US Military Leaks its Secrets Online

athloi writes "Detailed schematics of a military detainee holding facility in southern Iraq, geographical surveys and aerial photographs of two military airfields outside Baghdad and plans for a new fuel farm at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan are among the items accidentally left online by government agencies and contractors."

Comments

How egalitarian

[devilradish]

see this is what I like, I'm fine with the government invading privacy just as long as they don't get to have any either.

Re:How egalitarian

[Elemenope]

I'm fine with the government invading privacy just as long as they don't get to have any either.

I'm not, but it is still vaguely funny. Funny in the sense that the military is even more obsessed than the famously obsessed Federal Government (of which it is a prominent member) is with controlling information could make a mistake this stupid. Not funny in the sense that often (though not always), military secrets are secrets for good strategic or tactical reasons, and our military is at least nominally on our side. (It's like rooting for the home team. ;) )

Privacy isn't supposed to be a two-way street between a citizen and their government; symmetry of relation is inappropriate. Governments by definition are in service to the public, and act on behalf of that public; thus, there are precious few acceptable reasons why any corporeal manifestation of that government can assert a reason to keep its actions from those whom it serves, whereas a private citizen is private until and unless it gives ample reason for a public agency to believe they are doing something illegally naughty. The names almost give it away. Public Government. Private Citizen.

As a citizen, I don't want my government thinking it is in some egalitarian relationship with me and my fellow citizens. The government ought to consider itself subordinate to its citizens.

And I know this is taking your joke and dragging it unkindly into unfunny territory, but the 'you show me yours, I'll show you mine' meme is, I think, destructive to any defensible notion of privacy.

Re:How egalitarian

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I'll root for the home team the day they get a competent coach who knows something about basic tactics and the proper use of overwhelming force, as well as how to budget properly.

Re:How egalitarian

[Vulva R. Thompson, P]

Sounds like Microsoft. Up until a few years ago anyway.

Re:How egalitarian

[Elemenope]

Well, the other reason I root for the home team is I am acquainted a few of the players, and sometimes when they lose, they die. I don't want them to die, hence, I want them to win, or at least to stop playing and go home.

Re:How egalitarian

[dbIII]

The other option is that there are not enough staff to keep private contractors in line.

Re:How egalitarian

[Massachusettensis]

If you REALLY believe that "Governments by definition are in service to the public" then you haven't looked closely, or even not that closely, at many actual governments lately. Or ever.

A government's first duty is to remain in power. This most certainly includes the government of the USA. If performing that duty tramples on the public, so be it, as our current administration appears to believe in spades. Some of them have hidden it better.

No, it's not the way it SHOULD be. It is the way it is. Recognize it, deal with it...

Mass...

Re:How egalitarian

[ResidntGeek]

Interesting position. I am also acquainted with some of the home team's players, but don't root for them. They've got better equipment and a much bigger team than the other side, and the other team's nonparticipating fans have been dying much faster than the home team's players. Though I'm not personally acquainted with any of said fans, I can't support killing them.

Re:How egalitarian

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a pretty misleading headline. U.S. Military? These are government contractors, civilians that do not have a clue about IT security and have not even considered what their actions can result in! This really bothers me because for the most part, your military is a cross section of society, coming from all different parts of our culture. When these stupid civilians put lives at risk, possibly mine, I would like to put them on the gate of any compromised base. I bet they would take security much more to heart. Their actions all boil down to a company that wants to make a buck by showing what a great fing job they are doing to fight the war.

As an active duty Marine, I completely agree with your statements on privacy, I appreciate what little privacy I enjoy and your right to privacy is one of the reasons I have served for 20+ years. I do however take issue with your comparing this instance with our current administration and congress and the military. Politicians are the government that you refer to, not those of us on the ground that are carrying out the fight. Most of us hate the politicians worse than any normal citizen, we fight, bleed etc, they get elected or re-elected based on the B.S. they can sell to the American public. There is not one single politician that has any integrity that I know of.

Heck, this administration forced me to not be a republican anymore and I will never be a democrat. They all are liars.

Re:How egalitarian

[Elemenope]

Point. That's why the option I *personally* favor is 'stop playing and go home'. Means both teams get to go home to play another day. But so long as they are playing...

What was that sound? That sound was the spirit of a sports metaphor dying in agony. ;)

Re:How egalitarian

[Elemenope]

That the reality departs from the ideal should not be a reason to abandon the ideal or give up striving for its achievement. There have been rare moments in historical governance (both in the US and elsewhere) where a government and its constituent politicians acted in service to its people rather than to itself. To make such events the rule instead of the exception should be the goal of any people. That it is the exception simply means you and I have to work harder, but the fact that it occasionally happens means it is possible.

I am no naif, and I don't believe that ideals are easily achieved, but I *do* think that they are valuable and worth fighting for nonetheless.

Re:How egalitarian

[robbiethefett]

wtf is a sports? i haven't seen the sun in months, and i'll be damned if i have to think about something that involves going outdoors.

Re:How egalitarian

[AoT]

Are all of you so naive as to think this wasn't intentional? Or are you just playing along?

Really, feeding the enemy wrong information as the oldest trick in the book, I'd guess this and the "accidental" release of the specs for the embassy are the work of the same counter insurgency program. Ha ha, look at the stupid Americans.

Re:How egalitarian

[AoT]

Ideal? Ha!

Have you read what the founding fathers wrote?

From Federalist #51

"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
-Madison

The whole point is for government to control the people. That was what the constitution was written for.

Re:How egalitarian

[Elemenope]

Way to ignore most of the sentence. Let's review:

In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men...

In other words, governments must be composed of human beings...

the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed...

Humans without some enforced public order are brutish and generally nasty. The establishment and maintenance of public peace is what the Founding Fathers (tm) meant by 'control', not manipulation, either crass or subtle, of a person's desires and fears, as the term is generally understood today...

...and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

Which is the part you simply ignored. In order for a government to have power enough to, ahem, *govern*, and yet be limited, some *ideals* must be made manifest to rule over the baser instincts of those *men* of which the government is ultimately composed. That is the purpose of a constitution, as a codification of principles that justify the continuity of a government so long as that government remains faithful to those principles. The idea was to establish limits upon the reach of authority by delegating specific powers to government and assuming (and later explicitly stating) that the rest were out of reach.

Governments control people just fine without a constitution. The Constitution's purpose was to delimit and control the Government, as Madison himself indicated in that passage; this was the solution to the second half of the problem that the Federalist papers were written to argue for, that a Constitution was the best way to oblige a government to control itself and yet be capable of governing in a way that the prior system (Art. of Confed.) could not.

Re:How egalitarian

[dbIII]

Are all of you so naive as to think this wasn't intentional?

Time to be patronising here since I am being called naive. I suspect when the above poster is old enough to join the workforce they will become aware that governments are not omnipotent and life is not a Tom Clancy novel. There's plenty of incidents in the press of ridiculous incompetance, bullying and petty infighting in agencies people hold in Godlike awe such as the FBI, let alone amateurs called in as contractors to help out when the military is overstretched.

