32 thoughts on “Wikileaks’ Afghanistan Trove to Rival Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers? – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
task-attention.png
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.
 

  1. The archive, amassed by Wikileaks and probably provided to it by U.S. Army whistle-blower Bradley Manning, will immediately be compared to the Pentagon Papers, both in the voluminous amount of documentation offered, and the damage it will cause to U.S. efforts to fight the Taliban and maintain our military presence there.

    I would argue that. The Pentagon Papers completely contradicted the public narrative pushed by the White House and expanded upon by the media.

    The Manning-on-Afghanistan documents do not really provide much in terms of new information. The main points from the documents appear to be

    1. Corruption is rampant in the Afghan National Police.

    2. The US has white-washed and/or covered up civilian casualties.

    3. Road side bombs have become more deadly.

    4. There are covert operations targeting insurgency leaders using US special forces.

    5. American intelligence believes the ISI is involved with the insurgency, but they have little definitive proof.

    This is quite useful information, but it is not particularly new information. The problem of corruption has been extensively reported on, and so are the issues with civilian casualties and IEDs. The covert operations is not particularly surprising, and suspicions about the ISI’s role in the Taliban’s continuing presence have been voiced many times.

    I suspect that it will make a relatively shallow impact on the war effort.

    Bradley Manning rots in an army brig when he should be feted as a hero by anyone who respects civil liberties and democratic values.

    The problem with Bradley Manning is that there are a number of legal routes for whistleblowing, which also offer legal protection from prosecution. There is also the strategy that Wikileaks itself ended up using, such as leaking the information to major newspapers.

    Manning did not do this. He leaked the information to Wikileaks, but also went around bragging on the Internet about what he had done. Fortunately, Wikileaks showed some discretion in the information they released, since the release of certain types of identifying information (particularly of informants) would likely have resulted in death and serious setbacks to US attempts to gather intelligence.

    1. You sound like you have some sort of vested interest. Perhaps in the military or intelligence community or formerly so?

      Among yr list you left out several of the main pts listed in the NY Times expose to which I linked, namely that the Taliban are using heat seeking missiles & that the U.S. military lied about the cause of downing one of its aircraft. Also that the U.S. gov’t privately believed as early as 2007 that the Afghan gov’t was a crumbling almost non existent mess. There are also other pts you left out.

      The impact of these documents will be cumulative just like the impact of the Abu Graibh photos. It will shock initially. And then people will go through them w. a fine tooth comb teasing out tidbits for months & more to come. Oh yes, this will have a major impact.

      there are a number of legal routes for whistleblowing

      There are a number of legal routes for a military grunt to blow the whistle on what he’s seeing? Like what? Tell me one that is credible & viable for such a person in such a position. And pls. don’t tell me he could go up the chain of command as that is laughable.

      There is also the strategy that Wikileaks itself ended up using, such as leaking the information to major newspapers.

      I see. So the strategy that Daniel Ellsberg, the greatest American military whistleblower perhaps in U.S. history used in leaking info to the major newspapers was also somehow tainted with…what exactly?

      but also went around bragging on the Internet about what he had done.

      Well, excuse me Manning’s not perfect and not an angel. He’s only 22 for God’s sake. If you’d done what he’d done at that age you’d like make a few mistakes as well.

      1. Among yr list you left out several of the main pts listed in the NY Times expose to which I linked, namely that the Taliban are using heat seeking missiles & that the U.S. military lied about the cause of downing one of its aircraft.

        They have reports of a limited number of them possibly being used, with largely little effect.

        Are you referring to the lost Drone that crashed? Perhaps that is new information, but it is not particularly important. Considering that they’ve greatly escalated the use of drones, it’s inevitable that a couple of them will develop problems and crash on occasion.

        There are a number of legal routes for a military grunt to blow the whistle on what he’s seeing? Like what? Tell me one that is credible & viable for such a person in such a position.

        There are a number of route available as part of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act Title 10 U.S.C. 1034, including release to “members of Congress; Inspectors General; members of DoD audit, inspection, investigation or law enforcement organizations; and other persons or organizations (including the chain of command) designated by regulation or administrative procedures. “.

        I see. So the strategy that Daniel Ellsberg, the greatest American military whistleblower perhaps in U.S. history used in leaking info to the major newspapers was also somehow tainted with…what exactly?

