There is a lot of material in there about Pakistan, about the ISI, crossing over the border, firing over border, firing by US troops from Afghanistan into Pakistan, drones over flights and even a plot by the ISI to assassinate Karzai. Now a number of these reports, including the assassination plot, could be erroneous. These are informers, they come and say, "I heard this guy is involved in an assassination plot." A lot of these are probably burns and designed to take out a competitor or enemy, it doesn't mean the allegations are true. That's what is true about the material - it reveals how difficult the intelligence environment is when there are incentives to say information for money. As a result, military command can say anything they want about what is happening. There is always a man in Afghanistan or Pakistan who is willing to say the right thing. There is an awful amount of material here that you couldn't have looked through personally.
Could it cost lives?
Is it putting people in danger publishing this?
We've gone through the material and reviewed it and looked for cases where innocent informers, ie an old man saying next door there is a Taliban, or what he believes is Taliban, so we've looked for those cases and there's a particular type of report that frequently has that - those have been withheld and also the source says they have done some work in doing this as well. So I think it's unlikely that that will happen. We've worked hard to make sure there's not a significant chance of anybody coming to harm.
But you can't guarantee it?
Any information can be abused for another purpose so we can't guarantee it. But our understanding of the material is that it's vastly more likely to save lives than cost lives.
So you've actually removed stuff from this leak?
Yes.Is that a first for Wikileaks?
Sources know when they submit material that we go through a "harm minimisation" process. That harm minimisation process is not about removing material it's about minimising harm. We have a number of ways to do that. The way we have done it in the past and it's always been effective - notify and delay. Notify the people concerned, and delay the publication as a result. So we have retained some of this material for the harm minimisation process. No, because it's really impossible for us to notify the Afghanis in their villages about this material - we will have to do a redaction of some of it.
Is that new for you? You're censoring it.
Yes, that would be new for us. But remember we are an organisation for justice. We have a method, a strong method, but we don't want to let that method interfere with the goal.
How qualified are you to go through this material?
This is what we do full time. We've spent four years doing this so, as far as anyone is qualified, we are qualified. It doesn't mean we are infallible, far from it.
What kind of life do you lead?
You have courted controversy. We have courted just reform and as a result, abusive organisations push back. We have surveillance events in countries, sometimes we have physical events - two people associated with what we are doing were assassinated in March last year so there are serious issues in different countries. In relation to this issue, in the US, yes there is significant surveillance. We are not expecting more than surveillance. It could be right as long as it's within the law of the US.
Surely this a breach of the law to publish secret information?
No, that's not true. The US constitution gives robust protection to the press. The law is not what a General or CEO says it is. The law is what the Supreme Court says it will be. And so far, it has upheld the right of publishers to reveal this type of information.
So you don't think you're breaking any laws revealing this?
No. But you have been subject to legal challenges.Yes we have, and we've won every legal challenge. The law is not what a General trying to cover abuses says it is, or a bank CEO says, it's what the Supreme Court in the land says it is.
What will the US reaction be?
I expect they will see the extensive range of abuses and if they are intelligent, they will say 'This will not happen again, we will put in procedures to stop these abuses, to stop this". I'm sure there are elements that will say "We will put in procedures to stop this information coming out again" - but insofar as the US administration goes down that path, rather than addressing the problems in Afghanistan, I think it will be seen as a mistake in history.
What five reports stick in your mind as the most interesting to do?
We developed a severity metric - the number of killed, wounded, detained - and from that we can see the most severe according to the internal reporting, which is not always accurate. So on top of that we see 181 killed and then go down the list. So the top area of that list are serious, and require further investigations. Info about TF 373 - that seems to have got out of control. That is significant, and interesting. There needs to be more. How those lists are maintained, how you get on the lists, how you get off the list - that needs to be investigated. We also see example of a Polish Mylee massacre - an event where, in one day, the Poles are unhappy with a village, they are receiving fire, so they return the next day and shell it all. But that was reported to the Polish military and they took action. We're not really aware of it in the West. Similarly, US forces just saw some unexploded ordnance and instead of ignoring it, or shooting it, they called in an airstrike - maybe just for fun - and then a village was hit and 17 people were taken to hospital. We don't know how many lived or died. Like the road tolls, it's not the bus accidents that kill the most people it's the car accidents. But we don't hear about the cars because they are small and they happen all the time. This material, if you like, reveals all the car accidents of this war. Just a couple of civilians being killed, even 17 now is not reportable. So that totality stands out to my mind. It's just one of these events after another. Again and again and again. Hundreds of them. The totality of all these events that killed civilians and people who it's not clear who they are - I mean this is a civil war. There are weekend soldiers, men of the family who have a particular allegiance and when their villages are threatened by US forces or the ANA they come out and fight, but it's not right to say they are permanently Taliban, it's just they engage in hostilities in certain circumstances. Really, when you dealing with a civil war, everyone who is killed is in fact a civilian. The civilians are killed, including the men of the family who decide to take one side or the other.
Is there anything in there that can threaten national security?
We have to be extremely careful of this term that has been abused over the years - national security is something that is about the security of the nation. There is nothing in this material that threatens US security. I would go so far as to say there is no information that can currently threaten the security of the US as an entire nation. If you're talking about individuals - soldiers, a company - it's a different story. But we should be careful when we use the term.
So what are the limits of Wikileaks?
This is enormous, but more could come in.We go through the harm minimisation process.
CIA reports?
Yes. As long as we go through the harm minimisation process.
Locations of weapons?
Absolutely.
Nuclear launch codes?
Well, we would have to go through a harm minimisation process.
Well, that would be quite a big harm. Well, after they've been changed - the launch codes - then we could publish it. That would reveal that the process of securing these things are a big problem and as we all should know nuclear war, while quite distant, is still technically possible.
Can we assume that the Chinese, Iranians, Soviets have got this information?
From what my intelligence sources tell me we can assume the Russians and Chinese have this. This is only secret information, there's no top secret information. Many soldiers can access this material. But not download it all?Well, if they're smart they can download it all.
No comments:
Post a Comment