Re: Lazyweb Request

1

This sounds like exactly the kind of data the pentagon would want to keep secret. I'd check wikileaks.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 8:00 AM
horizontal rule
2

My guess is that the even Pentagon's classified data on that is essentially worthless.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 8:05 AM
horizontal rule
3

The Duck of Minerva has posts that get close to what you want as I am aware of. This one is about Pakistan, that looking at the names of the people involved or reading the references might get you what you need. (Note: The first link is broken, but the others worked for me.)


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 8:06 AM
horizontal rule
4

Early in the Iraq war is was stated Pentagon policy that they did not count civilian casualties as they always already minimized collateral damage, so statistics would be redundant. I hope they were lying.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 8:10 AM
horizontal rule
5

is s/b it


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 8:11 AM
horizontal rule
6

Yeah, I was sort of hoping for "X website has been obsessively cataloging all news reports since 2002".


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 8:14 AM
horizontal rule
7

Speaking of Wikileaks, Teh Creepy is starting. It could be nothing, of course. I suppose it could be a giant set-up, except that it is in Sweden.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 8:15 AM
horizontal rule
8

Wikipedia has an article, Drone attacks in Pakistan that has tables, individual attacks listed and some references. Have not found the same for Afghanistan.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 8:19 AM
horizontal rule
9

256 references, to be exact. I have not followed all any of them.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 8:21 AM
horizontal rule
10

This (A Record of U.S. Drone Attacks in Pakistan) may just be a repackaging of the data in Wikipedia. Not finding anything similar for Afghanistan, however.


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 8:31 AM
horizontal rule
11

7: The PTB had only to buy two women, not the whole country.


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 8:40 AM
horizontal rule
12

8-10: That looks pretty much like exactly what I want, barring a duplicate site for Afghanistan. Thanks!


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 9:03 AM
horizontal rule
13

11: Yeah, who knows the truth, but I'm thinking it's funny how the same sort of thing happened to Scott Ritter.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 9:04 AM
horizontal rule
14

Normally I'm inclined to believe charges of sexual misconduct against public figures--the charges against Al Gore and Ritter are believable to me--but Assange is such a scary figure to people with so much power that any charges against him are hugely suspect.

It looks like Sweden was chosen because it is closest to being a base of operations for him.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 9:10 AM
horizontal rule
15

Or he could just have raped more people there. Stranger things have happened.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 9:18 AM
horizontal rule
16

15: It is certainly irrelevant to the debate over the benefits and harms of releasing the information he has released.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 9:21 AM
horizontal rule
17

Wonder if this means we'll get to find out what's in the wikileaks insurance file?


Posted by: dob | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 9:29 AM
horizontal rule
18

That link now says they withdrew the charges as unfounded. Wow, someone was trying to fuck him.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
19

17: Its footage from an orgy at a meeting of the Trilaterial Commission, including Kissenger blowing a space alien.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
20

Wikileaks is hugely threatening to established power and I have no doubt there is some kind of black ops operation against it already going on. No national-level politicians besides the Kucinich/Paul tandem have been willing to speak up to protect it, and all the establishment liberals working on legislation to protect press sources are running away from Wikileaks as fast as they can. Hopefully Assange won't just get assasinated.


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
21

I didn't realize Assange was keeping his location and movements covert. Though the effort may be futile.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
22

Huh. I saw the Assange thing, and assumed that it was a dirty trick. I'm surprised that it fell apart so quickly.

Rape is a brilliant charge to levy, because it makes him toxic across the political spectrum.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 11:00 AM
horizontal rule
23

Swedish prosecutors withdrew an arrest warrant for the founder of WikiLeaks on Saturday, saying less than a day after the document was issued that it was based on an unfounded accusation of rape. They said that for the moment Julian Assange remains suspected of the lesser crime of molestation in a separate case..


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 11:42 AM
horizontal rule
24

Child pornography would have been even better, but presumably also more difficult to pull off against what one would presume to be a technically sophisticated and paranoid target.


Posted by: dob | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
25

Under what circumstances would it become ethical to divulge the names of his accusers? Presumably the accusations themselves are criminal, with an attendant investigation, but I'm fairly wary of disincentivizing the legitimate reporting of rapes.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 11:47 AM
horizontal rule
26

One of the women who accused Assange to Aftonbladet:

"The accusations against Assange are of course not staged by neither the Pentagon or anyone else. The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl are with a man with a disturbed view of women and problems accepting a no."