Re:How egalitarian

[Marxist Hacker 42]

With this coach, the second is the better option; but like most bad coaches he doesn't know when to forfiet.

Re:How egalitarian

[blackicye]

what is this sun of which you speak? I've only read references to it in ancient mythology, seems like a pretty unhealthy thing, caused skin cancer, melted wax-based wings and whatnot..

Re:How egalitarian

[undeaf]

what is this sun of which you speak?

Okay, how do I explain it in an easy to understand way. The sun is like a huge server that uploads Vitamin D to you. However, we're constantly told scare stories about how we'll accidently download skin cancer from it, to sell antiviolet products. Unless you live near the equator, you can't get very good access to it except in the summer.

Re:How egalitarian

[Thing 1]

I do however take issue with your comparing this instance with our current administration and congress and the military. Politicians are the government that you refer to, not those of us on the ground that are carrying out the fight.

I'm reminded of the quote, "A job not worth doing is not worth doing well".

In other words, it really doesn't matter what a great job you and yours are doing. I would rather you weren't there in the first place. That is no reflection on your skills. But you have to admit it makes for a distressing dichotomy: I want to support the troops...

Re:How egalitarian

[Joebert]

I don't think they understand, here try this.

Its lik a L999 Firebal Mage xsept its soo far awy that its spels heel u wen they get 2 u.

Re:How egalitarian

[Joebert]

Besides, we quit doing that years ago because some idiot always yells it out & destroys the effectiveness of it.

Re:How egalitarian

[Anonymous Coward]

test

Re:How egalitarian

[sumdumass]

What if, for some reason, they think these plans are already available to some terrorist or not a serious threat and they placed them there in order to get IP address information from computers connecting and viewing the files.

Work with me a minute on this. If a suspected terrorist goes to a government website, they don't have any clue who is who when checking the server logs. But, if they goto certain portions, they can narrow the field down a bit. Now, instead of searching the logs for who went where and then trying to associate the IP address with a customer from some ISP and then coordinate that with their Internet monitoring logs that they (no longer)need have to have a warrant to watch, they are using this stuff like this to narrow the search down a bit and look for codes as to when the next attack and may be or locations of where terrorist might be.

Something like this airbase, might be low on the security priority scale. They might even be old pictures and diagrams or improperly labeled in order to mislead anyone actually acting on the information. But, with the IP address of the people searching for those files combined with the Internet monitoring programs, it might make a few analyst's jobs easier to detect threats and such. Even if they are using a botnet or compromised computers, they would likely use the same bots to hide their identity when looking for orders or communications and such.

Could it be possible that this is just a grep like tool that filters by places accessed?

Re:How egalitarian

[AoT]

when the above poster is old enough to join the workforce Oh my. Did you even look at my UID? Even if I got it when I was 12 I'd still be "old enough to join the workforce." and I have joined for a while. Don't you doubt it.

I've been studying government since you started learning code. Shit, since *I* started learning code.

P.S. Clancy is a fucking tool. And if you think all of these recent "accidental" reveals lately are real, so are you.

Re:How egalitarian

[sumdumass]

I don't think that could be more illogical and separated from the point. the people doing the job are doing great jobs at it. The top of the command might be whacked out but they are doing what they consider their best too.

Here is the problem, In the battlefield right now, Men and women are dieing because people like you say pull the troops out and leave our allies hanging. Now, this might not be exactly as your saying it but it is what is being heard in the places like Iraq where people who support our troops there are putting their life on the line in doing so. Do you wonder why the terrorist are killing more civilians in Iraq then soldiers? It isn't because the soldiers are cowards and hiding behind them, it is because the civilians are supporting them and they are being considered fair game as far as the enemy is concerned. When they hear "Lets support the troops and up and leave the fight" they are thinking if we lose because they desert us, I'm going to get killed, I have probably caused my families death too. So you little self righteous, "I support the troops but not the war" is getting the killed. If you want the war to end, support getting the tool and people necessary to get the job done so they can get out without abandoning those we are supposed to be helping or losing by default.

And yes, This goes all along with the insurgents as well as the religious sects infighting. More so to the previous but the religious squabbles wouldn't have picked up momentum if one side didn't think they could win because people like you want to up and leave.

And you might not be the ones I am mostly pissed about, But you cam off really close to one of them. These politicians that say just leave the country and demand us not only to surrender but to put it in writing and give it to the enemy before doing so are the cause of most of the problem over there right now. Think about that as you wash your hands of any culpability with the coy "I support the troop but am willing to work against their efforts by telling the enemy I want us to lose". The topmlevels of command (Bush and company) aren't innocent in this either, they have done just as much to screw the pooch in the situations, but at a time when we need the people of Iraq on our side in order to keep the troops safe and make something work, all they hear is how we want to abandon them and don't care what happens after we are gone. Really helpful, wouldn't you say!?

Re:How egalitarian

[SCPRedMage]

Interesting idea, but I'd rather not have the stadium collapse the moment we leave.

Re:How egalitarian

[SCPRedMage]

Can we trade notes on tinfoil hat construction? Mine don't seem to be turning out so well; I'm still picking up Morse Code from Japanese spies from my teeth...

Re:How egalitarian

[Smauler]

The trouble is that a hell of a lot of people don't feel like you do. The no1 worst situation to be in is a one party government. The second worst is a two party government. The third worst.... is, you guessed it : 3 party government. What I have never understood about the US system is why it doesn't split into smaller portions. You can still do that with state integrity. It would be fairer.

One of the reasons I'm not completely disillusioned with UK politics is the fact we have three parties. However, all 3 advocate privacy intrusion to some extent... possibly the lib dems least, the cons more, and labour most.

This Labour government have done more than any other government in the history of the UK to restrict human liberties.

Re:How egalitarian

[dbIII]

I've been studying government since you started learning code

You don't know me either and if you did you may possibly call me old and out of touch instead so I can't win this silly game - I only had your writing style and rapid jumps to odd conclusions to make me jump to the conclusion that I was talking to someone with little clue - and I generously put it down to a young age and little experience. If you are old enough to join the workforce I suggest you start paying attention instead of entertaining childish intelligence fantasies (hence the Tom Clancy reference). The incompetance of US military intelligence in paticular and other sections in general has been recognised by it's allies since at least the Korean conflict - the "we did something stupid to get you offgaurd" bullshit is usually the excuse of incompetents who should not be in the service and often go into early retirement soon after.

As for the UID game, it's pointless - hundreds of people took a look at this site on day one - Rob Malda was popular for the ePlus application so just about everyone that used the enlightenment window manager took a look at slashdot that day as well as a lot of other people that heard about it from other sources.

And if you think all of these recent "accidental" reveals

Recall the Bosnian conflict and all the videos from surveilance aircraft that were sent through in the clear via satellite transmission. Mistakes are made and the omnipotent government spook myth and the conspiracy theories around it are really childish. Meet some of these contractors who could not find their backside without a map and your attitude will change - or just try reading a newspaper and paying attention.

