LA County Probation Department overhaul proposal sit on the shelf
F13 11:04AM
Echo Park Residents Sue LA Over Controversial Development
F12 8:51AM
Former Signal Hill police officer pleads guilty in road-rage incident in Irvine
F09 10:25PM
Calif. Police Accused of 'Collusion' With Neo-Nazis After Release of Court Documents
F09 7:14PM
Center for the Study of Political Graphics exhibit on Police Abuse posters
F07 9:50AM
City Agrees to Settle Lawsuit Claiming Pasadena Police Officer Had His Sister Falsely Arre
F04 3:17PM
Professor's Study Highlights Health Risks of Urban Oil Drilling
F04 12:42PM
Claims paid involving Pasadena Police Department 2014 to present
F04 10:52AM
Pasadenans - get your license plate reader records from police
F03 11:11PM
LA Times Homicide Report
F03 1:57PM
More Local News...
Other/Breaking News
Neurogenèse involutive
A18 9:21AM
Paraphysique de la dictature étatique
A16 10:13AM
Book Review: "The New Bonapartists"
A16 3:45AM
The West Must Take the First Steps to Russia
A14 12:25PM
Théorie générale de la révolution ou hommage à feu Mikhaïl Bakounine
A14 3:30AM
The Shortwave Report 04/13/18 Listen Globally!
A12 3:50PM
“Lost in a Dream” Singing Competition Winner to Be Chosen on April 15 for ,000 Prize!
A12 3:48PM
The World Dependent on Central Banks
A12 4:43AM
Ohio Governor Race: Dennis Kucinich & Richard Cordray Run Against Mike DeWine
A11 9:40PM
March 2018 Honduras Coup Again Update
A10 10:52PM
Apologie du zadisme insurrectionnel
A10 3:33PM
ICE contract with license plate reader company
A10 1:14PM
Palimpseste sisyphéen
A09 11:23PM
Black Portraiture(S) IV: The Color of Silence...Cuba No...Cambridge Yes
A09 5:32AM
Prohibiting Micro-Second Betting on the Exchanges
A09 4:18AM
Prosecutors treat Muslims harsher than non-Muslims for the same crimes
A08 10:33PM
Amy Goodman interview on cell phone safety
A08 10:29PM
Mesa, Arizona police officer kills unarmed white man
A08 9:50PM
Israeli leaders should be prosecuted for war crimes
A08 9:48PM
Paraphysique de l'autorité
A08 12:11AM
Two Podcasts on fbi corruption
A06 10:13PM
Fbi assassins assault & try to kill DAVID ATKINS
A06 7:29PM
EPA Head Scott Pruitt: Of Cages And Sirens
A06 2:15PM
The Shortwave Report 04/06/18 Listen Globally!
A05 4:25PM
Nicaraguas Conflic with native Peoples on the Caribbean Coast Near Bluefields in Decade80
A05 12:14PM
Millions Boycott The Sponsors Of Laura Ingraham
A05 11:36AM
THE CONSERVATIVE THREAT
A05 6:51AM
The US, the Dollar, IS and Saudi Arabia
A05 3:34AM
More Breaking News...
|