The now-infamous whistleblower website Wikileaks has finally released the greatly anticipated leaked evidence of how wrong things really are in Afghanistan.

The British newspaper The Guardian summarizes:

A huge cache of secret U.S. military files … provides a devastating portrait of the failing war in Afghanistan, revealing how coalition forces have killed hundreds of civilians in unreported incidents, Taliban attacks have soared and Nato commanders fear neighbouring Pakistan and Iran are fuelling the insurgency.

The disclosures come from more than 90,000 records of incidents and intelligence reports about the conflict obtained by the whistleblowers’ website Wikileaks in one of the biggest leaks in U.S. military history. The files, which were made available to the Guardian, the New York Times and the German weekly Der Spiegel, give a blow-by-blow account of the fighting over the last six years, which has so far cost the lives of more than 320 British and more than 1,000 US troops.

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is in hiding. The U.S. authorities apparently want to shoot the messenger (hopefully only in a figurative sense).

U.S. National Security Advisor General James Jones released a statement alleging that the leaks “could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security.”

Excuse me, but the leaks are just shining a light on the reality of that war. And we already knew — or suspected — many of these “secrets”.

In fact, Michael Isikoff has reported for NBC News that “[an] ongoing Pentagon review of the massive flood of secret documents made public by the WikiLeaks website has so far found no evidence that the disclosure harmed U.S. national security or endangered American troops in the field.”

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. Apparently the White House didn’t learn from the recent Shirley Sherrod fiasco that they need to do their homework and not just react to every little bit of “news” in a knee-jerk kind of way.

Those little details aside, hiding the truth will not undo the damage we’ve done in Afghanistan. And the American people have a right to know how our tax dollars are being misused.

When he was campaigning for the presidency in 2008, Barack Obama promised us a more transparent government. To keep that promise, he needs to show us the bad as well as the good. And then let the voters be the judges.

In the United States of America, one is supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Nevertheless, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack hastily forced Shirley Sherrod to resign from her position in the Department based on the right-wing exploitation of a video snippet taken out of context.

According to Sherrod, when she tried to explain, no one would listen to her. No hearing, no trial, just immediate execution. Bam! You’re fired!

And the NAACP’s initial knee-jerk condemnation of Sherrod’s speech was perhaps even less forgivable, since the speech was taped at an NAACP event. Surely if the speech were so out of line, the folks in the national headquarters would have heard about it before this. Still, the NAACP rushed to condemn Sherrod in a widely distributed press release, which was later redacted:

“Since our founding in 1909, the NAACP has been a multi-racial, multi-faith organization that — while generally rooted in African-American communities — fights to end racial discrimination against all Americans.

“We concur with US Agriculture Secretary Vilsack in accepting the resignation of Shirley Sherrod for her remarks at a local NAACP Freedom Fund banquet.

“Racism is about the abuse of power. Sherrod had it in her position at USDA. According to her remarks, she mistreated a white farmer in need of assistance because of his race.

“We are appalled by her actions, just as we are with abuses of power against farmers of color and female farmers.

“Her actions were shameful. While she went on to explain in the story that she ultimately realized her mistake, as well as the common predicament of working people of all races, she gave no indication she had attempted to right the wrong she had done to this man.”

No, folks, Shirley Sherrod’s actions were not shameful. Far from it. In her speech, Sherrod relayed a parable for racial unity and redemption. And she explained how she had indeed righted that wrong. What’s shameful are the actions of the Obama administration and the NAACP, who fell for the right-wing propaganda and reacted too quickly and very inappropriately.

As Sherrod herself described it, “for some reason, the stuff Fox and the Tea Party does is scaring the administration. I told them to get the whole tape and look at the whole tape and see how I tell people we have to get beyond race and work together.”

Still, they reacted first and asked questions later. And then they again had to go into damage control mode, but in the other direction.

So the right-wing propaganda machine scores another point. And the Obama administration and the NAACP look foolish.

