U.S. Army Captain Michael Kelvington, commander of the Battle company, 1-508 Parachute Infantry battalion, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, bows next to remains of Gulam Dostager, a member of Afghan Local Police who was killed in the blast of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) during the joint Tor Janda (Black Flag in Pashtu) operation, in Zahri district of Kandahar province, southern Afghanistan May 25, 2012.  REUTERS/Shamil Zhumatov  (AFGHANISTAN - Tags: MILITARY CIVIL UNREST CONFLICT TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Reuters Photojournalism

Our day's top images, in-depth photo essays and offbeat slices of life. See the best of Reuters photography.  See more | Photo caption 

Members of the U.S. Navy Blue Angels fly over the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan as part of the 25th annual Fleet Week celebration in New York, May 23, 2012.  REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz (UNITED STATES - Tags: MILITARY ANNIVERSARY TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)

Fleet Week

The U.S. Navy takes Manhattan for a week.  Slideshow 

Photo

The SpaceX mission

A privately owned unmanned rocket blasts off on a mission to be the first commercial flight to the International Space Station.  Slideshow 

U.S. hunts for leaker of Afghan war documents

WASHINGTON | Mon Jul 26, 2010 7:54pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon said on Monday it was launching a manhunt to find whoever leaked tens of thousands of classified documents on the war in Afghanistan, one of the largest security breaches in U.S. military history.

U.S. defense officials said the person behind the release of some 91,000 classified documents appeared to have "secret" clearance and access to sensitive documents on the Afghan war.

More leaks were possible, officials acknowledged.

"We will do what is necessary to try to determine who is responsible for the leaking of this information," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said.

"Until we know who's responsible, you have to hold out the possibility that there could be more information that has yet to be disclosed. And that's obviously a concern."

The Pentagon said its review of the documents being made public by the organization WikiLeaks would take "days if not weeks" and that it was too soon to assess any damage to national security.

Still, U.S. military officials played down any revelations within the documents revealed so far, saying they appeared to be low-level assessments that largely confirm the military's publicly stated concerns about the Afghan war.

The military's warnings of potential mission failure last year helped lead to President Barack Obama's decision in December to deploy 30,000 more troops.

"The scale of (the leak), the scope of it, is clearly alarming. I don't think the content of it is very illuminating," Morrell said.

Among the documents were reports that U.S. officials in Afghanistan strongly suspected Pakistan was secretly supporting Taliban insurgents while taking massive amounts of American aid. The documents could fuel growing doubts in Congress about Obama's war strategy as the U.S. death toll rises.

The Pentagon has declined to name any suspects over the leak but also has refused to rule out potential involvement of an Army specialist already awaiting trial on charges of leaking information related to the Iraq war to WikiLeaks.

Army Specialist Bradley Manning was charged earlier this month in connection with the leak of a classified video showing a 2007 helicopter attack that killed a dozen people in Iraq, including two Reuters journalists. He is also accused of downloading State Department cables to his personal computer.

Asked whether WikiLeaks also might come under scrutiny, Pentagon officials have said that historically the leakers have been the ones targeted for criminal prosecution -- not those who merely publish the information.

"I don't know what's going to happen here. This is a whole new world that we are entering into where an organization without any editorial judgment, beholden to nobody, is soliciting classified information from people all over the world and then publishing it," Morrell said.

"I don't know. I'm not a lawyer but people are going to have to make judgments about whether there are legal ramifications for soliciting a criminal act."

(Editing by John O'Callaghan)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (2)
JJWest wrote:
Actual news release is as follows…..

The White House condemned the leak, saying it could threaten national security (of incumbent politicians in November) and endanger American lives (of politicians who might now have to work for a living). The Pentagon called the release a “criminal act” (or they would be fired by the President) and said it was reviewing the documents to determine the potential damage to U.S. and coalition troops (in respect to the untrue propaganda previously released).

“It poses a very real and potential threat to those who are working every day to keep us safe (in our out-of-touch political jobs),” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.

Jul 26, 2010 6:20pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
JJWest wrote:
The one thing those in power fear most is the TRUTH reaching the general population.

In that respect — “Army Specialist Bradley Manning was charged earlier this month in connection with the leak of a classified video showing a 2007 helicopter attack that killed a dozen people in Iraq, including two Reuters journalists.” Really??? Most would argue that the man is a hero for exposing the TRUTH. Reuters – two of those killed were your staff. Were the killers of unarmed citizens charged with murder??? Now the answer to that question would be telling…..

Jul 26, 2010 12:47am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.