Still working to recover. Please don't edit quite yet.

Afghan War Diary

From Anarchopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

See also Afghan War Diary (public reaction), WikiLeaks and WikiLeaks leaks

The Afghan War Diary is the disclosure of a collection of internal U.S. military logs of the War in Afghanistan, also called the Afghan War documents leak, which were published by Wikileaks on 25 July, 2010.[1][2] The logs consist of 91,731 documents, covering the period between January 2004 and December 2009. Most of the documents are classified Secret[2] As of 28 July 2010, only 75,000 of the documents have been released to the public, a move which Wikileaks says is "part of a harm minimization process demanded by [the] source".[3][4] Prior to releasing the initial 75,000 documents, Wikileaks made the logs available to The Guardian,[5][6] The New York Times[7] and Der Spiegel in its German and English on-line edition[8][9] which published reports per previous agreement on that same day, 25 July 2010.[10][11]

The leak, which is considered to be one of the largest in U.S. military history,[5][12] revealed information on the deaths of civilians, increased Taliban attacks, and involvement by Pakistan and Iran in the insurgency.[1][13][14] WikiLeaks says it does not know the source of the leaked data.[15] The three outlets which had received the documents in advance, The New York Times, The Guardian, and Der Spiegel, have all concluded that they are genuine when compared to independent reports.[1]

The New York Times described the leak as "a six-year archive of classified military documents [that] offers an unvarnished and grim picture of the Afghan war". The Guardian called the material "one of the biggest leaks in U.S. military history ... a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and NATO commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency".[5] Der Spiegel wrote that "the editors in chief of Spiegel, The New York Times and the Guardian were 'unanimous in their belief that there is a justified public interest in the material'."[1]

Some time after the first dissemination by WikiLeaks, the US Justice Department were considering the use of the U.S. Espionage Act of 1917 to prevent WikiLeaks from posting the remaining 15,000 secret war documents it claimed to possess.[16][17][18]

Background[edit]

Main article: Wikileaks


In June 2010, Guardian journalist Nick Davies and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange established that the US army had built a huge database with six years of sensitive military intelligence material, to which many thousands of US soldiers had access and some of them had been able to download copies, and WikiLeaks had one copy which it proposed to publish online, via a series of uncensorable global servers.[19]

Wikileaks describes itself as "a multi-jurisdictional public service designed to protect whistleblowers, journalists and activists who have sensitive materials to communicate to the public."[20] In an interview with the U.K.'s Channel 4, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange said that "we have a stated commitment to a particular kind of process and objective, and that commitment is to get censored material out and never to take it down." He contrasted the group with other media outlets by saying that "other journalists try to verify sources. We don't do that, we verify documents. We don't care where it came from." He denied that the group has an inherent bias against the Afghanistan War, saying that "We don't have a view about whether the war should continue or stop â€“ we do have a view that it should be prosecuted as humanely as possible." However, he also said that he believes the leaked information will turn world public opinion to think more negatively of the war.[21]

An Obama administration statement disputed the self-reported status of WikiLeaks, stating that it "is not an objective news outlet but rather an organization that opposes U.S. policy in Afghanistan."[22] Journalist Will Heaven of The Daily Telegraph has said that WikiLeaks was not politically neutral when it fed its information to the left-leaning newspapers The Guardian, The New York Times, and Der Spiegel instead of releasing the data openly. He said that the selectivity of the leak "contravene[d] its own mission statement â€“ that crowdsourcing and open data are paramount."[23] The Toronto Sun has referred to Assange's statements that "This material shines light on the everyday brutality and squalor of war" and "The archive will change public opinion and it will change the opinion of people in positions of political and diplomatic influence" as evidence that he has an anti-war mission.[24]

Issues raised[edit]

Allegations of foreign support for the Taliban[edit]

Pakistan[edit]

According to Der Spiegel, "the documents clearly show that the Pakistani intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence (usually known as the ISI) is the most important accomplice the Taliban has outside of Afghanistan."[25] The New York Times was especially alarmed by the level of collusion with the Taliban, having concluded that Pakistan "allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders." The Guardian, however, did not think there was "a convincing smoking gun" for complicity between Pakistan intelligence services and the Taliban.[26]

In particular, the leaks discuss an alleged incident in which Pakistan's former ISI spy chief Hamid Gul met with Afghani insurgents in January 2009, occurring right after alleged Pakistani al-Qaeda figure Osama al-Kini's death by a CIA drone attack. "The meeting attendees were saddened by the news of Zamarai's death and discussed plans to complete Zamarai's last mission by facilitating the movement of a suicide vehicle-borne improvised explosive device from Pakistan to Afghanistan through the Khan Pass," leaked reports said.