Re:How egalitarian

[fbjon]

Let the stadium rebuild itself, damnit! :)

Re:How egalitarian

[Anonymous Coward]

As one of those "Stupid Civilians" you so lovingly refer to. I'd like to say that I posses a secret clearance and actually work on the military's secret networks. MOST civilians are HIGHLY sensitive to the nature of the information they work on or with on a daily basis. As a matter of fact MOST of the security breaches I've known about are due to the untrained soldiers who are irresponsible about OPSEC (Yes I know what that means!!!) I've seen pictures of secret maps posted on Blogs, soldiers posting photographs of installations right on Google Earth (Hey what better way to know how to suicide bomb a post than if I know what EVERY GATE looks like on the way in.) I'm not saying the civilians are innocent. But I'm saying they are no more guilty than soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen (And that goes for Enlisted AND officers!)

But on that note... please remember... MOST of the civilians who work with or for the military do it for one main reason. WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS!!! TRUST me the money isn't THAT good. Truth is I respect and appreciate the soldiers I work with everyday... And I never pass up an opportunity to tell them "THEY ARE MY HEROS!".

Re:How egalitarian

[Wookietim]

After being in the military and (to be honest) being sickened by the mindset of the average military person, I need to correct you on something : The military is NOT on the side of the public. They are on their own side - whatever gathers more power to them is the side they will support. Just because they go out of their way to make it LOOK like the want to protect the public does not mean that they actually, deep down, care whether large cities are decimated in a war. They care only about perpetuating their own agenda, which is to gather ever increasing budgets to themselves and expand their power around the world. This sounds like a conspiracy nut talking, but I am not - just someone who has been there are witnessed that mindset first hand. Never trust the military - Never.

Re:How egalitarian

[vtcodger]

***This is a pretty misleading headline. U.S. Military? These are government contractors, civilians that do not have a clue about IT security and have not even considered what their actions can result in!***

Excuse me. Between 1961 and 1990, I worked on a lot of military and government contracts as a contractor. We worked under rigorous security rules defined by the contracting agency -- the government and in most cases the military. The rules weren't always the same as those applying to military personnel. Sometimes they were tighter. I can't recall a single case where they were looser for contractors than for the military.

If today's contractors are not under control, that is a problem with the military or the executive. It's not something that just happens. Are there not supposed to be government guys who monitor contract performance, and raise holy hell if security rules are not followed?

Re:How egalitarian

[mpe]

As a citizen, I don't want my government thinking it is in some egalitarian relationship with me and my fellow citizens. The government ought to consider itself subordinate to its citizens.

All too often you find government thinking that it's privacy rights are more important than those of the public. e.g. consider the recent cases of police officers objecting to members of the public filiming them...

Re:How egalitarian

[lawpoop]

I'm confused. Isn't the US the 'visiting' team in this metaphor?

Re:How egalitarian

[ArsenneLupin]

What if, for some reason, they think these plans are already available to some terrorist or not a serious threat and they placed them there in order to get IP address information from computers connecting and viewing the files. tor

Work with me a minute on this. Ok...

If a suspected terrorist goes to a government website, they don't have any clue who is who when checking the server logs. But, if they goto certain portions, they can narrow the field down a bit. Now, instead of searching the logs for who went where and then trying to associate the IP address with a customer from some ISP and then coordinate that with their Internet monitoring logs that they (no longer)need have to have a warrant to watch, they are using this stuff like this to narrow the search down a bit and look for codes as to when the next attack and may be or locations of where terrorist might be. Interesting idea. But what about all the scavenge-hunters who will also download the plans, just because they can?

Something like this airbase, might be low on the security priority scale. They might even be old pictures and diagrams or improperly labeled in order to mislead anyone actually acting on the information. But, with the IP address of the people searching for those files combined with the Internet monitoring programs, it might make a few analyst's jobs easier to detect threats and such. Even if they are using a botnet or compromised computers, they would likely use the same bots to hide their identity when looking for orders or communications and such. Well, if the botnet is large enough, such information might be next to useless. And then they'd have to still separate the terrorists from all the other users of the botnet.

Re:How egalitarian

[Anonymous Coward]

As an active duty Marine, I completely agree with your statements on privacy, I appreciate what little privacy I enjoy and your right to privacy is one of the reasons I have served for 20+ years. I do however take issue with your comparing this instance with our current administration and congress and the military. Politicians are the government that you refer to, not those of us on the ground that are carrying out the fight.

You could've just as easily said, “No.” and not gone on to Iraq. If I were in the Armed Forces and I got notice I was getting deployed to Iraq, I'd rather spend time in jail for refusing to go. I would not participate in Bush's war of lies, and I would not ship off to kill innocent people as an occupier, no matter how much legal/political immunity I got. Murder is murder.

You chose to do what you do, so you have absolutely no right to complain.

Signed,

A Stupid Civilian

Re:How egalitarian

[Ash Vince]

You don't know me either and if you did you may possibly call me old and out of touch instead so I can't win this silly game - I only had your writing style and rapid jumps to odd conclusions to make me jump to the conclusion that I was talking to someone with little clue - and I generously put it down to a young age and little experience. I recommend that before suggesting people on slashdot are young you look at their UID or even better would be their journal / homepage. It only takes a few moments to try and research what you post. Not doing so and getting caught out as obviously as you did (it tells you his uid in his post) just makes you look a bit foolish.

You cannot tell that someone with a high uid is young. However to have a uid that low means he has been a member for alot longer than me or you since they are handed out incrementally. The only way someone could have a uid that low and not have joined the workforce is if they used someone elses account. Please lets avoid getting into an argument about whether he did create the account himself as it would be purely speculative on our part.

Also, I did think your original reply to him was more than a little patronising. Your reply above is even worse. To be impartial, he was also a bit insulting but just because some people out here have been around the block a few times but are still paranoid about governments should not really come as any big surprise.

I did not think that the conclusion he came to was that odd actually. I personally would rather think that governments do some things deliberately rather than think they are incompetent.

Re:How egalitarian

[sumdumass]

Tor might not be what you think it is. But I'm not going to argue or question that. I'm just saying that there might be ways to either detect who is who with TOR or maybe it is part of a larger more elaborate scheme. After all, If NASA needed a 19 million dollar toilet, there has to be other projects that some of the price tag would be siphoned from to make a black ops thing work. But TOR could backfire the issues.

Interesting idea. But what about all the scavenge-hunters who will also download the plans, just because they can?

Well, even with all the scavenge-hunters, it would narrow the list down quite a bit. It would allow a lot more focus to be placed on a few IPs instead of every single one that connects to a legitimate public portion of the site. And the best part is that all the data they collect form these other sites are beside the original intent of doing things like this. the program wouldn't even need to be disclosed.

Well, if the botnet is large enough, such information might be next to useless. And then they'd have to still separate the terrorists from all the other users of the botnet.

Sure, but your forgetting something else. With a botnet, the commands have to come from somewhere. With a black box recording all the websites and such from an Internet connection, it will eventually pick up commands to the botnet. While the net might be large, the amount of people controlling them won't necessarily be near as large. So the government tells their black boxes to monitor the IPs from wich the commands come through which in turn is filtered for relevant data and then checked for validity. eventually, you will see patterns and get an accurate or relatively accurate representation.

