Cable: Abu Ghraib torture inspired hundreds of Saudis to jihad

Let see, if the US had prisoners that were being tortured, I can't see us shrugging are shoulders, and saying o' well, I think there would be a large out cry with a surge of sign up for service to are coutry, as well. To this day, I still can't believe, I would see the day, that the US torturing prisoners, kidnapping, secret prisons. The US prisoners being tortured may be, but never the US doing the torturing.

Git'Mo bound may be Assange's final ticket.

I doubt if it matters what happens to Assange. One pissed off system tech will be all that is needed to take down any government or corporation in our new interconnected WEB world. Governments are already working on the solution: charging you with a crime for reading the information.

While he is the public face of Wikileaks, Assange most definitely is not Wikileaks. It would continue without him, probably with even greater fervour.

Place Wiki-Leaks as a terrorist site and act accordingly. If found to be submitting classified material to the website, members of the website, or Assange, then those found guilty if a US citizen the charge of treason. Monitor communication, money exchange, top finanical supporters, etc. Place a plublic marker that if you support the efforts of Wiki-Leaks or any other sites like it then you could be found in assistance of a known terrorist organization. PFC Manning the young kid who downloaded some of the disclosed information should be placed in front of a firing squad or serve the rest of his remaning life behind bars in a US Federal Prison.

In no way is Wikileaks a terrorist organisation. If laws are changed so that it is, that's yet another battle for the EFF and others to fight.

You disclose sensitive information to a public viewing site, accept information that was illegally procured, and then refuse to accept any responsibility if the fallout is negative towards the specific country, citizens, and their service members? Then yeah, your site should be placed as a terrorist organization. You can't throw a smoke bomb in a movie theater and yell "fire" and then say "don't blame me if someone gets run over." Wiki-Leaks should be held liable if the release of information has direct result of a human intelligence source, service member, or any persons their life due to that information being released to the general public as well as our known enemies.

They've redacted names and places to mitigate that sort of fall out. What you're describing is a big "IF". The same argument was made after the last leaks, and not a single example has been given since. It's a smokescreen. They're embarrassed by what's come out, and are possibly terrified of the next round - the banking memos.

If information unreasonably leading to deaths is reason for prosecution, why have no CIA and MI6 members been prosecuted for the blatantly misleading intelligence leading up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq?

Many people are not upset at the release of information based on an idea of embarrassment. I could care less if it makes someone look bad in the international press. Has anyone reviewed all 500,000 plus documents to ensure that there is no intelligence or information that would or could be viewed by a hostile force as "actionable" against US or persons who provided that intelligence reporting? I would not accept Wiki-Leak "experts" at the idea that they are the ones who know what is and isn't real intelligence that would lead say the Taliban to put 2+2=4 when it concerns the question, "where did they get that information about us from...'? You might remove a few names but the Taliban are reviewing the information and going, "this report marked X has information that I only spoke to these X number of people too..." Sure, it won't say this report was provided by Joe Smith who lives at X location, but if the detail of the information was specific then someone is going to be taken out.

Do you have specific proof that some group of analysts or a section purposely with intent to mislead gathered incorrect intelligence to give just cause or reason to push into Iraq? If a person makes a mistake on an assessment because you didn't review all the facts then that was not a case of intent to mislead. If you read the message traffic and have nothing to report and somone says, "make this stuff work or re-write it" then that would be intent to mislead.

Has anyone reviewed all 500,000 plus documents to ensure that there is no intelligence or information that would or could be viewed by a hostile force as "actionable" against US or persons who provided that intelligence reporting?

The US government helped to redact the 250 000 documents, so yes.

Do you have specific proof that some group of analysts or a section purposely with intent to mislead gathered incorrect intelligence to give just cause or reason to push into Iraq?

A quick search brings this and this. Proof? No, but about as close as it will get to it unless even more secretive memos are leaked.

What? The US Defense Department is still currently reviewing the information to ensure that actionable intelligence is not being shown. But that does not mean that if it is listed that Wiki-Leaks is going to pull those items. Wiki-Leaks had stated that it had reviewed the documents and they were "de-sensitized" of US servicemember's names, etc. But the DoD still is reviewing. No public information would likely be shown if they did find something that could create problems, why would you? You going to say that on page xxxx there are such numbers and names of listed people that might be associated with intelligence source reporting...please remove the following pages?

What is interesting that while the US State Department cables and memos have shown some poor judgement on their descriptions of key international officials, the rest of the world is saying, "better you then me." had this been say a river of Russian or Chinese intelligence papers, then I think that Assange and his website would no longer exsist.

had this been say a river of Russian or Chinese intelligence papers, then I think that Assange and his website would no longer exsist.