The initial web article in The New York Times on the subject, appearing 25 July was written by Mark Mazzetti, Jane Perlez, Eric Schmitt, and Andrew Lehren, and titled "Pakistan Spy Service Aids Insurgents, Reports Assert". It was the lead article in the 26 July print edition of the Times.[27] The article provided a wide range of excerpts from the paper, at some points focusing on coalition successes, and at other times excerpting sections that highlighted coalition failures. Many of the excerpts illustrated American frustration with local involvement, quoting the sources, noting that "glimpses of what appear to be Pakistani skullduggery contrast sharply with the frequently rosy public pronouncements of Pakistan as an ally by American officials."

"The Guardian" has a very different take on this. Its Sunday, 25 July 2010 article by Declan Walsh states: "But for all their eye-popping details, the intelligence files, which are mostly collated by junior officers relying on informants and Afghan officials, fail to provide a convincing smoking gun for ISI complicity. Most of the reports are vague, filled with incongruent detail, or crudely fabricated. The same characters – famous Taliban commanders, well-known ISI officials – and scenarios repeatedly pop up. And few of the events predicted in the reports subsequently occurred. A retired senior American officer said ground-level reports were considered to be a mixture of "rumours, bullshit and second-hand information" and were weeded out as they passed up the chain of command."[28]

The Obama administration, in response to the leaks, re-expressed their long-held doubts about links between Pakistan intelligence agents and Afghan insurgents. An anonymous official said to Al Arabiya, "I don't think anyone who follows this issue will find it surprising that there are concerns about ISI and safe havens in Pakistan.[22]

Iran[edit]

Evidence that Iran provided extensive assistance to the Taliban was also revealed. Coming from sources such as Afghan spies and paid informants, Iranian involvement in Afghanistan steadily widened from 2004 to today and constituted armaments, money, and physical deployment of anti-NATO militants.[14] Iran denies supporting the militants.[14]

North Korea[edit]

The documents, wrote journalist Jeff Stein of the Washington Post, stated that Hezb-e-Islami party leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Amin al-Haq, a financial advisor to Osama Bin Ladin, both flew to North Korea on 19 November 2005, and purchased remote controlled rockets to be used against American and coalition aircraft. Stein cautioned that he has found no corroborating reports of North Korean involvement in Taliban armaments dealing.[29]

Civilian casualties[edit]

Template:see Hundreds of civilians have been killed by coalition forces in several instances that were not previously revealed.[5][30][31] The press listed several examples of such previously unreported incidents of civilian deaths.[32] David Leigh of The Guardian wrote:

They range from the shootings of individual innocents to the often massive loss of life from air strikes, which eventually led President Hamid Karzai to protest publicly that the US was treating Afghan lives as "cheap". When civilian family members are actually killed in Afghanistan, their relatives do, in fairness, get greater solatia payments than cans of beans and Hershey bars. The logs refer to sums paid of 100,000 Afghani per corpse, equivalent to about £1,500.[32]

In one incident, a U.S. patrol machine-gunned a bus, wounding or killing 15 of its passengers.[33]

On 4 March 2007, in the Shinwar shooting, U.S. Marines opened fire on civilians after witnessing a suicide bombing and supposedly coming under small arms fire. The Guardian reported their actions: "The marines made a frenzied escape [from the scene of the bombing], opening fire with automatic weapons as they tore down a six-mile stretch of highway, hitting almost anyone in their way â€“ teenage girls in the fields, motorists in their cars, old men as they walked along the road. Nineteen unarmed civilians were killed and 50 wounded." The military report of the incident (written by the same soldiers involved in it) later failed to make any reference to the deaths and injuries and none of the soldiers involved were charged or disciplined.[34]