        I did not say that. I said it was an option that Manning could have used, and which Wikileaks themselves ended up using. It’s more of a legal gray area than what I listed above, but it’s still a good and largely safe precedent for release, one which likely would have given him a better legal position than the one he’s facing right now.

        Well, excuse me Manning’s not perfect and not an angel. He’s only 22 for God’s sake. If you’d done what he’d done at that age you’d like make a few mistakes as well.

        Being 22 is no excuse for not being aware of how precarious his situation could be for releasing that much information. Nor is any of the information on legal whistleblower routes, nor the route that Ellsburg took, secret and/or obscure.

        1. with largely little effect

          You mean except for the helicopter that was downed by one. And yes, the fact that the drone program has been touted as being error free, effortless & clean when it is nothing but, this is big news esp. for members of Congress who unlike in the Knesset actually do try to engage in oversight of our foreign misadventures.

          I’m going to completely dismiss as ridiculous any suggestion that someone in Manning’s position could blow the whistle through any military or DoD outlet. The notion that this is even serious is beyond ludicrous & I’m sure in order to preserve any semblance of crediblity you’ll concede the same. As for law enforcement, what would he report to them? And as for members of Congress, I myself have tried to do that in another matter & I couldn’t even get the chief of staff of my local Congress member to talk to me after I made 4 attempts. So I think I’ll excuse Manning for not trying that route either.

          Are you saying that a grunt serving in a remote Afghan post has the option of leaking these documents to the NY Times. How would he do so? Who would he choose to leak them to? Which reporter? Would he even know one he could trust? At any rate, that’s where they ended up being published. So I don’t see what your problem is w. Manning.

          Being 22 is no excuse for not being aware of how precarious his situation could be

          Of course it is. Clearly either you’ve never been 22 before or forgot what your sense of judgment was at that age. Which one is true for you? Were you ever 22? Or were you sober as a judge & never mistakenly trusted someone you shouldn’t have? Or never said or wrote things you shouldn’t have? I can tell you that I’ve been in a similar situation to the one Wikileaks was in when it received Manning’s documents & there are things I’d do differently than I did, & I’m sure as hell not 22. So I allow Manning his imperfections. I’ll leave the demand for perfection to the likes of you.

          1. You mean except for the helicopter that was downed by one.

            Yes, the key being one helicopter. There were a handful of incidents listed, most of which did not result in losses for the US troops.

            I’m going to completely dismiss as ridiculous any suggestion that someone in Manning’s position could blow the whistle through any military or DoD outlet. The notion that this is even serious is beyond ludicrous & I’m sure in order to preserve any semblance of crediblity you’ll concede the same.

            It’s hardly ludicrous, seeing as how the military does in fact investigate and prosecute cases where soldiers reporting military wrongdoing complained of reprisal.

            As for law enforcement, what would he report to them?

            The Department of Justice would be a start.

            And as for members of Congress, I myself have tried to do that in another matter & I couldn’t even get the chief of staff of my local Congress member to talk to me after I made 4 attempts.

            You weren’t sitting on tens of thousands of classified documents, including some that documented military wrong-doing. All it would have taken would be for Manning to mail copies of some of them to the offices of certain members of Congress.

            Are you saying that a grunt serving in a remote Afghan post has the option of leaking these documents to the NY Times.

            Manning was hardly a grunt sitting in a remote Afghan post. He was an Army Intelligence Analyst.

            How would he do so? Who would he choose to leak them to? Which reporter? Would he even know one he could trust?

            Ellsberg did the same. Why is this a sticking point for you?

            Of course it is. Clearly either you’ve never been 22 before or forgot what your sense of judgment was at that age.

            I suspect I was 22 much more recently than you, so I can comment on it. What Manning did in terms of bragging was incredibly stupid.

          2. Most of yr comment sounds like it comes fr. someone prepared to moralize dismissively about someone else’s predicament, and to make generalizations that simply don’t pass the reality smell test. So I won’t address them since I don’t think they’re really worthy of consideration. As for the rest:

            He was an Army Intelligence Analyst

            He was a low level intelligence analyst sitting in a remote Afghan outpost.

            Ellsberg did the same

            Ellsberg was physically in the U.S. & able to make those connections with the reporters. He was also not serving in the military. Manning is & was overseas.

            What Manning did in terms of bragging was incredibly stupid.