I know this sounds hollywoodesq, but think about it, if they can monitor anything on the web, and use the power of some of the super computers they have, it sounds possible to some extent with the reach they have and these monitoring programs.

Re:How egalitarian

[Elemenope]

LOL! Yes, from the point of view of an uninterested observer, the US is the 'visiting' team in the 'game'. I meant 'home team' in the sense of 'team I am identified with', being as I am an American citizen.

Re:How egalitarian

[mu51c10rd]

Money is not that good? I tend to disagree...

http://www.clearancejobs.com/index.php?action=view _job&jobID=775472

$100,000 - $150,000 for an MCSE network admin? It is widely known that many contractors hire people based on clearances, not skills. It is also widely known that they pay very inflated salaries for having a clearance. So, you have a large army of contractors, of which many are unqualified for their jobs. Couple that with record profits for defense contractor companies (meaning a dot com bubble style for defense employment), and you have a situation ripe for mistakes. Just my $0.02.

Re:How egalitarian

[rjhubs]

I suggest you read the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system I will quickly summarize though.

The reason the U.S. only has two main political parties is a result of how they handle elections. I am not sure about the UK government, but I imagine if the UK has 3 parties then parliment seats are awarded based upon what percentage of the vote a party recieves. So if one party gets 30% of the vote they'll be awarded an equivalent number of seats.

The U.S. is different, voting is done on a majority basis, since only one party can win a seat, both parties try to posistion them self as close to 'center' (left-wing ---- center ---- right-wing) as possible so they are able to get the largest majority of votes (this assumes people are distributed in a bell-curve like (unimodal) frequency which the U.S. has, Iraq however, with it three parties does not have a unimodal distribution) Hence the two main parties need to absorb the views of any other 3rd parties in order to assure they remain electable. So this really is just a byproduct of the system the U.S. uses. It has advantages and disadvantages.

Re:How egalitarian

[HiThere]

I did not think that the conclusion he came to was that odd actually. I personally would rather think that governments do some things deliberately rather than think they are incompetent.


Try it both ways. I'm sure that's the correct answer, the problem is trying to deduce the proportions.

Re:How egalitarian

[jafac]

Speaking for the hapless contractors here;
A lot of us want to do the right thing, and some of us are even smart enough to do it. Even fewer still, are given the budget and schedule by our superiors to actually accomplish that. And that's IF and ONLY IF, the *customer* can communicate a set of concise, static requirements (and then, actually commit to funding them through the lifetime of the program). Which as we know, in the whole field of IT, let alone Defense Contracting, happens all the time, right?

In my experience, I'll pick one specific program, where we were given requirements to build a system, without any real regard to infosec practices - and after 5+ years of development, 6 months before delivery, one group associated with our customer drops a load of security requirements on us. (ie. we found these specific vulnerabilities, two sets, in two rounds of "testing" - fix them) - we hired an independent engineering firm to analyze it, and they came up with a different set of specific vulnerabilities. Now; prior to that time, those of us who had a clue about system security, did our best to try to instill good design and practices - but if you contract with the government to build a product to do X, and you deem that it's best if the product does X+1, and you spend the government's money to do that without a contract mod, that's called FRAUD. Unfortunate, but true. And at the time - the customer was dragging their feet on the original contract - trying to REDUCE scope, not expand it to include security.

So after this group got our customer thinking about security, and in the mood to talk about contract mods, we did our own homework, and proposed to build the system to DISA spec (instead of fixing vulnerabilities piecemeal, we would re-architect parts of the system to improve overall posture, and proactively address a lot of structural problems) - and as we built up that proposal, one of our contacts started sending all these DoD directives to us "you _shall_ fix this vulnerability, you _shall_ adhere to this standard. . . " etc. - some of these items were demanding things like; we MUST run Windows XP machines, configured a certain way, membered to their Domain Controller, all applications MUST be dotNET, etc. just really apeshit crazy stuff that had nothing to do with sound security engineering. And in the end, the customer refused to even pay for the first set of vulnerabilities that were found, and instead, used it as an excuse to de-fund the entire program; after 5+ years of development. Which put things on hold for 6 months, which caused a brain-drain as some of our best engineers (myself included) left the company. During this time, a lot of high-powered, high-priced executives and managers were jetting all over the place, spending time in replan meetings. WEEKS AND WEEKS. In the end; the customer rejected the plan because we couldn't deploy on their schedule - yet had we not spent 3 months talking about it, we could have hit their schedule. You have to understand what this does for morale in the trenches. . .

So yes - at the outset, my (previous) employer completely dropped the ball when they spec-ed out this program, by agreeing to develop a system that was so hole-ey (in our defense, it was never intended to be connected to the public internet, and was to be deployed in a secured facility - security was deemed to be an ADMINISTRATIVE problem, not a design problem). They compounded the error, by not pushing back and sticking to their guns when the new security assessment that wasn't in the original requirements came down. But the customer should have said something sooner, and they should have presented a single message, a single standard, instead of having four separate entities jump in and tell us how we had to do it. And *KNOWLEDGABLE* points of contacts would have helped. The people I was told to talk to - with our customer, had no freaking clue, and strung us along for months out of sheer incompetence. (In the end, they were happy to be rid of us, and sub-out a replace

Re:How egalitarian

[Starteck81]

Heck, this administration forced me to not be a republican anymore and I will never be a democrat. They all are liars.

Which brings up a great point. How do you fix the situation we're in when there are no good politicians left to vote for?

Re:How egalitarian

[evought]

I don't think that could be more illogical and separated from the point. the people doing the job are doing great jobs at it. The top of the command might be whacked out but they are doing what they consider their best too.

I think the previous poster's point was that if the leadership has gotten you into a bad situation, with impossible or actually detrimental goals, through no fault of your own, doing your job, good or bad, is making things worse in the long run, which is a good reason to dramatically change those goals. When I was in the Pentagon, the general consensus was that the military was there to clean up the mess when the diplomats screwed up. Being able to clean up the mess assumes that at some point the diplomats *stop* screwing it up and making it worse.

Here is the problem, In the battlefield right now, Men and women are dieing because people like you say pull the troops out and leave our allies hanging. Now, this might not be exactly as your saying it but it is what is being heard in the places like Iraq where people who support our troops there are putting their life on the line in doing so. Do you wonder why the terrorist are killing more civilians in Iraq then soldiers? It isn't because the soldiers are cowards and hiding behind them, it is because the civilians are supporting them and they are being considered fair game as far as the enemy is concerned. When they hear "Lets support the troops and up and leave the fight" they are thinking if we lose because they desert us, I'm going to get killed, I have probably caused my families death too. So you little self righteous, "I support the troops but not the war" is getting the killed. If you want the war to end, support getting the tool and people necessary to get the job done so they can get out without abandoning those we are supposed to be helping or losing by default.