On 21 March 2007, CIA paramilitaries fired on a civilian man who was running from them. The man, Shum Khan, was deaf and mute and did not hear their warnings.[32][35]

In 2007, documents detail how US special forces dropped six 2,000 lb bombs on a compound where they believed a “high-value individual” was hiding, after “ensuring there were no innocent Afghans in the surrounding area”. A senior U.S. commander reported that 150 Taliban had been killed. Locals, however, reported that up to 300 civilians had died.[36]

On 16 August 2007, Polish troops mortared the village of Nangar Khel, killing five people — including a pregnant woman and her baby — in what The Guardian describes as an apparent revenge attack shortly after experiencing an IED explosion.[32][37]

According to The Guardian, the logs also detail "how the Taliban have caused growing carnage with a massive escalation of their roadside bombing campaign, which has killed more than 2,000 civilians to date".[5]

Friendly-fire casualties[edit]

A significant number of documents describe unreported or previously misleading friendly fire incidents between Afghan police and army forces, coalition forces, and the U.S. military.

A document dating 3 September 2006 suggests that four Canadian soldiers died in the Panjwaye District of Afghanistan during Operation Medusa, when an American jet dropped a bomb on a building they occupied during the second day of the operation. Seven other Canadian soldiers and one civilian were also reported to have been wounded in the attack.[38][39] At the time, the Canadian military reported that the deaths and injuries were caused by a firefight with the Taliban, which it still insists. Michel Drapeau, a former colonel with the Canadian Forces, commented that the document is disturbing, due to it differing from the military's report at the time of the soldiers' deaths, which could make the document incorrect. The Canadian military insists it had not been misleading facts about deaths of Canadian soldiers.[39][40] Former Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier also rejects the document and maintains the deaths were due to enemy fire,[41] as do some of the deceased soldiers' families.[39][42]

A document from 11 June 2007 details an incident where Task Force 373 engaged in a firefight with what were believed to be insurgents. An airstrike was called in, which killed seven Afghan police officers, and injured four others. Nangarhar Province governor Gul Agha Sherzai had labelled the incident a misunderstanding.[43][44]

Less than 48 hours after the documents were leaked, the UK's Ministry of Defense released a statement[45] announcing a new friendly fire death in Afghanistan.

"The Ministry of Defense must confirm that the death of this soldier is being investigated as a suspected friendly fire incident."

The Ministry had previously announced[46] an investigation in to a friendly fire incident in 2009 in Helmand province.

Role of al-Qaeda[edit]

The war logs made clear that suicide bombing, normally carried out by non-Afghan, foreign fighters, was increasing and claim that they were nurtured by al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, whose influence was pervasive and possibly growing. A report generated September 2004 stated that terrorists had been assigned by Bin Laden to conduct a suicidal attack against the Afghan president Hamid Karzai, during a press conference or a meeting held. Another report, in September 2008, spoke of co-ordinated, multinational al-Qaeda attack planning. More suicide bombings allegedly were planned with al-Qaeda's Afghan allies, such as the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin militia led by the notorious warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Numerous reports linked Bin Laden and al-Qaeda to insurgent activities. In one report, al-Qaeda was also claimed to be involved in a plan to manufacture chemical weapons payloads for rocket-propelled grenades.[47][48]

Role of Special Ops greater than previously revealed[edit]

Government accounts of coalition activity were, according to The Guardian, sometimes "misleading". The British paper cited as an example a press statement that concealed the fact that the real reason for a coalition presence in a particular area was because a group known as Task Force 373 was on a mission to kill or capture Abu Laith al-Libi.[49] The New York Times reported that the U.S. military had given Afghans credit for missions actually carried out by Special Operations commandos. Despite these discrepancies, The New York Times, in a 'black-is-white' rhetorical rephrasing said "over all, the documents do not contradict official accounts of the war. But in some cases the documents show that the American military made misleading public statements".[50]

The records log 144 incidents regarding Task Force 373 and involving Afghan civilian casualties, including 195 deaths.[44]

Detainment facilities and procedures[edit]

Template:See The leak lends hard numbers such as prisoner head counts and prisoner transfer dates to existing journalistic concerns around certain detainment facilities, such as Bagram Theater Internment Facility, and their practices.[51]