            Yes, it was. You never did anything incredibly stupid in yr life–or has yours been one of perfection after perfection. If so, kudos to you. The rest of us have made mistakes & can find some charity for others who make them too.

            Oh & as for yr cavalier dismissal of the impact these documents may have on the U.S. war effort, here’s the latest NY Times headline: Document Leak May Hurt Efforts to Build War Support. And that word “may” is being entirely too charitable.

  2. There is hardly a person in the US who doesn’t want our troops back. But aren’t these leaks exposing our soldiers to even greater risks? I do believe in free speech, but I’m not sure if these documents should be online at this time.

    Good bless America!

    1. The three papers that Wikileaks released the information to have redacted the names and identifying information for informants and other personnel who might be at serious risk from the release, so it’s not that dangerous of exposure. Most of the information basically consists of ground-level battle reports anyways, as opposed to top-secret information.

  3. There’s significant differences between the information Kamm, Manning and Ellsberg released/leaked, the latter two of which did not put their respective soldiers in danger, but were rather exposing the US government’s disinformation ploys against its own people in Afghanistan and Vietnam, respectively.

    Kamm released specific operational information regarding the IDF, ie locations of operations, methods, etc. in great detail that would directly put IDF soldiers in harms way.

    This dangerous precedent that frames every and any whistleblower as an Ellsberg is sheer lunacy. Not all information released by these whistleblowers is equal in its usefulness if publicly exposed (the slippery slope of disclosing everything and anything and letting the public decide is not a viable defense either) unless its information that is really deemed to expose such acts as disinformation ploys that people like Ellsberg exposed.

    Lastly, I do have to agree with Andrew that the information covered in this NYT article doesn’t cover much new information that hasn’t been covered already for those who actually make an effort to keep up with current events and how we all got here.

    However, I would accept that for those who has a fleeting interest in wars such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq, that article such as these (nicely in bullet format), are a proper summary of developments of the war in Afghanistan. To momentarily feel enraged whilst enjoying your morning coffee and corn flakes, and then delve back into the world of empathy….

    1. the latter two of which did not put their respective soldiers in danger

      ‘Fraid you’re wrong on every count. The U.S. gov’t at the time did indeed claim Ellsberg was putting U.S. troops in grave danger. The U.S. gov’t yesterday in the NY Times was quoted as making the same argument concerning Manning’s alleged crimes. The truth is that none of the three put any of their nation’s troops in danger. What all 3 did was show that the policies & actions of their gov’ts & militaries were based on lies, distortions & violations of international law. That’s why they were ea. arrested &/or tried.

      Kamm released specific operational information regarding the IDF, ie locations of operations, methods, etc. in great detail that would directly put IDF soldiers in harms way.

      Not at all what she did. She leaked documents that revealed that in Operation Cast Lead the IDF intended to ignore traditional safeguards extended to civilians & intended to make the whole area a free fire zone. She didn’t reveal anything of what you claim. What I’m saying she released in based on actual credible news reports linked here at the time I wrote posts about them. What is your bluffing based on?

      I do have to agree with Andrew that the information covered in this NYT article doesn’t cover much new information that hasn’t been covered already for those who actually make an effort to keep up with current events and how we all got here.

      Sure you do. YOu’re an Israeli and you don’t like whistleblowers because every citizen is a cog in the national security state who isn’t allowed to rock the boat based on supposed national consensus. You’re so ill informed about the Manning material I doubt you’ve even read the entire NY Times article. What kind of effort have you made to educate yrself on the issues?

      those who has a fleeting interest in wars such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq

      Oh, you mean like every U.S. citizens whose tax dollars to the tune of $1 trillion is being spent there along with the 4,000 American lives lost? You mean that sort of fleeting interest?

      To momentarily feel enraged whilst enjoying your morning coffee and corn flakes, and then delve back into the world of empathy….

      You actually must be speaking about the average Israeli Jewish citizen who often can’t even muster that level of concern for crimes committed in their name only a few miles fr. whence they drink their morning coffee. Not too many Americans eat corn flakes anymore so you may want to upgrade yr familarity w. American culinary customs.

      1. Sorry, not talking about who said this or who said that in regards to putting troops in danger in respect to Manning and Ellsberg, both of whom didn’t disclose detailed operational procedures about troops deployment locations as Kamm did.

