This sounds like exactly the kind of data the pentagon would want to keep secret. I'd check wikileaks.
My guess is that the even Pentagon's classified data on that is essentially worthless.
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.)
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.
Yeah, I was sort of hoping for "X website has been obsessively cataloging all news reports since 2002".
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.
Wikipedia has an article, Drone attacks in Pakistan that has tables, individual attacks listed and some references. Have not found the same for Afghanistan.
256 references, to be exact. I have not followed all any of them.
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.
7: The PTB had only to buy two women, not the whole country.
8-10: That looks pretty much like exactly what I want, barring a duplicate site for Afghanistan. Thanks!
11: Yeah, who knows the truth, but I'm thinking it's funny how the same sort of thing happened to Scott Ritter.
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.
Or he could just have raped more people there. Stranger things have happened.
15: It is certainly irrelevant to the debate over the benefits and harms of releasing the information he has released.
Wonder if this means we'll get to find out what's in the wikileaks insurance file?
That link now says they withdrew the charges as unfounded. Wow, someone was trying to fuck him.
17: Its footage from an orgy at a meeting of the Trilaterial Commission, including Kissenger blowing a space alien.
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.
I didn't realize Assange was keeping his location and movements covert. Though the effort may be futile.
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.
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.
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.
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."
The wikileks spokesman (Jake Applebaum) is in cDc, and from what I hear he's certainly had some spooky stuff happen to him.
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.
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!
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]
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.
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'.
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.
33:The cops aren't pursuing the rape charge. The molestation charge stands.
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."
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.
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.
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.
I haven't checked, but I'm guessing "lickyweeks.org" is a calendar-fetish pr0n site.
As I understand it, Sweden, incidentally, has some of the world's oldest and strongest freedom of information laws.
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.
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.
Why is it coming out publicly that he's suspected if he hasn't been charged? Is that standard?
Um, maybe it's not something I should joke about, actually.
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.
44, 45: since that's exactly what happened, you could have just claimed you were being serious.
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?
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.