Taliban use of heat-seeking missiles[edit]

The New York Times reported that the documents reveal the Taliban have used heat-seeking missiles to down coalition aircraft. The U.S. military had not previously acknowledged that the Taliban possessed these weapons.[50]

Informants named[edit]

Template:Citation-style The leak reportedly names hundreds of Afghan informants. The Times offered as examples[52]

  • a 2008 report that includes a detailed interview with a Taliban fighter considering defection and ends with "[t]he meeting ended with [named person] agreeing to meet intel personnel." Both his father's name and village are also included in the report;
  • a report that read "[named person] said he would be killed if he got caught interacting with any coalition forces, which is why he hides when we go into [named location]".

The paper also found that a man killed by the Taliban two years ago after being suspected of spying for American forces was named in the logs and described as "highly pro-Government of Afghanistan and Coalition Forces. He should be taken seriously in his claims of insurgent knowledge." Another report gave the names, father's names, tribe, village and GPS co-ordinates for homes of individual villagers while stating that "[named person] wanted to help us as much as possible... [but] they were afraid that the people in the next village would see them talking to Americans."[53]Template:Clarify

Jane Harman, chairwoman of the Congressional Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, said that the Taliban had been given "its new 'enemies list'."[54] Ahmad Nader Nadery, a commissioner at the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, said that revealing the names and villages of people who interacted with U.S. troops was an "irresponsibility".[55] Julian Assange answered the question on whether the release might cost lives: "We can't guarantee it. But our understanding of the material is that it's vastly more likely to save lives than cost lives."[55] He also asserted that many informers in Afghanistan had "acted in a criminal way" in sharing erroneous data with NATO authorities and that the White House did not help WikiLeaks check the data.[55] Assange also felt that the U.S. should have had tighter controls over sensitive information, saying "[t]he United States appears to have given every UN soldier and contractor access to the names of many of its confidential sources without proper protection.[56]Template:Clarify

The U.S. Secretary of Defense and former CIA director Robert M. Gates said that the announcement by the Taliban that they were going through the dispatches proved that the disclosures imperiled Afghans who had aided American forces. "Growing up in the intelligence business, protecting your sources is sacrosanct".[57]

A task force of more than 100 intelligence analysts sifted through the published documents to identify the Afghan citizens and mosques that were concerned.[58]

Some, including Barack Obama and Hamid Karzai, raised concerns that the detailed logs had exposed the names of Afghan informants, thus endangering their lives.[59][60] Partially in response to this criticism, Wikileaks announced that it has sought the help of the Pentagon in reviewing a further 15,000 documents before releasing them. The Pentagon said it had not been contacted by Wikileaks.[61] However, blogger Glenn Greenwald presented evidence that the Pentagon had, in fact, been contacted, and that it had refused the request.[62]

On 11 August, a spokesman for the Pentagon told the Washington Post that "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the WikiLeaks documents",[63] although the spokesman asserted "there is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field." On 17 August, the Associated Press reported that "so far there is no evidence that any Afghans named in the leaked documents as defectors or informants from the Taliban insurgency have been harmed in retaliation."[64]

In October, the Pentagon concluded that the leak "did not disclose any sensitive intelligence sources or methods", and that furthermore "there has not been a single case of Afghans needing protection or to be moved because of the leak."[65] Both Wikileaks and Greenwald pointed to this report as clear evidence that the danger caused by the leak had been vastly overstated.[66][67]

Psychological warfare[edit]

Evidence within the documents suggest that the U.S. military has been paying Afghan radio and print media to run favorable stories,[68] with two prominent examples[68] being Radio Ghaznawiyaan and Wakht News Agency. One document refers to supplying pre-made content to a radio station, describing that content as PSYOP (Psychological Operations / Psychological Warfare) material.[68]

Insurgent attacks against civilians[edit]

The leaked documents describe many purported incidents of Taliban and other Afghan insurgent forces attacking civilians. Those forces would also, according to leaked reports, post 'Night Letters' on civilian buildings such as mosques foretelling death for the inhabitants. In one leak from April 2007, then-Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Karen Hughes requests to verify a video of a 12-year-old child soldier forced to kill a Pakistani hostage. Thomas Joscelyn, a senior fellow at the think tank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, remarked that "the documents demonstrate just how pervasive the Taliban’s brutality is in this fight".[69]