        And no, I’m Dutch, not Israeli even if my IP shows that I’m in Israel currently. I don’t equate all whistleblowers to Ellsberg since I’m not that superficial in approaching the potential danger in the disclosure of certain types of information might lead to.

        Perhaps you would like to go into detail about these alleged war crimes Kamm exposed, because if its the same rants I hear about in forums throughout the internet, its simply paying lipservice to the terms.

        As for Operation cast lead, there was no free-fire zone. I think you’ve been listening too much to Al-Arabiya.

        And no, when I speak about ‘fleeting interests’ I’m definitely referring to a subset of Americans. Obviously not talking about those who are directly involved (ie soldiers’ families, etc.) in these overseas hostilities. Oh yes, sorry, pop tarts and oatmeal is it? But you’re missing the point and I can sense a bit of hostility, which doesn’t surprise me in the least…

        1. both of whom didn’t disclose detailed operational procedures about troops deployment locations as Kamm did.

          Once again, this is a lie and you haven’t done what I demanded the last time I challenged you. You’ve presented no evidence whatsover to prove this claim, which comes from the Shin Bet–an entirely untrustworthy source in this matter. Make this claim again & you will be moderated. I do not accept commenters blathering on about things they either know are false or simply can’t or won’t support w. facts.

          Perhaps you would like to go into detail about these alleged war crimes Kamm exposed

          No, the crimes Kamm exposed were covered extensively in the Israeli media and this blog. It’s not my job to educate you about this. I’ve written tens of posts about Kamm outlining what Uri Blau exposed in Haaretz with the help of her documents. It’s all there for you to review. When you actually want to learn something about this case instead of spout inanities, you can start reading.

          As for Operation cast lead, there was no free-fire zone

          Israeli soldiers as reported in Haaretz confirmed that there were free fire zones. Did you miss those articles too? I get my news from Haaretz, not Al-Arabiya.

          I can sense a bit of hostility

          Oh, you mean you sense some hostility toward you for yr snarky condescending attitude toward Americans. Why might that be?

          1. [quote]
            Once again, this is a lie and you haven’t done what I demanded the last time I challenged you. You’ve presented no evidence whatsover to prove this claim, which comes from the Shin Bet–an entirely untrustworthy source in this matter. Make this claim again & you will be moderated. I do not accept commenters blathering on about things they either know are false or simply can’t or won’t support w. facts.
            [/quote]
            Jpost article: Shin Bet: Leak poses ‘direct threat’;
            [quote]
            The stolen documents contained top-secret information concerning General Staff orders, personnel numbers in the Central Command, intelligence information, information on IDF doctrine, and data pertaining to sensitive military exercises, weaponry and military platforms.

            The files also contained details on steps the Central Command takes in the event of a major military escalation, including how it deploys forces throughout the West Bank.
            [quote]
            These documents are unaccounted for. The information Kamm had at her disposal does lend more credence to the Shin Bet story rather than your position, unfounded I might add. If you wish to censor me in points that inconvenience/challenge your position, then by all means, do so. Then you’ve already lost this argument.

            [quote]
            No, the crimes Kamm exposed were covered extensively in the Israeli media and this blog. It’s not my job to educate you about this. I’ve written tens of posts about Kamm outlining what Uri Blau exposed in Haaretz with the help of her documents. It’s all there for you to review. When you actually want to learn something about this case instead of spout inanities, you can start reading.
            [/quote]
            Yes, and Haaretz has had a great track record as of late. Read the Ur Blau expose as well in Haaretz. Read the challenges to that as well. The argument of Israel supporting targetted killings in contradication to a court order has yet to be supported in this regard.

            If this was an exercise by Kamm to supposedly expose this practice by the IDF, then I wouldn’t have an issue with it. Its the addition couple of thousand of papers that go beyond this exercise that I have an issue with.

            [quote]
            Oh, you mean you sense some hostility toward you for yr snarky condescending attitude toward Americans. Why might that be?
            [/quote]
            Re-read it then. This wasn’t a wholesale attack against Americans, only a subset who have, as I’ve stated, a fleeting interest in hostilities overseas, which applies to Iraq as well. Not condescending either, but I’m guess this is a lame attempt at pigeonholing. The apathy of Americans, as one example, is not difficult to fathom when it comes to oversea conflict zones, even when American soldiers are involved.

            Golden vociferous remark regarding Israelis though.