It’s this sort of weakness that may well lead to Republican victories in 2010 and 2012.

And, sadly, maybe those consequences will be all too well deserved.

As humankind evolves, we try to find less gruesome ways of executing our criminals. It makes us feel more civilized.

In ancient days, they burned “witches” at the stake. Later, criminals met death at the guillotine. But it was all so unsightly and disturbing for the witnesses.

Then there was hanging. If done right, the neck would break instantly and unconsciousness would occur. But it was still so unsightly and disturbing for the witnesses.

Firing squad? Messy. And still rather unsightly and disturbing for the witnesses (although it was used as recently as June 18, 2010, in Utah).

Then someone invented the electric chair. If done right, the body might not catch on fire and you might not smell the burning flesh. But it was still so unsightly and disturbing for the witnesses.

So they invented the lethal injection. An IV would be inserted in a medical-looking setting and the condemned would appear to go to sleep. Very peaceful-looking. And much less unsightly or disturbing for the witnesses.

But not necessarily so for the condemned.

The most common lethal injection formula used in the U.S. consists of a three-drug protocol:

1. First, sodium thiopental renders the prisoner unconscious.

2. Next, pancuronium bromide, a muscle relaxant, is introduced, causing complete paralysis.

3. Finally, potassium chloride stops the heart.

Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that the sodium thiopental doesn’t always work as intended, meaning that the condemned may actually be conscious as the potassium chloride burns its way through his bloodstream to the heart. But the prisoner cannot express the excruciating agony he feels because that second drug, the pancuronium bromide, has him paralyzed.

And all that, of course, depends further on the execution staff being able to insert the IV. Many prisoners have damaged veins as a result of past intravenous drug use, making it difficult to find a usable vein. This prolongs the pre-execution process and creates more pain and suffering for the condemned. Of course, the witnesses don’t get to see this, because the curtain on the death chamber window does not open until the IV is in place and the drugs are about to flow. This way, it’s very peaceful-looking. And much less unsightly or disturbing for the witnesses.

The benefit of lethal injection, therefore, at least to the extent that it is shown to the public, serves only the witnesses’ eyes and stomachs.

If it looks peaceful and painless, it’s much easier to watch, even if it’s only an illusion.

And, if it looks peaceful and painless, it’s much easier to justify, even if it’s only an illusion.

Take away the illusions and you have the very real possibility of cruel and unusual punishment, which is supposedly forbidden per the Eighth Amendment.

Unfortunately, the various courts haven’t always agreed on that issue.

Still, it seems to me that justice must not be based on illusions. If it is, how can it be called true justice?

Today we live in historic times, and I don’t mean that in a good way.

First of all, we are suffering the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And why? Because the financial industry was permitted to run amok.

Under the relaxed regulations of the Reagan and Clinton administrations, the banks did not prove themselves trustworthy to do the right thing for the economy and for the customers they served. They only cared about profits. Alan Greenspan himself admitted that he had “put too much faith in the self-correcting power of free markets and had failed to anticipate the self-destructive power of wanton [i.e., unregulated] mortgage lending.”

Nevertheless, the wealthy ruling class of Wall Street, largely unpunished, is doing just fine with its multi-million-dollar bonuses. But middle-class and working-class Americans continue to suffer through home foreclosures and long-term unemployment. And small businesses can’t get loans to stay afloat.

As if that’s not enough, with the ongoing BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico we’re now watching the greatest environmental disaster that the U.S. has ever seen. And why? Because the oil industry was permitted to run amok.

BP and other oil companies have a long record of thumbing their noses at safety regulations. For example, it seems that a safety device was available for $500,000 which could have prevented the BP oil disaster. This acoustic switch would trigger an underwater valve to shut down a well in case of a blowout, like the one that recently happened in the Gulf. BP, however, decided that $500,000 was too much to spend on safety, despite the fact that its 2009 profits totaled some $14 billion. So BP spent its money instead on working with Dick Cheney to block regulations that would have required the use of this and other safety precautions.

