WikiLeaks Goes After Gitmo


Pages: 1 2

Intelligence professionals will tell you that analyzing data, especially human intelligence data, is more of an art than a science. The pros in the military, the NSA, the CIA and all of the other alphabet agencies pore over reams of documents, photographs, interviews and other sources of information to try and separate those rare grains of wheat from the avalanche of chaff that characterizes intelligence work.

It’s a very difficult and demanding profession. And yet, a collection of computer hackers have essentially told the world that they know more about intelligence gathering than people who have been trained and who have spent their professional careers determining and evaluating enemy intentions.

It is a given that, when it comes to Islamic fundamentalist terrorist organizations, America faces an enemy that avoids a rigid, centralized command structure and that uses disinformation and distortion to hide its intentions. Will Al-Qaeda operatives attempt to deceive us? Of course they will. Can enhanced interrogation techniques like sleep deprivation and water-boarding break through the deceptions and yield useful information that saves innocent lives? Absolutely.

The flip side of that discussion is that no one can guarantee that any enhanced interrogation technique will be 100% successful, or that the information gleaned during those sessions will always be useful. Sometimes you strike out. Yet, if we were to apply the WikiLeaks test to intelligence gathering in this war against fundamentalist Islamic intolerance, the West might just as well wave a white flag.

Will America’s intelligence-gathering efforts ever be 100% accurate? No. We’ll always get something wrong, no matter how hard we try. “Press on” should be our motto of choice. Given that we have an enemy that doesn’t care in the lest about using supposed innocence to disguise an idealistic agenda, we need to drill down – as often as possible – to define exactly what those particular miscreants were trying to do. If it’s a matter of simple mischief, no problem. We’ve been there and done that. But, if the decision involves actual principle, it’s time to move on.

Pages: 1 2

  • Ainola

    Bias much?

  • g_jochnowitz

    The information about each of the captives in the article supports the idea that Gitmo is necesary. WkiLeaks is showing the opposite of what it thinks it is doing.

  • BS77

    can't believe, after ten freaking years, KSM is still down their eating pizza and ice cream…..what is wrong with this picture??????????????

  • Zah

    You can't downplay the entire file release as "anti-american and radically leftist" by Strawman'ing the opening statement by Wikileaks.
    Okay, so what if the first page or so of the release (an admitted editorial, something that multitudes of journalists do, check your local newspaper) is biased?
    The rest is actual government documents detailing not just acts such as waterboarding etc etc but confirming that there are people being held there for little to no reason, like the Al Jazeera journalist, Sami al-Hajj, who was detained for "Being a suspected terrorist" but whose files show was constantly interrogated about his work with the Arabian News Network (and just that). Hell they wrote it in there that any information he would possibly give on terrorist activities was to be considering unusable since "The likelihood that Sami al-Hajj consorts with terrorist cells is highly unlikely".

    He was also detained for six years without being able to see his lawyer, being told what he was being charged for, and nobody informed his family.

    If you don't consider things like that to be "Un-American" (I didn't know Secret Policing people from halfway across the world to interrogate them about their jobs as news journalists was the Red White and Blue dream) then you don't deserve to claim that you know anything about American values.

    • Jim_C

      Zah, somehow, there will be people who give your posty a "thumbs down." They can't disagree with it, they certainly can't make a rational argument why your post is wrong, because your post is fact-based. All they know is "They don't like it" because it seems to imply something wrong with their pre-conceived notions.

      And they'll go on to pretend to be freedom-loving patriots, which is the opposite of their true nature.