          2. The Jerusalem Post is not a credible publication on this issue. It, more than any other Israeli newspaper, is a virtual stenographer for the Shin Bet. And who was the source for the information? No source offered. Likely it was the Shin Bet itself as I said earlier. No, this doesn’t pass the smell test.

            The documents ARE accounted for. Blau has returned everything to the IDF. Again, covered in Haaretz, which you apparently missed.

            The argument of Israel supporting targetted killings in contradication to a court order has yet to be supported in this regard.

            A lie as well. If you were more honest or thorough you would make clear that the Israeli attorney general rendered a completley unsupported opinion saying the assassinations did not violate the Supreme Court decision. But every reasonable Israeli journalist & anyone who isn’t an out & out pro IDF hawk knows that’s not the case. These Palestinians were murdered in cold blood & then the top general lied about it–& got away w. it. That’s why Israel needs Anat Kamm whether it acknowledges it or not. This is blatant wrongdoing for which the commanders & Shin Bet deserve to be in jail rather than Kamm.

            Bradley Manning stole 90,000 documents, Kamm 2,000. And you have no problem w. the former but excoriate the latter. You’re a hypocrite.

  4. It’s worth noting that college students occupied the US embassy in Iran as an act of protest and outrage.

    It turned into something else entirely, and was prolonged, when Iranian women wove back together US and Israeli confidential documents that had been shredded, and discovered the extent to which US and Israel, in collusion with the Shah’s regime, had been exploiting and oppressing the Iranian people AND the Shah.

    It was the betrayal of “friendship” (and other things, to be sure) that prolonged the embassy debacle.

    1. It turned into something else entirely, and was prolonged, when Iranian women wove back together US and Israeli confidential documents that had been shredded, and discovered the extent to which US and Israel, in collusion with the Shah’s regime, had been exploiting and oppressing the Iranian people AND the Shah.

      It became prolonged when Khomeini and other clerics in the new Iranian government realized that there was considerable propaganda value in holding the Embassy hostages (as well as the possibility of leverage, which turned out to be useful when the Algiers Accords were finally negotiated*).

      * As well as opening up the possibilities for weapons purchases in the Iran-Iraq War.

  5. While I donthave any troubles with him leaking military missives, most of wich were widely available anyjow, what is more problematic is his release of reports on communications with elders around Afghanistan. That may cost quite a lot of lives, and represents a clear breach of trust towards the informants.

  6. Trust Jpost more than Haaretz, albeit the latter does have good articles nonetheless, and I do receive it at home. Haaretz has a lengthy track record of printing sensationalist pieces, pieces parroting the political extreme positions of NGOs, and from time to time, sheerly fabricate/misrepresent information. (ie Noam Ben-Zeev, Salman Masalha, Gideon Levy articles).

    I would enjoy seeing more responsible reporting rather than this obsessive pitting of the right against the left, and whoever doesn’t agree with you is supposedly an extremist representative of the other side.

    As for the source, I don’t see how this is different from Haaretz articles that quote “Top security official in Hamas”, “A security official in Gaza said”, “a senior Israeli military officer said on condition of anonymity..”, and so forth (all from Haaretz articles) are of par with the Jpost article which quotes a Shin Bet source as being any different.

    As I’ve stated before, what Kamm exposed of IDF operations put soldiers in danger. I didn’t see this with the communiques (often redundant) of what Manning released, although, if Fnord’s statements are true about releasing tribal elder communications as well, then I might retract this position, since it does put them in danger.

    All in all, its not the amount of the classified material that was released that I have an issue with, but rather what is contained within. This doesn’t make me a hypocrite by any means, but nice try at pinning yet another false accusation against me.

    1. I don’t see how this is different from Haaretz articles that quote “Top security official in Hamas”, “A security official in Gaza said”, “a senior Israeli military officer said on condition of anonymity..”, and so forth (all from Haaretz articles) are of par with the Jpost article which quotes a Shin Bet source as being any different.

      Unfortunately, this an accepted standard of Israeli journalism & it relates to the fact that Israel is not a transparent democracy nor is the press truly free. I don’t like it when any Israeli newspaper stoops to this sort of sourcing. But what I esp. object to in the JPost article is that it referred to no source at all, not even the Shin Bet. It was presented as a Delphic oracle, truth fr. on high. Very dangerous & misleading journalism. I don’t always trust Haaretz either btw.

      what Kamm exposed of IDF operations put soldiers in danger.