And that's the model that you believe that the US, the country that promotes itself as the bastion of the free, should follow?

No, I didn't say that. You are attempting to push your perceived idea as to what was stated. I said that the rules and regulations regarding classified information are real. Just because someone places it on a public website does not mean that it is now "okay" and we should just accept it as the normal mode of conducting business. Russia and China would have vewied such release as a serious breech of security and a possible act of treason. They would have sought to stop any further release of such material and plug up the intelligence holes. Does that mean they would approve of a cyber attack on Wiki-Leaks? They have the ability to do it. Probably would. As far as Assange, he would most likely much more concerned on his well being then he is now. So hold off on your, American model assessment. Bottom line is that all this will do is cause the Dod and US Government to increase their cyber security and place PFC Manning in jail for the rest of his life. But I am sure many here think thus kid is some kind of misplaced hero? Back during other conflicts he would have been shot for treason. But now it is seen as okay to spill such information because of his moral objection and need for the spotlight? He'll enjoy the rest of his time sitting in a Federal Prison while big smile Assange is running around acting as if he is untouchable.

No, I didn't say that. You are attempting to push your perceived idea as to what was stated.

Ok, sorry about that, it does make me wonder why you brought it up then.

There are genuinely concerning things in these papers, such as American politicians pushing (and it would seem, succeeding in there attempts) for Spanish courts to drop investigations, and influencing (and negating) the British enquiry into the Iraq war.

On the other hand, a great many of these documents are so bland and banal that one wonders why they are secret. And this is the point that many are making - secrecy should be reserved for extreme instances, and what this leak shows is that governments pretty much want to hide everything they do. And people are extremely distrustful of that.

It takes a considerable amount of effort and time to get a document "down-graded" if it has been placed with a security marked classification. I am not privy to such information but a paper may be found bland and have no real meaning but due to the system it was written, developed, or sent out on, it still required a classification heading. So if a person writes about what the current weather was on such day in Afghanistan, it may not appear to be anything worth looking at. But if the paper was sent on a secure site then it would have to have some form of classification. If it was for a larger product then it would overall hold a classification.

I do not agree with the release of classified material without proper approval or authorized. That is my opinion. Many here would disagree and say or think that they need to know everything and anything that goes on behind closed doors or out there on the battlefield. I do not think that should be the case. Some information should be disclosed, but information on US military tactics, procedures, methods, or combat technique/operational planning, should be refrain from this media side show just for the kicks based on Assange's personal beef and ill will feelings towards the United States. But hey, I am the sole person out there who feels that way so it is no big deal.

But hey, I am the sole person out there who feels that way so it is no big deal.

You're not the only one, and I must thank you for a civil discussion. Thank you also for the info on systems.

I appreciate the civil debate and discussion. I feel that the more we can discuss such serious issues like adults the better this website will become again (ie. newsvine).

Muslims are pissed off at illiterates?

So why are we still being attacke?

Because we're still attacking. In Afghanistan and Iraq, we have killed hundreds of thousands of civilians. Basically, imagine that someone bombed New Hampshire and killed every single American citizen living there. Now imagine how the USA would respond. Same thing.

We've prosecuted two wars for a decade over 3,000 deaths. In doing so, we've killed more than a hundred times that number. That's why some people are willing to blow themselves up to kill us--because, if they don't, they know we're going to blow them up, instead.

Because we're still attacking.

Exactly. People being attacked will attack, back. Simple. We would. They are. And for some reason, some people, still can't figure this out.

Of course we are also just bypassing the fact that many innocent Afghan civilians and Iraqi civilians are being killed by various terrorist, insurgents, and foreign fighters. While the nutcase with a C4 home made "wanna be jihad" suicide belt seems pretty dead set on killing anyone and everyone who happens to be in his/her kill zone aka blast radius. Who is setting off car bombs in downtown market places during peek time hours? The US/Coalition Forces or the insurgent? Yet you are saying that these deaths are linked just to US weapons and ammunition? Of course Saddam killed thousands, the Taliban killed thousands, so if nothing else we can't use the weak excuse, "if America did not invade then these people would be alive..."

They attack because they have been brought up to believe one mentality and one specific calling in life: "Defend the faith and kill the infidel (aka non-believers)". This is not Islam but the same peverse use of a religion to warp it into something that it is not. The use of terrorism against those who do not believe their specific doctrine has been around long before Bush jr. ever thought about seeking public office. Review US history and see when the first real clash of hardliners and our country came about. It wasn't in 2001.