Source of the leak[edit]

See 'Bradley Manning' article on Wikipedia

Wikileaks says it does not know the source of the leaked data. Editor-in-chief Julian Assange stated that "Our whole system is designed such that we don't have to keep that secret."[15] The Pentagon has launched an inquiry.[70][71] Col. Dave Lapan, a spokesperson for the Pentagon, said that investigators are looking broadly to determine who leaked the material to Wikileaks. He said that Bradley Manning, a 22-year-old U.S. Army intelligence analyst, is someone that they are "looking at closely".[72] Manning is currently facing charges for allegedly leaking the 12 July 2007, Baghdad airstrike video Wikileaks released as “Collateral Murder”. That video was made public through WikiLeaks, along with many diplomatic cables, but war logs were not specifically among the charges.[73][74][75]

"Insurance file"[edit]

On July 30, days after the initial disclosure, media began to report that Wikileaks had released an additional file named "insurance.aes256" in connection with the Afghan War Diary disclosure. The new "insurance file" was AES-256 encrypted, 1.4 GB in size, with a timestamp of December 31st, 2010 6:00 PM, and with a SHA1 checksum of cce54d3a8af370213d23fcbfe8cddc8619a0734c.[4]

At 1.4 gigabytes, that file was 20 times larger than the batch of 77,000 secret U.S. military documents about Afghanistan that WikiLeaks already published, and cryptographers said that the file was virtually impossible to crack, unless WikiLeaks releases the key used to encode the material.[76][77][78][79][80]

See also[edit]

Template:Portal box

References[edit]