      That’s your 3rd time saying that & it was false the first two times. The next time you make such a claim you’ll be moderated. Comment rules say do not repeat yourself or yr arguments. Once is enough, twice redundant & thrice inexcusable.

      1. Anonymous sourcing is a standard practice in Western countries. So another angle at Israel-bashing averted.

        Haaretz has a lengthy track record of misleading and disinformation ploys (ie third party statements of IDF free-fire allegation, allegations of targetted killings of ‘innocents’, frivolous use of apartheid, genocide, ethnic cleansing, etc.). I find this substantially more dangerous that using anonymous sourcing on par to that of Soviet era propaganda, where the term itself took a nosedive for the worst.

        Stating that I’m lying about Kamm exposing soldiers to danger for the third time won’t make it truer either. Using a strawman comparing this allegation to the ones made of Ellsberg and Manning doesn’t lend more credence to your argument. So yes, censor yourself from this point on. Moving on.

        1. Anonymous sourcing is a standard practice in Western countries. So another angle at Israel-bashing averted.

          Flat out wrong. Israeli media are incredibly lazy about accepting anonymous sourcing. Sometimes they don’t even identify the source in any way other than to say “a source.” Very rarely will a reputable American or British newspaper do this. And Israeli papers routinely accept anonymity on the part of security & military sources which a western media outlet would never do. Even when American papers like the NY Times DO accept the need to keep a source anonymous they identity something about the source’s background (“an administration source,” “a senior military source in Afghanistan,”). And this is when they’re giving the bare minimum ID which is very rarely. Usually they give far more info. And even as they do this they acknowledge that this is bad journalistic form. No Israeli paper ever makes such an acknowledgement since it’s such standard & accepted practice.

          Haaretz has a lengthy track record of misleading and disinformation ploys

          This is a stupid, lazy claim. I have read Haaretz online every day for the past seven years, along with the IP coverage of 3 or 4 other publications like the NY Times & others, & I have never found anything such as you claim. The articles, while not uniformly perfect, are head & shoulders above anything else in Israeli media. Head & shoulders. Yr claim that Haaretz is “dangerous” is beyond ludicrous.

          The worst of Yediot, Maariv, Jer. Post & Yisrael HaYom are far more toxic than anything I’ve ever read in Haaretz.

          1. Ah, so Israel newspaper outlets are the only ones who use anonymous sources. Duly noted.

            British newspapers, like the Guardian, who also use anonymous sources, also have a track record as well of printing disinformation/misleading articles, such as the third party ‘eyewitness’ testimony of IDF soldiers who were involved in Operation cast lead. Another golden example was the organ theft articles.

            In regards to anonymous sources, just today in NYT:

            Article: U.S. Military Scrutinizes Leaks for Risks to Afghans

            “One United States official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the continuing investigation, said government lawyers were exploring whether WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange could be charged with a crime.”

            So its common practice in Western media outlets and not restricted to Israeli media. So foot in mouth.

            By the way, putting Jpost and Maariv in the same line really displays guilt by association tactic.

          2. third party ‘eyewitness’ testimony of IDF soldiers who were involved in Operation cast lead

            So you’re claiming that the testimony of Cast Lead veterans about the war crimes committed there are completely unfounded, esp. after the IDF itself has now confirmed several of the most egregious examples in its own investigation; and there are 550 IDF soldiers under investigation???

            Regarding anonymous sourcing, again the JPost article you quoted had NO SOURCE at all. Not even a reference to the claims in the article coming from anywhere. Your foot is in your mouth my friend. When you can get the Post to at least acknowledge when it is shilling for the Shin Bet that it is using a source, even an anonymous source, then we can talk.

            JPost & Maariv are equally bad in slightly diff. ways. NEither has any credibility. Each has one or two reporters I can read w/o getting sick to my stomach. Gershon Baskin & Larry Derfner at the Post are quite good. Everyone else is poison esp. Carolyn Glick.

  7. I don’t see much about this confirmation of the return of all the classified documents, beyond that of an agreement that 50 documents be handed over and a computer destroyed. If there’s something beyond the mid to late April 2010 articles that actually confirms what you are saying about these documents being returned in full, then I’ll accept it.

    To note though, a newspaper that printed excerpts from these documents and then proceeds to exonerate itself is a bit questionable, don’t you think? Especially in the light of ignoring demands for retractions (which often aren’t printed) for other articles printed.