As a result, not only is the environment suffering, along with the coastal wildlife, but so are the livelihoods of everyone who works in the fishing and tourism industries in the Gulf Coast region.

But don’t worry. Even if BP were to go bankrupt as a result of the disaster, as some have speculated, the oil industry in general won’t likely suffer any more long-term setbacks than the bankers have. If it’s not BP drilling off our coasts, it will be Exxon or Shell.

And don’t forget about the coal miners who have died due to relaxed safety standards, and those who will likely die in the future for the same cut corners.

These days, the corporations are calling the shots. And, now that the Supreme Court has given corporations the unlimited “right” to buy and sell elected officials, I can’t see it changing any time soon.

So they’ll be fine, even if we won’t.

The banks will continue to do whatever it takes to make profits, even if ordinary Americans and small businesses must suffer as a result.

The oil companies will continue to do whatever it takes to maximize their own profits, planet be damned.

Coal miners’ families will worry each day until their loved ones come home.

And, sadly, given the status quo, I don’t think there is anything we can do about it.

Unless, of course, we the people can find a way to overturn the wealthy and powerful status quo.

Meantime, I suspect that our Founding Fathers are spinning in their graves. After all, they warned us about this. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “I hope we shall crush … in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

Amen.

General Stanley McChrystal was recently relieved of his job as the top U.S. general in Afghanistan after being quoted in Rolling Stone magazine as dissing members of President Obama’s staff.

Good riddance.

Now I’d like to see Obama bring our troops home from Afghanistan along with McChrystal. Unfortunately, however, that’s not going to happen any time soon, as President Obama described McChrystal’s departure as “a change in personnel, not a change in policy.”

But is the unchanging policy really a good one?

Obama’s escalation of our troop presence there was McChrystal’s idea, and what did it get us?

It got us a bigger quagmire than ever, with violence up sharply.

Not only that, but the Washington Post has reported that the U.S. military is “funding a massive protection racket in Afghanistan, indirectly paying tens of millions of dollars to warlords, corrupt public officials and the Taliban to ensure safe passage of its supply convoys throughout the country, according to congressional investigators.”

Yes, you read that right. They’re using our tax dollars to pay off the Taliban — the same guys we’re supposed to be fighting.

Forget about Al-Qaeda. They’re now across the border in Pakistan and in cells around the world, no longer concentrated in Afghanistan to any great extent. Bin Laden most likely is not in Afghanistan.

So why are we still there, exactly?

Why do we continue throwing money at this unwinnable mess in Afghanistan when we are suffering through the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression?

Why do we continue throwing money at this unwinnable mess in Afghanistan when we have nearly 10 percent unemployment in the U.S.?

Why do we continue throwing money at this unwinnable mess in Afghanistan when some 17 million American children — more than one in five across the U.S. — lack food security?

Why do we continue throwing money at this unwinnable mess in Afghanistan when we are in the midst of the worst environmental crisis in U.S. history and really need to invest in some clean and renewable energy alternatives?

As Congressman Jim McGovern (D-MA) said recently, “I’m concerned about the hundreds of billions of dollars we’re spending on ‘nation-building’ in Afghanistan when we need to do some more nation-building here at home.”

Maybe President Obama fears looking weak if he initiates a withdrawal from Afghanistan “too soon”. But why should it matter, when the Republicans will invent whatever it takes to make him appear weak no matter what he does?

Sadly, though, these are merely rhetorical questions. After all, General David Petraeus, whom Obama has chosen to replace McChrystal, is credited with turning the tide on the Iraq war via the surge there that he had architected. So Obama is probably hoping to replicate that perceived victory in Afghanistan.

So it appears that we will be fighting there for at least another year.

And we will be seeing more military and civilian deaths there for at least another year.

And more of our tax dollars will fund the violence there for at least another year.

No change there that I can believe in.