First of all, very few of these folks are for a total withdrawal, but rather a change of mission and partial re-deployment, one that takes into account logistical, political, and other realities that the current folks in charge are trying very hard to ignore, and things which the troops on the ground are not actually in contact with on a regular basis. As to disparity in deaths between civilians and troops, has it occurred to you that the troops are heavily armed, armored, and have air/artillery support which civilians lack? Has it occurred to you that the civilians in the region have been killing each other since the 1600's over issues that have little to do with us, but which our toppling of the government made much easier? Are you aware of the Iraqi police and army recruitment centers bombed on a regular basis? How are you going to 'win' and stop that violence? Even General Patraeus says it would take a 9-10 year commitment--- that's not a situation where we give the troops 'what they need to get the job done and get out'. Besides 'what they (you) need' fundamentally does not exist. There are no more troops to send, tours are already overextended (and we learned the cost of that in WWII, whatever the willingness of the soldiers), there is no more equipment, we no longer have the manufacturing capacity to replace it, and we don't have the capital to buy it. We are badly overextended and meanwhile other threats go unanswered, including response to stateside disasters. Part of good military leadership is knowing when a plan has failed and adjusting accordingly. No matter how worthwhile the goal, (though I would question the reasons for the invasion in the first place, it's a bit late to change that), failure is failure. Throwing more at it is sheer stupidity. So is turning tail and running, but an ordered change in overall strategy and re-deployment is not 'running' or 'losing by default'.

And the political situation, far from improving is deteriorating rapidly. Iraqi members of parliament are boycotting the process. No progress has been made on sharing oil revenue. (A portion of) Kurds are becoming *more* nationalist and Tur

Re:How egalitarian

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off jarhead. We don't need you, and we don't care about you or your job. You do nothing for us, you do it for the politicians and the corporations that are profiting for war. Any other ideas you have are deluded.

When the Iraqis come shooting down my door, then maybe you can be proud of yourself for serving. Until then, you're just another pawn in a rich man's game and it's pretty pathetic that you can't see that.

Get over yourself, you're less important than you think. You're so brainwashed and ignorant that you can't even form coherent sentences anymore since you're too busy frothing at the mouth towards the people you're supposed to be serving, and the ones who are paying your salary. (Then again we all know what MARINE stands for...)

Way to be a soldier moron.

Re:How egalitarian

[Torvaun]

Hmm. We know that the British did that 'Man who never was' thing in WWII, and they also prevented an attack with the threat of setting the English canal on fire. Those are the big reasons that any information that is leaked is considered suspect. I wouldn't be at all surprised if most of the leaks are real, but not used precisely because false leaks can be so destructive to people who rely on them.

Re:How egalitarian

[dbIII]

Also, I did think your original reply to him was more than a little patronising

Hence line one and my use of that word. I'm all in favour of fantasy but when somebody uses it to back up an insult it's sometimes best to try to point that out to them bluntly.

As for the final words on governments doing things deliberately - there no point considering two states of totally incompetant and omnipotent - the reality is something that can function but huge mistakes will occur on occasion without checks, balances and due process. When things get stretched or there is extreme levels of secrecy (ie. only very small groups know with little or no supervision) it is easier to unchecked incompetance and outright criminal activity (eg. Oliver North's embezzlement to pay for home air conditioning) - which is why you always need enough people to know what the contractors are up to and if they are actually capable of doing the job. The Tom Clancy fantasy the above poster said I was naive to not beleive is an omnipotent machine that pretends to make mistakes so that we will not know it is an omnipotent machine - that differs somewhat from what most people old enough to be in the workforce have seen.

Re:How egalitarian

[SCPRedMage]

We COULD do that, but you need to consider two things:

1. It'll likely rebuild itself as a stadium that wants to blow up OUR stadium...

and

2. We're the ones that made the damn thing unstable in the first place; we have a responsibility to make sure it can stand on it's own before we walk away.

Re:How egalitarian

[Anonymous Coward]

"What if, for some reason, they think these plans are already available to some terrorist or not a serious threat and they placed them there in order to get IP address information from computers connecting and viewing the files. Work with me a minute on this."

I'll do. Then they should be put in jail. If it is public, it is public. They have no bussiness tracking who comes in or who comes out. Or am I going to be suspicious on terrorism just because I review public data? If you answer "yes", you should work a minute about how insane you are.

Re:How egalitarian

[Thing 1]

The AC that responded had a great point, however eloquently spoken...

Just to clarify what I meant: we entered into this war under false pretenses. Bush recently announced that someone in his administration leaked Plame's identity, but that he considers it "old news" that we should just forget about.

Meanwhile, my neighbors are dying over there. So yes, I consider it criminal that we're still there, and no, I don't think my tax dollars should be spent keeping some other country which isn't benefiting us in the slightest out of civil war (even if we made them our 51st state, it would take decades for the oil revenues to pay for the expenses already incurred in the war).

[...] all they hear is how we want to abandon them and don't care what happens after we are gone.

You're absolutely right. I don't care what happens to the Iraqis. Bush does, as he thinks that's where the future of energy comes from. Do you see him doing any fucking thing about the crisis in Darfur?

I heard General Clark on NPR tonight talking about how the Iranians and Syrians are keeping the quagmire going, because Bush has already announced (years ago, when this started) that he wants regime change in all the neighboring countries; so, they keep arming the Iraqis to keep our military busy, which reduces the chances that we'll turn our military-industrial complex against those countries.

If you were them, wouldn't you do the same?

And to respond to one thing the other ex-Pentagon responder said:

You are saving lives of Iraqi civilians, capturing insurgents and terrorists, and doing much good on a local scale, but, because of the *leadership*, that good does not translate into an ability to "win".

Every day we kill some insurgents. Every day, there are at least as many Iraqi civilian casualties as reported insurgents killed. This is a great insurgency recruiting tool!

We need to stop killing people, and get out of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. It reminds me of the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost, who lost them over in the darkness, but at least it's light over here...

Re:How egalitarian

[Anonymous Coward]

Its lik a L999 Firebal Mage xsept its soo far awy that its spels heel u wen they get 2 u.

Well, hell -- is that all there is to it??? These other 'splainers are clearly not comfortable with the concept that you teach by going from the known to the unknown, not the other way around.

Thank u 4 making the problem clear 2 me in just 1 succinct sentence.

Re:How egalitarian

[Ash Vince]

My main point you seem to have ignored so I will repeat it just in case you missed it:

You tried to brush off his opinion as being that of someone much younger than yourself without the slightest bit of research and contrary to the evidence that was staring you in the face (His very low UID). That made you look silly. Is that blunt enough yet?

Re:How egalitarian

[dbIII]

The clue was when I said it was time to be patronising. It was a silly way to attempt to point out to someone that they were using a childish fantasy to drive an insult and yes it was obvious and noted that it was an adult acting in a childish manner and not a child. I found it offensive and was offensive in return, I tried to make fun of someone insulting and insulted them. I do still believe the poster is younger than my keyboard but they could still have been in the workforce for a decade to match that age :)

It's a sensitive subject for me - that supposedly omnipotent government is killing a lot of people through various acts of incompetance and it is sometimes like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Re:How egalitarian

[Ash Vince]

How are old are you saying your kayboard is?