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
27

The wikileks spokesman (Jake Applebaum) is in cDc, and from what I hear he's certainly had some spooky stuff happen to him.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
28

The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl are with a man with a disturbed view of women and problems accepting a no.

Granted, it was just a New Yorker profile, but the one on Assange recently makes me more inclined to believe that.


Posted by: Parenthetical | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
29

Yeah, I mean I totally grant that the timing is super suspicious, but I am kind of skeeved at the speed which everyone jumped to "These women are liars!" Maybe! I have no idea!


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
30

cDc

I'd like to report that it was with minimal googling that I determined you weren't talking about the Center for Disease Control. [pats self on back]


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
31

Under what circumstances would it become ethical to divulge the names of his accusers? Presumably the accusations themselves are criminal, with an attendant investigation, but I'm fairly wary of disincentivizing the legitimate reporting of rapes.

You know, I'm completely comfortable with not pursuing that angle of things. Unless maybe there are more leaks with precise details on the accusation-as-setup.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 12:13 PM
horizontal rule
32

Presumably the accusations themselves are criminal, with an attendant investigation, but I'm fairly wary of disincentivizing the legitimate reporting of rapes.

If there is actually enough evidence to warrant an indictment for false charges, then publicize away, until then, don't. There's a big difference between 'there is no legal case for a rape charge' and 'this is clearly a false accusation'.


Posted by: teraz kurwa my | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
33

29: If they had even a half-way good case the Swedish cops would have pursued it. That's how cops would roll when every police force (not to mention their governments) in the world is afraid their dirty laundry will end up on Wikileaks.


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
34

33:The cops aren't pursuing the rape charge. The molestation charge stands.


Posted by: Oudemia | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 12:27 PM
horizontal rule
35

No, there is no molestation charge yet. "But according to an Associated Press report on Saturday afternoon, the prosecutor's office had said that Mr. Assange remained suspected of the lesser crime of molestation in a separate case."


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 12:48 PM
horizontal rule
36

34: Perhaps unfairly, but the fact that both charges came out at the same time and one was promptly dropped as unfounded raises doubts about the remaining charge.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
37

I'm sure he's creepy. The timing is very, very suspicious. Something bad will probably happen to him sooner or later. More than that seems unknowable, and (contranoonan) not productively speculated about.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
38

I'm certain he's creepy megalomaniac. You probably need someone like that to get a project like wikileaks started. The real question is whether the project can take on a life independent of him--if it really functions like a wiki.

Sadly, "wikileeks.org" does not take you to pictures of edible plants.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 1:04 PM
horizontal rule
39

I haven't checked, but I'm guessing "lickyweeks.org" is a calendar-fetish pr0n site.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
40

As I understand it, Sweden, incidentally, has some of the world's oldest and strongest freedom of information laws.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
41

Whether or not the charges are unfounded, I assume the anti-wikileaks strategy has been to associate the site with named, public individuals. A lot of the power, or perceived power, of the site has come from its secrecy about itself.

Is Assange really the founder, as the reports say, or is he just being called that because he's publicly representing them? I guess I should read that New Yorker profile, but there are so many words.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 1:14 PM
horizontal rule
42

41: Isn't there a difference between "charged" and "suspected"? As I understand it, you can be suspected of all sorts of things and (unless a swarthy Muslim sort) nothing happens except lots of questions get asked.


Posted by: Biohazard | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 1:43 PM
horizontal rule
43

Why is it coming out publicly that he's suspected if he hasn't been charged? Is that standard?


Posted by: PGD | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
44

Somebody leaked it!


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 2:19 PM
horizontal rule
45

Um, maybe it's not something I should joke about, actually.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 2:19 PM
horizontal rule
46

42: I think so, in terms of technical legal language. I just meant accusations, and since actually my comment wasn't about the accusations at all, I wasn't careful to use technical legal language.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
47

44, 45: since that's exactly what happened, you could have just claimed you were being serious.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
48

I kind of missed the end of the previous wikileaks story. Had they released sensitive names, or were all examples already public, like government officials?


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 08-21-10 4:06 PM
horizontal rule
49

48: lots of people were making rather vague assertions that sensitive names had been released and this was going to endanger people's lives. No one actually provided any details. I took a quick look at the reports (MEETING category) and found lots of reports of meetings with police chiefs, provincial governors etc. No sensitive names at all. But I haven't been through them all - there's thousands of documents.

I think it's become accepted wisdom that sensitive names were released. Now we're on to the rape story.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 08-23-10 2:25 AM
horizontal rule