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Gebauer, Matthias; Goetz, John; Hoyng, Hans; Koelbl, Susanne; Rosenbach, Marcel; Schmitz, Gregor Peter (Template:Nowrap 2010). "Explosive Leaks Provide Image of War from Those Fighting It". Der Spiegel. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708314,00.html. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 "Piecing Together the Reports, and Deciding What to Publish". The New York Times. Template:Nowrap 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26editors-note.htm. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  3. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named canada_africa
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Afghan War Diary, 2004–2009. Wikileaks. URL accessed on [[Template:Nowrap 2010]].
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Davies, Nick; Leigh, David (Template:Nowrap 2010). "Afghanistan war logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth of occupation". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-military-leaks. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  6. ↑ "Afghanistan: The war logs". The Guardian (London). 4 August 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/series/afghanistan-the-war-logs. Retrieved 3 August 2010. </li>
  7. ↑ Mazzetti, Mark; Perlez, Jane; Schmitt, Eric; Lehren, Andrew W. (25 July 2010). "The War Logs". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/war-logs.html. </li>
  8. ↑ "Enthüllung brisanter Kriegsdokumente - Die Afghanistan-Protokolle"
  9. ↑ "The Afghanistan Protocol - Explosive Leaks Provide Image of War from Those Fighting It"
  10. ↑ "Afghanistan war logs: How the Guardian got the story". The Guardian (London). Template:Nowrap 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-war-logs-explained-video. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  11. ↑ . London. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog+world/series/afghanistan-the-war-logs. Template:Dead link </li>
  12. ↑ "From One Transparency Advocate to Another"
  13. ↑ "Afghan war log leak: Around the web". CBC News. Template:Nowrap 2010. http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/07/26/f-wikileaks-afghanistan-docs-roundup.html. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 Tisdall, Simon (Template:Nowrap 2010). "Afghanistan war logs: Iran's covert operations in Afghanistan". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/iran-backing-taliban-alqaida-afghanistan. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 "WikiLeaks: We don't know source of leaked data". Associated Press. Google. Template:Nowrap 2010. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gKu1DQoewmBy2do5ctRqUX5efGBAD9H82DRO0. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  16. ↑ "The Justice Department weighs a criminal case against WikiLeaks". The Washington Post. 18 August 2010. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/17/AR2010081705225.html. </li>
  17. ↑ "US to use Espionage Act against WikiLeaks"
  18. ↑ "Espionage Act of 1917"
  19. ↑ Leigh, David (2 August 2010). "Afghan War Logs: what did we learn?". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/02/afghan-war-logs-wikileaks. </li>
  20. ↑ WikiLeaks:About. Wikileaks. URL accessed on 29 July 2010. Template:Dead link
  21. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named tells-all
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 "Washington condemns leak of Afghan war files". Al Arabiya. 26 July 2010. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2010/07/26/114847.html. Retrieved 26 July 2010. </li>
  23. ↑ Heaven, Will (26 July 2010). "Wikileaks is a website without an agenda, says Julian Assange. So what the hell is it playing at?". London: The Daily Telegraph. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100048486/wikileaks-is-a-website-without-an-agenda-says-julian-assuage-so-what-the-hell-is-it-playing-at/. Retrieved 28 July 2010. </li>
  24. ↑ Lilley, Brian (27 July 2010). "Wikileaks founder on anti-war mission". Toronto Sun. http://www.torontosun.com/news/world/2010/07/27/14845941.html. Retrieved 28 July 2010. </li>
  25. ↑ Gebauer, Matthias; Goetz, John; Hoyng, Hans; Koelbl, Susanne; Rosenbach, Marcel; Schmitz, Gregor Peter (Template:Nowrap 2010). "Explosive Leaks Provide Image of War from Those Fighting It: The Secret Enemy in Pakistan". Der Spiegel. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,708314-5,00.html. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  26. ↑ Dozier, Kimberly (Template:Nowrap 2010). "Leaked tales from the front lines paint dark portrait of Afghanistan". The Globe and Mail. Associated Press. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-condemns-massive-military-leak-exposing-dark-side-of-afghan-war/article1651348/. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  27. ↑ Mazzetti, Mark; Perlez, Jane; Schmitt, Eric; Lehren, Andrew W. (Template:Nowrap 2010). "Pakistan Spy Service Aids Insurgents, Reports Assert". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/war-logs.html. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  28. ↑ http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/pakistan-isi-accused-taliban-afghanistan
  29. ↑ Stein, Jeff (26 July 2010). "Wikileaks documents: N. Korea sold missiles to al-Qaeda, Taliban". The Washington Post. http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/07/wiki_n_korea_sold_rockets_to_a.html. Retrieved 27 July 2010. </li>