Minimum age to have been in the workforce for 10 years: 26
(Assuming you join workforce at 16, which is pretty young for full time work.)

So is your keyboard older than 26 years?

From the article

[nlitement]

But it's already out there, posted carelessly to file servers by government agencies and contractors, accessible to anyone with an Internet connection. How did they end up "posting carelessly"? I thought they have an Intranet that is separate from the web servers.

Re:From the article

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually. But their intranet tubes got tangled with ours, due to an extreme strain on the internets from people looking at too many pictures of cats with funny captions.

Re:From the article

[Anonymous Coward]

They do. Two different ones actually. Providing different degrees of security. SIPER, and NIPER.

Re:From the article

[Nazlfrag]

If you do manage to leak secrets though, SNIPER is the one to watch out for.

Re:From the article

[SCPRedMage]

Drop the E's there, buddy; they're called the SIPRNet and the NIPRNet; the Secure/Non-secure Internet Protocol Routing Networks. For the uninformed, the SIPRNet is a full blown, independent internet, isolated from THE Internet, whereas the NIPRNet is simply a collection of gov't intranets connected to the Internet.

Just block all IP blocks from "enemy" nations

[Mr. Haplo]

Look, this is simple. The military should just block all incoming access from any country that it deems an enemy. That way, no matter how lax they are with security, it'll be that much harder to get to even unprotected documents by our "enemies". Of course, this should be done at the core router level... Just in case they weren't aware...

-- Jordan

Re:Just block all IP blocks from "enemy" nations

[Ai Olor-Wile]

Proxy, sir. Proxy.

(Preferably an anonymous one.)

Re:Just block all IP blocks from "enemy" nations

[Anonymous Coward]

Totally safe because, of course, there are no such things as zombie machines or proxies....

Re:Just block all IP blocks from "enemy" nations

[Aaron Isotton]

Yeah right. Because it is soooo hard to get a free proxy/ssh/web account or whatever in the US. This would simply annoy everybody who wants to legitimately access information from abroad and not help against the bad boys at all.

Re:Just block all IP blocks from "enemy" nations

[CastrTroy]

Sounds a lot like DRM to me. I think the military should try this. It's working so well for the music/movie industry.

Re:Just block all IP blocks from "enemy" nations

[aliquis]

Security through obscurity rocks! And almost always works... bad.

Re:Just block all IP blocks from "enemy" nations

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey at least you'll get to find legions of zombies in China!

Re:Just block all IP blocks from "enemy" nations

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Proxy, sir. Proxy.

At last the excuse we've been looking for to declare proxies and using proxies as illegal/treason. Thanks DoD.

- RIAA & MPAA

Let's head this off at the pass...

[SoapBox17]

Before anyone cries foul...

From TFA:

"None of the drawings are classified and we believe they were all handled appropriately per the government's direction," said CH2M Hill spokesman John Corsi. But the company added a password protection to its FTP site after the AP's inquiry and referred the direct request for the documents to the government.

The DOD has a special category of Unclassified documents called "For Official Use Only" (FOUO) which prevents the information from being released to the public under the FOIA. This information was not classified, but was not supposed to be released.

Re:Let's head this off at the pass...

[bark]

Before you stop reading past the 1st few paragraphs, also from the same article

Freeman, who showed the AP the documents from Sandia and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, said he made a conscious effort to avoid information labeled classified but still managed to accidentally download files from Sandia with "top secret" classifications, forcing him to wipe his computer hard drive clean and notify authorities.

So Top Secret and Classified documents were actually found, forcing the investigator to give himself up to the FBI.

Re:Let's head this off at the pass...

[digitalchinky]

What's interesting is that after spending a good 10 or 15 years with a TS security clearance, I can do the odd 'search' and find an astonishing amount of information put on line by both the military and contractors, the kind of information that would generally land a person in the trade in some rather deep hot water. (or jail) 3 letter agencies don't really have an employment stream for people to sit on google all day looking for in house classified documents. It usually takes a bit of digging by a reporter and a few major headlines before anyone much cares.

Re:Let's head this off at the pass...

[Plutonite]

This information was not classified, but was not supposed to be released. Is that like being ugly but having a beautiful soul?

Re:Let's head this off at the pass...

[myowntrueself]

Maybe...

as in "In the morning I will be sober but you will still be classified".

Re:Let's head this off at the pass...

[CodeBuster]

But the company added a password protection to its FTP site after the AP's inquiry

I hope they realize that FTP does not encrypt the transport, and thus the password, and that this is only marginally better than no password at all until they bother with encrypting the underlying connection (port forwarding 21 or whatever port they are using through an SSH tunnel for example).

Re:Let's head this off at the pass...

[ZachMG]

no more like the vice presidents office its part of the executive branch but not really

Re:Let's head this off at the pass...

[digitig]

this is only marginally better than no password at all Arguably it's worse, because of the false sense of security.

yeah

[User 956]

This is just another example of how Michael Bay's Transformers movie is completely ridiculous. Megatron wouldn't have had to send his Decepticons to break into the government's computers to steal the location of the all-spark.

As we can see, the DOD would likely just left that information open, available over the web.

Re:yeah

[Architect_sasyr]

They put the information in a movie so that we wouldn't believe it was true! Just like the Matrix...

Re:yeah

[TedTschopp]

I guess they should have used a search engine and looked on Ebay....

Re:yeah

[PsychoSlashDot]

This is just another example of how Michael Bay's Transformers movie is completely ridiculous. Megatron wouldn't have had to send his Decepticons to break into the government's computers to steal the location of the all-spark. As we can see, the DOD would likely just left that information open, available over the web.

Funny thing is that Optimus Prime claimed to have learned how to speak our languages on "the World Wide Web", but he didn't once use any l337 speak.

Re:yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't give them any ideas, Jazz was annoying enough by himself. I never thought I would get satisfaction out of Megatron ripping Jazz to pieces until I saw that movie.

Re:yeah

[zippthorne]

Wow. Everything I hear about that film makes me gladder and gladder I decided not to see it.

Re:First Post!

[afaik_ianal]

And don't forget to troll with, "There is nothing to see here, move along."

The sad thing is, I actually think I'm funny.

"Accidently"??

[iminplaya]

Please! So those were the "real" plans, huh? Nod Nod Wink Wink..

Re:"Accidently"??

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, sometimes it's nice to believe your government is sneaky rather than stupid. On the other hand, in a society where the government seeds disinformation, it seems that enemies of said government cannot be held ethically responsible for their actions.

I.e. if the government intentionally tries to present the misinformation that it is committing torture when in fact it is not*, and only doing so to intimidate its enemies, then those enemies can't in my mind, be held culpable for the traditional ethical violations they commit in retaliation.

* God I only wish I really believed that...

It's sad that the majority of americans seem to be ignorant of how not-torturing people, encouraging-free-speech, and not-lying-to-the-public actually INCREASE NATIONAL SECURITY. While the actions of the current administration are DECREASING NATIONAL SECURITY.

Re:"Accidently"??