    Perhaps a confirmation from a non-Haaretz outlet would do this exoneration a bit better.

    1. I wrote here about a Haaretz article which confirmed that all of Kamm’s documents in Blau’s possession were returned. But Blau is still under threat of arrest because the Shin Bet is demanding he turn over ANY secret documents in his possession, even those not given to him by Kamm, which was never part of the original agreement bet. Blau & the Shin Bet.

      I don’t think there’s anything at all wrong with a newspaper publishing top secret military documents as long as lives aren’t directly endangered (which I define differently than you). It’s been done countless times all over the world including here. And it’s also been done in Israel though there it’s often government ministers who are leaking the top secret documents. Newspapers are supposed to reveal information even top secret information. That’s their job in a democracy.

      1. Amira Hass says that the job of a journalist is to monitor the centers of power and hold them accountable. Sadly, most journalists are too cowardly to do their jobs.

  8. Do you have a problem reading? I said third party eyewitness testimony, which is an oxymoron to the concept of an eyewitness.

    Testimonies (as in primary testimony) that have led to specific cases of soldier wrong-doing and legal proceedings is not the issue here (of which I don’t have an issue with either).

    You have this tendancy of fudging and obfuscating issues together in this attempt to make a case, for instance, the free-kill zone allegation.

    Don’t get this skit about sourcing an anonymous source. You said it doesn’t exist in Western media and Israel only makes use of this practice. I’ve shown this to be false and you’re trodding forward about demanding a source from an anonymous source.

    1. I said third party eyewitness testimony, which is an oxymoron to the concept of an eyewitness.

      I know what you said. I completely discount any attempt to undermine the validity of this testimony. NO ONE has succeeded in discrediting the accounts told by these soldiers except in some minor ways that do not diminish their overall credibility. Many of the incidents described by these soldiers are the same ones mentioned in the Goldstone Report & being investigated currently by the IDF.

      Regarding sourcing, you don’t understand that there is a difference between using an anonymous source in an article & acknowledging in the article that you have done so; and using an anonymous source (which is in actuality the Shin Bet) & not even acknowledging you’re using any source at all. If you can’t understand the diff. then I’m done & you’re done. Move on. And I mean this. You’re done beating this dead horse.

      1. What is ‘this’ testimony? So we don’t have a problem with third-party eyewitness testimony, which was anonymous, but apparently you do with anonymous sources that conflict/contend/contradict your position.

        As I’ve stated before and will state again for clarity. I have no issue with testimony that is verifiable and not hearsay. The more recent charging of manslaughter of an IDF soldier (July 7th I think) was also mentioned in the Goldstone report, but here there was direct eyewitness and verifiable testimony to put this case through.

        As with the case of anonymous sourcing, you’re not peddling something different that you were before. So I’m going to call you on the moving of the goalposts, thanks.

        As for the article sourced, there’s statements made by the Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin and a timeline of the case itself.

        So yes, we’re done now, moving on….

        1. I have no problem with a former IDF officer & the director of a preparatory school for Israelis entering the IDF to maintain the anonymity of Cast Lead veterans as they give such testimony. If you can’t understand the importance of protecting such privacy then you’re obtuse. The Haaretz reporter also verified the accounts before publishing them. I’d like you to identify a single story Amos Harel has ever written that is impeachable. Go ahead & try. I dare you. These sources are anonymous only to you or I. They were not anonymous to the director of the school whose alumni these Cast Lead veterans were nor were they anonymous to the Haaretz reporter.

          I’m going to call you for enshrouding the goal posts in fog so thick you can’t even see them.

          1. Not talking about the concept of anonymity, simply your cherry-picking of anonymous sources when it doesn’t suit your line of thinking. I’ve stated this before and have stated it again.

            Gave you several authors which I had a problem with, didn’t see Harel on there.

            What you have clearly demostrated is that Jpost’s anonymous sources, whom, as you’ve stated, are ‘anonymous only to you or I’, can only be trusted if they come from Haaretz. Thus a wholesale disregard of every and any source from Jpost, regardless who the author is.

            So now its my fault that you somehow moved the goalposts. How quaint.

            If you want to be taken seriously as a debater, I would suggest to tone down on the use of a wide array of fallacies, ad homs being just one of them.

            Is there such a thing as blog-megalomania? Should be…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *