WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

I just wanted to read the original since the articles about it don't suggest a cover-up on casualty civilians and I wanted to make sure it didn't before I took that position.

....What I'm trying to discern is whether the fact that Patraeus's assessment differed from the subsequent inquiry is what you consider to be evidence of a cover-up on citizen casualties.

4. (S/NF) Saleh praised the December 17 and 24 strikes against AQAP but said that "mistakes were made" in the killing of civilians in Abyan. The General responded that the only civilians killed were the wife and two children of an AQAP operative at the site, prompting Saleh to plunge into a lengthy and confusing aside with Deputy Prime Minister Alimi and Minister of Defense Ali regarding the number of terrorists versus civilians killed in the strike. .....[/b]

..... A Yemeni parliamentary inquiry found that 41 local residents, including 14 women and 21 children, and 14 alleged al-Qa’ida members were killed in the attack. In the 4 January cable, General Petraeus is recorded as saying that the attack had caused the deaths of “only” three “civilians”.

If I were a Yemeni citizen I would be outraged, but I don't see why anyone who is not a Yemeni cares beyond it being interesting.

Could you supply us with details of this "shift" in US tactics, please.

Do Yemeni deaths matter any less than American deaths as a result of 9/11, or Australian deaths as a result of the Bali bombings? Are they somehow lesser beings than we are?

He also said he'd to continue to cover-up US military activities in Yemen & that Yemen would continue to take responsibility. I'd think this might give us some pretty good insight for their reasons for both parties wanting to keep this information under wraps?

"We continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," Mr Saleh said in January talks with General David Petraeus, then commander of US forces in the Middle East, according to a leaked US diplomatic cable published by the New York Times.

Human rights groups fearful over WikiLeaks releases
(By Colum Lynch and Peter Finn, The Washington Post, November 29, 2010)

The disclosure of a huge cache of diplomatic cables has alarmed human rights groups, which fear that WikiLeaks or news outlets could publish the names of local activists who have spoken with U.S. diplomats in countries with repressive governments.

While there are so far no known cases in which activists have been publicly identified in the cables, two leading groups, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First, have written to the founder of WikiLeaks to urge him to scrub any references from the documents that might allow other countries to identify the activists.

The State Department has identified what one senior official described as a significant number of activists and journalists whom it believes will be endangered if named. The official said a number of "very sensitive sources" could be arrested or targeted with violence if their names are published.

"These are red-flag lists," the official said.

U.S officials declined to provide specifics on people who were at risk or to characterize those individuals' contacts with American officials. The State Department also refused a WikiLeaks request, made over the weekend, to provide information on the names of individuals whose lives may be "at significant risk of harm."

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, said that he urged WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in writing over the holiday weekend to "redact from the documents the names of any U.S.-supported human rights defenders who might be placed in jeopardy."

At the same time, however, he voiced concern that the State Department was trying to use the "fear of disclosure about human rights defenders as an excuse to pursue WikiLeaks or restrict access to this kind of information."

Roth said that he had discussed "the theoretical possibility" that rights groups could be targeted by repressive governments in a conversation with Assange's lawyer, Jennifer Robinson. He said Robinson "assured me that they were aware of this problem and would deal with it. We have no evidence yet that any human rights defender has been disclosed and can't say for sure it won't happen."

Elisa Massimino, the president and chief executive of Human Rights First, expressed even greater alarm in a Saturday letter to Assange, saying the disclosure of activists' names "is extremely reckless," as it would "increase their risk of persecution, imprisonment and violence."

U.S.-based rights groups say activists in the field have expressed growing anxiety about the prospects that their contacts with U.S. officials may surface as WikiLeaks rolls out tens of thousands of additional diplomatic cables.

"People are scared. We're getting lots of e-mails from people who might be mentioned even tangentially in these documents," said a U.S.-based human rights advocate who declined to be identified. "Our biggest concern is for foreign nationals who do research for us. Do you think someone who found out damaging details about a foreign government's human rights abuses is going to be invited over for tea? Not a chance. They are going to get their head busted in."

The senior U.S. official said the United States has taken a number of steps in the last two weeks to protect those most at risk, and those efforts continue. The official declined to identify the countries where those believed to be at risk reside, except to say they are in "places with terrible governments."

The official said there was a great deal of debate within the government about whether redactions should be negotiated with WikiLeaks. "It's a very sensitive issue," the official said. "The problem is if you point out the most sensitive things to them, then you are implicitly saying that other things which are comparably sensitive are not being pointed out. And they can legitimize a large group of disclosures."

WikiLeaks has said it will do its own redactions, but the official said, "We don't trust their judgment."

The official said the group had already released the material to various media outlets before it offered to discuss redactions.

If I were a Yemeni citizen I would be outraged, but I don't see why anyone who is not a Yemeni cares beyond it being interesting.

wandel, you're quoting an article that was written 3 weeks ago. So much has happened since then concerning WL, this article is almost obsolete.

U.S officials declined to provide specifics on people who were at risk or to characterize those individuals' contacts with American officials. The State Department also refused a WikiLeaks request, made over the weekend, to provide information on the names of individuals whose lives may be "at significant risk of harm."

I am most worried about Wikileaks endangering innocent people.

Wandel, you do know the difference between an article in the Wash. Post and
the Wikileak cables, don't you?

Nonetheless, from your posted article

Quote:

U.S officials declined to provide specifics on people who were at risk or to characterize those individuals' contacts with American officials. The State Department also refused a WikiLeaks request, made over the weekend, to provide information on the names of individuals whose lives may be "at significant risk of harm."

3 weeks later, the U.S. officials still have not provided specifics as to those
individuals whose lives may be in danger. Nothing has happened either -
no retaliation, no lives in danger, nothing, nada, zippo.....

The official said there was a great deal of debate within the government about whether redactions should be negotiated with WikiLeaks. "It's a very sensitive issue," the official said. "The problem is if you point out the most sensitive things to them, then you are implicitly saying that other things which are comparably sensitive are not being pointed out. And they can legitimize a large group of disclosures."