[iminplaya]

Yup, sometimes it's nice to believe your government is sneaky rather than stupid.

It's not a big stretch to believe the "stupidity" thing could be an act presented by the media. Some things are just too stupid as to not be intentional. Couldn't tell ya. The view's not so good way up here in the bleachers.

While the actions of the current administration are DECREASING NATIONAL SECURITY.

Yeah well, they're pocketing the change. And I don't believe they call their form of robbery "national security" when the cameras are turned off. I think they phrase it as , "Hehehe... suckers".

Re:"Accidently"??

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, do you really think anyone cares enough to create fake plans like this? We barely vet our local national contractors, and complaints against them like "he had detailed plans and GPS coordinates of every part of the base" tend to get them "fired" by sending them to another base...

The enemy doesn't need the stupid internet for detailed plans. Their technique is "social engineering," aka "anyone desperate enough to work with Americans would be glad to take our money instead of having their wife murdered." They've "infiltrated" the local police in every city, the army in every unit, the government in every office. This is, of course, because >70% of the population want us out in less than a year.

If we actually had the resources to fight this war, let alone try to mind fuck the one guy interested in this base's plans, it would be over already.

Keeping secrets

[Aminion]

And somehow, these people manage to keep secrets about aliens, JFK, weapon programs, etc.? ;)

Re:Keeping secrets

[kd5ujz]

They still have some people believing Saddam had WMDs, so I do not see a JFK/Alien/Roswell/Moonwalk cover up out of their reach. :P

Re:Keeping secrets

[Anonymous Coward]

See, it's all about the master conspiracy. By leaking unimportant information that only some measly civilians and combatants need to be safe, they distract us from the important matters, like alien JFKs programmed to be weapons.

Re:Keeping secrets

[cheezedawg]

The world witnessed Saddam use his WMD against the Iranians and Kurds on multiple occasions. This takes the notion that he had WMD out of the "belief" realm and plants it solidly in the "proven fact" category.

Re:Keeping secrets

[NMerriam]

The world witnessed Saddam use his WMD against the Iranians and Kurds on multiple occasions. This takes the notion that he had WMD out of the "belief" realm and plants it solidly in the "proven fact" category.

We didn't claim to invade for weapons he had in the 1980s (when he was an ally and we were PROVIDING him weapons and technical expertise). We claimed he had WMDs in the year 2003 and was refusing to get rid of them *in 2003*. Please, stop trying to move the goalposts to make yourself feel better about wasting a trillion dollars and thousands of lives.

Re:Keeping secrets

[thebonafortuna]

Saddam Hussein was never an ally of the United States...it was the Baathist party we helped to put in party. He simply butchered and murdered his way through the hierarchy, until he reached the top. We had no hand in that, and we didn't do anything to support him once he took over. If anyone has any evidence we supported him in his eight year war with Iran in the 1980's, please provide it.

Second point: according to many sources, Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons in 2002, and early 2003. He moved them through conveys into Syria after a dam burst and most of the countries in the region sent "aid". There are some interesting stories about it available in the main stream, should anyone choose to do the research.

Re:Keeping secrets

[thebonafortuna]

*we helped put in power.* Sorry.

Re:Keeping secrets

[NMerriam]

We had no hand in that, and we didn't do anything to support him once he took over. If anyone has any evidence we supported him in his eight year war with Iran in the 1980's, please provide it.

I simply can't conceive that you know there was a war between Iran and Iraq but don't know we supported Iraq quite openly, but I'll take your statement at face value. There's plenty of documentation of our support of Hussein throughout the war, I don't know how in the past few years of our war you managed to miss the photograph of Donald Rumsfeld shaking his hand.

Re:Keeping secrets

[WilliamSChips]

Even worse than the people thinking Saddam still had WMDs were the people who thought he was part of 9/11.

Re:Keeping secrets

[mpe]

according to many sources, Saddam did have chemical and biological weapons in 2002, and early 2003. He moved them through conveys into Syria after a dam burst and most of the countries in the region sent "aid". There are some interesting stories about it available in the main stream, should anyone choose to do the research.

Just because conspiracy theories are "main stream" dosn't make them anything other than theories. When looked at rationally such theories stand or fall based on actual evidence, there dosn't appear to be much of this.

Re:Keeping secrets

[thebonafortuna]

Of course I have seen that photo. And you're right, what I said was incorrect: we did openly support Iraq in that war with Iran. An obvious oversight on my part, and I apologize for it. I got so caught up in pointing out how we did not aid Saddam himself in gaining power, I made a mistake in my other statement. My apologies.

However, from what I've gathered, we did not support Saddamn by providing weaponry or technology. The Wikipedia article you cited does make mention of our providing technology, but its source is no longer available. It seems to me that legitimate sources (not Wikipedia) have settled on our supporting Iraq through use of battle intelligence. I'll do some more searching, but that's what I have seen.

I thought this was an excellent article on that story to which you are referring:
http://www.photius.com/rogue_nations/020818_nyt. html (New York Times, August 17, 2002)

Anyways, thanks for pointing that out. Again, I made a mistake in what I said, and I apologize.

Re:Keeping secrets

[cheezedawg]

We didn't claim to invade for weapons he had in the 1980s

I am going to say this as nicely as possible: you are ignorant about the justification for the US invasion in 2003. The illegal weapons that Iraq had (and used) in the 1980s were very relevant to the 2003 invasion. Why? Because Iraq was required by a unanimous UN Security Council mandate to show the world that they had disarmed those illegal weapons and to stop using and supporting terrorism, and Iraq never complied. Not even close. To quote the chief UNMOVIC inspector Hans Blix in January 2003, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."

The UN Security Council was serious about this disarmament mandate. They explicitely authorized the use of military force to achieve compliance, and reaffirmed that in over a dozen subsequent unanimous resolutions over the next 12 years.

Please, stop trying to move the goalposts to make yourself feel better about wasting a trillion dollars and thousands of lives.

The goalposts didn't move from April 3, 1991 when the UN Security Council passed Resolution 687. Nobody feels good about the war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that it wasn't necessary.

Re:Keeping secrets

[cheezedawg]

Of course we supported Iraq in their war against Iran- it was a very logical and reasonable thing to do given what Iran had just done to the United States after the Iranian revolution. By the mid 1980's when it became clear that Iraq was not playing by the rules, the United States was the first to publicly condemn Iraq for their use of terrorism and violations of the Geneva protocols (which Iraq promptly denounced as "CIA lies").

I think you also have a misconception about exactly how much support we gave to Iraq during this timeframe. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States accounted for less than 1% of Iraq's arms imports from 1970-1991. The vast majority of Iraq's arms came from the USSR (almost 50%), with France coming in at a close second. In fact, the only "arms" imports from the United States to Iraq during the 1980s were 4 different orders for lightweight helicopters (totalling about 120 helicopters) that were originally ordered for civilian use, but later taken over by the Iraqi Air Force. Thats hardly a damning amount of support.

On top of that, analysis of the chemical weapons that Saddam used in the 1980's proves that they did not come from the United States. To quote:

The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. ...
the sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplierSo if you are really looking to blame the actual supporters of Saddam's regime, it certainly isn't the United States.

