Wikileaks gave the military a virtual veto right over the afghanistan documents; the US chose not to allocate resources to looking over them.
With the 15,000 or so Afghanistan documents that Wikileaks continues to hold back, they again offered to let the US review and make redactions. The US again declined to do so (publicly this time). The US claimed that doing so might legitimize Wikileaks.
That shows where the US' interests really are; it isn't in protecting the civilian informants to any appreciable degree.
The U.S. also does not negotiate with, or pays ransom to terrorists. Does it also show where their interests are? That it, say, is focused on money saving rather than saving their citizens in immediate danger?
Why I'm saying this: the DoD perhaps has an idea (true or not) that legitimizing the leaks channel would make things worse in long run than any short-term security gain for the people on the ground.
Name a civilian whose name was disclosed by Wikileaks who has since been killed by enemy combatants. Surely to god some journalist somewhere has looked this information up and written an article about it.
Well, that's it - assuming the likely scenario that nobody Wikileaks has named has come to harm, you don't really have a story.
Even if you had a story, it still doesn't stop the FUD if it suits the news outlet's agenda. That much is obvious from casual analysis of most stories among different news sources.
How would you find out? Information coming out of Afghanistan is sketchy, there are very few journalists on the ground, we don't have lists of every civilian who gets killed.
i ask you this: does it also outrage you when the us forces also kill innocent people?
are innocent people really your concern?
the irony is that wikileaks also previously released a video showing us forces killing innocent people. and my guess you were probably more outraged over the video being released than the innocent civilians killed by us forces.