  30. ↑ Leigh, David; Evans, Rob (Template:Nowrap 2010). "Afghanistan war logs: Civilians caught in firing line of British troops". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/british-troops-afghan-civilian-shootings?intcmp=239. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  31. ↑ Foley, Stephen (Template:Nowrap 2010). "Whistleblower's leaked US files reveal state of Afghan war". The Independent (London). http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/whistleblowers-leaked-us-files-reveal-state-of-afghan-war-2035547.html. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  32. ↑ 32.0 32.1 32.2 32.3 Leigh, David (Template:Nowrap 2010). "Afghanistan war logs: Secret CIA paramilitaries' role in civilian deaths". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/afghanistan-civilian-deaths-rules-engagement. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  33. ↑ Faulkner, Katherine (Template:Nowrap 2010). "British fury as Wikileaks publishes the 90,000 top secret files that expose the horrific civilian cost of Afghan war". Daily Mail (London). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1297644/Wikileaks-publishes-90-000-documents-Afghan-war.html. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  34. ↑ Walsh, Declan (Template:Nowrap 2010). "Afghanistan war logs: How US marines sanitised record of bloodbath". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/26/afghanistan-war-logs-us-marines. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  35. ↑ "Afghanistan war logs: "Other government agency" shoots deaf mute". The Guardian (London). Template:Nowrap 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/0B4F081B-E448-4722-9E52-EA10DE4E0153. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  36. ↑ "The ISI: America’s favourite scapegoat". Dawn. 27 July 2010. http://blog.dawn.com/2010/07/27/the-isi-america%E2%80%99s-favourite-scapegoat/. Retrieved 28 July 2010. </li>
  37. ↑ "Afghanistan war logs: Polish attack on village kills five, wounds several, including pregnant woman at wedding party". The Guardian (London). Template:Nowrap 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/5EA14116-2B6B-470C-8DB4-2912DDF197BF. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  38. ↑ (FRIENDLY FIRE) BLUE-BLUE RPT 205TH RCAG : 4 CF KIA 7 CF WIA 1 CIV WIA. Wikileaks. URL accessed on [[Template:Nowrap 2010]].
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 "Military rejects WikiLeaks friendly fire report". CBC News. Template:Nowrap 2010. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/26/wikileak-afghanistan-canada-soldiers.html. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  40. ↑ "Leaked file suggests 4 Canadians killed by friendly fire". CTV News. Template:Nowrap 2010. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100726/wikileaks-nato-concerns-100726/. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  41. ↑ "Hillier slams WikiLeaks 'friendly fire' report". CBC News. 27 July 2010. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/07/27/hillier-wikileaks-friendly-fire-allegation.html. Retrieved 28 July 2010. </li>
  42. ↑ "WikiLeaks report untrue: father of slain soldier". CTV News. 27 July 2010. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100727/soldiers-wikileaks-100727/. Retrieved 27 July 2010. </li>
  43. ↑ RC EAST: 111915Z TF 373 OBJ Carbon 7x ANP KIA, 4xANP WIA 4xEKIA. Wikileaks. URL accessed on [[Template:Nowrap 2010]].
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 "Bin Laden among latest Wikileaks Afghan revelations". BBC News. 27 July 2010. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10774419. Retrieved 28 July 2010. </li>
  45. ↑ Soldier from 36 Engineer Regiment killed in Afghanistan. Ministry of Defence. URL accessed on 28 July 2010.
  46. ↑ MOD confirms 'Friendly Fire' investigation. The National Archives. URL accessed on 28 July 2010.
  47. ↑ Tisdall, Simon (26 July 2010). "Afghanistan war logs reveal hand of Osama bin Laden". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/26/afghanistan-war-logs-osama-bin-laden. </li>
  48. ↑ "Afghanistan war logs: Al-Qaida alleged to be involved in rocket smuggling". The Guardian (London). 25 July 2010. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan/warlogs/772DE21C-2219-0B3F-9F29789162135989. </li>
  49. ↑ Davies, Nick (Template:Nowrap 2010). "Afghanistan war logs: Task Force 373 â€“ special forces hunting top Taliban". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/task-force-373-secret-afghanistan-taliban. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 "Inside the Fog of War: Reports From the Ground in Afghanistan". The New York Times. Template:Nowrap 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/asia/26warlogs.html. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  51. ↑ Rose, David (9 December 2009). "Why Bagram is Guantanamo's evil twin and Britain's dirty secret". Daily Mail (London). http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1232665/Why-Bagram-Guantanamos-evil-twin-Britains-dirty-secret.html. Retrieved 28 July 2010. </li>
  52. ↑ Coghlan, Tom; Whittell, Giles (Template:Nowrap 2010). "Afghan informants' lives at risk from documents posted on WikiLeaks". The Times (The Australian). http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/afghan-informants-lives-at-risk-from-documents-posted-on-wikileaks/story-e6frg6so-1225897924552. Retrieved Template:Nowrap 2010. </li>
  53. ↑ "Man named by WikiLeaks 'war logs' already dead". The Times. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/afghanistan/article2664166.ece. Retrieved 29 July 2010. Template:subscription required </li>
  54. ↑ "Publication of Afghan informant details worth the risk: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange". The Australian. 29 July 2010. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/publication-of-afghan-informant-details-worth-the-risk-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange/story-e6frg6so-1225898273552. Retrieved 30 July 2010. </li>
  55. ↑ 55.0 55.1 55.2 Jepson, Kris (29 July 2010). "Wikileaks: damage is done say human rights group". Channel 4 News. http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_politics/wikileaks+damage+already+done+says+human+rights+group/3727677. Retrieved 9 August 2010. "Ahmad Nader Nadery, ... said: "Release of names of the tribal elders and community members who met US, ISAF or NATO forces is an absolute irresponsibility." ... Julian Assange, ... was specifically asked ... whether the leaked material might cost lives ..." </li>
  56. ↑ "Backlash grows over ‘hitlist for the Taleban". The Times. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/asia/afghanistan/article2664250.ece. Retrieved 29 July 2010. Template:subscription required </li>
  57. ↑ Schmitt, Eric; David E. Sanger (1 August 2010). "Gates Cites Peril in Leak of Afghan War Logs by WikiLeaks". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/world/02wiki.html?_r=1. Retrieved 9 August 2010. </li>
  58. ↑ "15K Wikileaks docs 'potentially more explosive,' US frets"
  59. ↑ Preston, Peter (1 August 2010). "WikiLeaks' Afghan story raises dilemma over safety of sources - The WikiLeaks log showed the failures of the Afghan war – but the media moved on, overwhelmed by the weight of material". London: guardian.co.uk. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/aug/01/afghan-war-wikileaks-press-comment. Retrieved 24 August 2010. </li>
  60. ↑ Elliott, Chris (9 August 2010). "Open door". The Guardian (London). http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/09/afghanistan-war-logs-readers-editor. </li>
  61. ↑ "Wikileaks to seek Pentagon help on war logs". The Sydney Morning Herald. 5 September 2010. http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikileaks-to-seek-pentagon-help-on-war-logs-20100804-11flb.html. Retrieved 12 September 2010-09-12. </li>
  62. ↑ Why won't the Pentagon help WikiLeaks redact documents?
  63. ↑ Pentagon: Undisclosed Wikileaks documents 'potentially more explosive'. The Washington Post. URL accessed on 24 October 2010.
  64. ↑ Are risks from WikiLeaks overstated by government?. CNN. URL accessed on 24 October 2010.
  65. ↑ Gates: Leaked documents don't reveal key intel, but risks remain. Salon. URL accessed on 24 October 2010.
  66. ↑ Read closely: NATO tells CNN not a single case of Afghans needing protection or moving due to leak. http://twitter.com/#!/wikileaks/.+URL accessed on 24 October 2010.
  67. ↑ How propaganda is disseminated: WikiLeaks Edition. Salon. URL accessed on 24 October 2010.
  68. ↑ 68.0 68.1 68.2 Cook, John (27 July 2010). "Leaked files indicate U.S. pays Afghan media to run friendly stories". Yahoo. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100727/wl_ynews/ynews_wl3247. Retrieved 4 August 2010. </li>
  69. ↑ Template:citenews
  70. ↑ Norington, Brad (28 July 2010). "Pentagon hunts for source of leaks". The Australian. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/pentagon-hunts-for-source-of-leaks/story-e6frg6so-1225897736924. Retrieved 28 July 2010. </li>
  71. ↑ Winnett, Robert (26 July 2010). "Afghan war logs: inquiry launched into source of leaks". The Daily Telegraph (London). http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7909771/Afghan-war-logs-inquiry-launched-into-source-of-leaks.html. Retrieved 28 July 2010. </li>
  72. ↑ Barnes, Julian E. (27 July 2010). "Pentagon Eyes Accused Analyst Over WikiLeaks Data". The Wall Street Journal. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704700404575391523088194344.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories. Retrieved 28 July 2010. </li>
  73. ↑ Official charge sheet for Bradley Manning. bradleymanning.org. URL accessed on 28 July 2010.
  74. ↑ "US soldier charged over Apache Wikileaks video". Agence France-Presse. ABC News. 7 July 2010. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/07/07/2946534.htm?section=world. Retrieved 27 July 2010. </li>
  75. ↑ Dishneau, David. "Alleged Army whistleblower felt angry and alone". Associated Press. Google. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5haxoKNMZev63Ph0ZkRkMsEaPeCrwD9GPORO00. Retrieved 27 July 2010. </li>
  76. ↑ "WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious ‘Insurance’ File"
  77. ↑ "Afghan War Diary, 2004-2010"
  78. ↑ "Cryptome"
  79. ↑ "WikiLeaks Posts Mysterious 'Insurance' File"
  80. ↑ . http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/05/ap/tech/main6746666.shtml. Template:Dead link </li> </ol>

External links[edit]

Template:Wikinews

Template:Afghanistan War Template:WikiLeaks

Retrieved from "http://eng.anarchopedia.org/index.php?title=Afghan_War_Diary&oldid=45274"