Re:Keeping secrets

[cheezedawg]

Just because conspiracy theories are "main stream" dosn't make them anything other than theories. When looked at rationally such theories stand or fall based on actual evidence, there dosn't appear to be much of this.

The data that the ISG uncovered is beyond theory. They found and documented over a dozen hidden and proscribed weapons programs that UNMOVIC had no idea existed prior to the invasion as well as a clandestine procurement regime in place where they could get anything they wanted outside of the sights of the UN inspectors. True, they did not find the old decaying stockpiles that we were expecting them to find, but the violations that they did find were just as troubling and probably more dangerous.

This is all detailed in the 1400 page ISG report. I suggest you read some of it. Even the high level summary makes it clear that Iraq was not in compliance with thier disarmament mandate.

Re:Keeping secrets

[NMerriam]

I think you also have a misconception about exactly how much support we gave to Iraq during this timeframe.

No, you just like to cherry-pick statistics that only *seem* to contradict what I actually said. I never claimed we provided them with chemical weapons, or that we were their primary direct arms supplier. Sure, we provided them with plenty of dual-use equipment, lots of cash -- we even escorted their oil to help fund the war with the US Navy!

Hell, Iraq attacked one of our own ships and killed a couple dozen Americans -- and we continued to side with them! That's friendship for ya!

Re:Keeping secrets

[NMerriam]

you are ignorant about the justification for the US invasion in 2003.

Oh, wow, are we already back to trying to sell the fig leaf that we invaded to defend the integrity of the UN? I thought retro took at least two decades to be cool again.

I guess next season we'll be back to the Uranium from Africa for the months-from-completion Iraqi nuclear weapon program. I need to have that dry-cleaned or I just won't be fit to be seen!

Re:Keeping secrets

[cheezedawg]

Oh, wow, are we already back to trying to sell the fig leaf that we invaded to defend the integrity of the UN?

No, because that would be a stupid reason to start a war. Honestly- just who do you think is trying to use this as a justification?

We invaded Iraq because they posed an unacceptable threat to our national security. It is as simple as that.

Re:Keeping secrets

[cheezedawg]

Huh? I don't disagree with your claim that the United States openly supported Iraq in their war against Iran, or even that the US supplied weapons to them. I just think it is stupid to single the US out for this given the fact that several other countries supported Iraq much more extensively than we did. Seriously- what point were you trying to make?

Re:Keeping secrets

[thebonafortuna]

Wow...it's pretty absurd this comment was labeled "Troll". You've gotta love the moderators on this thing.

wow....

[Mystery00]

The level of incompetence required to make such stupid mistakes is just mind blowing. Direct result of the problems the US faces over education?

This just in:

[RAMMS EIN]

US Military Leaks its Secrets Online

In other news, water is wet!

Doubt this is a mistake.

[detain]

I have no problem believing that there are countless incompetent people within both our government and military, but they are both run in maners that should prevent mistakes like this from happening. Its my guess that these documents were intended to be 'leaked' and that its no real threat to us to have anyone aware of them. I dont see something like this being an accident at all. Its probably more a strategic move than a mistake.

Re:Doubt this is a mistake.

[Danga]

I kind of thought it seemed like a good way to accidently leak bogus information to confuse the "other side" too. I mean how stupid can you be to put sensitive information out on an anonymous ftp server? I definitely would never even think of putting anything like that on an ftp unless the ftp at least required a password (and even then I would think about who all already has or can get access to that ftp). It seems like security 101 to me. Who cares if the ftp is not indexed? That is like saying it is ok to leave a stack of sensitive papers in a box behind a bush at the back of a building instead of out front where everyone walks in because it is not so easily found. Stupid people!

However, I have seen just how bad government contractors and even the main workers can be when it comes to computers and I definitely could see them making a mistake like this. Some people just have no clue what they are doing on a computer (or they actually do know how to do a lot but don't understand the ramifications of what they are doing) and really need to be trained better before getting access to sensitive materials.

So, I could see it happening either way. I hope it was an intentional leak but my gut makes me lean more towards the human error/incompetence side. Who knows.

Re:Doubt this is a mistake.

[dbIII]

Its my guess that these documents were intended to be 'leaked'

Your conspiracy theory requires a greater degree of competance than is currently being displayed. Be careful with your credulity. At the far end of this scale there are those that think some elite mob of US spooks engineered 9/11 because only an omnipotent government can defeat itself.

With corruption, nepotism and political appointees you will not always get people competant enough to do the job. It's not just the head of FEMA there are smaller jobs up for grabs for those that bend or break the rules.

Re:Doubt this is a mistake.

[Scratch-O-Matic]

Here's an exercise for you:

1. Drive around Arlington, VA (where the Pentagon is) and observe all the buildings with the names of defense contractors on them.

2. Say to yourself, "Everyone in all of these buildings understands that when they upload a file to the company server, it is available to anyone around the world."

3. Reflect.

Re:Doubt this is a mistake.

[bagsc]

Your post is clearly a plot by the counter-counter-intelligence community of the Iraqi insurgents to convince the US counter-intelligence community that it might be believable if they were to leak plans to the Iraqi insurgent intelligence community. Your argument is about as logical.

You have no idea how scarce manpower is for intelligence and counter-intelligence. If we were half as good at intelligence as you think we are, we would have gotten rid of the bad guys in the Iraqi government and we'd all be praising Bush as an epic visionary who won over the Middle East.

Is there no way to do better?

[Aaron Isotton]

I find it a bit sad that such things keep on happening all the time (not only to the DOD).

I do realize that, while everyone agrees that "security" is a good thing, it often gets treated lazily for the sake of usability. Even though I think that giving "normal" (i.e. non-system administrator) users the right to just "put things on the server" (likely via FTP or Windows Shares) is just utterly stupid in any context where some sort of security is required. Things will go wrong because people just don't realize (and mostly aren't even interested in) the implications of what they do. I imagine something like this (I have seen that happening too many times):

Alice: Hey, Bob, where's that super secret document we're both working on?
Bob: It's on the SourceSafe (or whatever) server, you can check it out
Alice: Awww, my SourceSafe isn't set up properly and it takes too long. Can you E-Mail it to me?
Bob: Sure! (wants to email the document)
Bob: Darn, the attachments have to be less than 500kbytes, otherwise it won't send it. I'll put it on the W: drive!
Alice: Ok, thanks!

The ideal solution to this kind of problems would be an USABLE operating system with some kind of sensible data flow tracking (e.g. you can't copy a 'classified' file into a 'not classified' folder or upload it to a 'public' server) and which doesn't get in the way all the time.

Example: I worked at a company where we had Lotus Notes internally. Additionally to the other fabulous features (such as speed, stability and an intuitive interface) of that wonderful software it supported sending 'confidential' and 'highly confidential' mail. The result of sending a 'highly confidential' mail was that you couldn't copy/paste from a mail, which was just great when someone sent you a 60 characters long windows share path and you had to type it all into windows explorer. That is what I mean by 'get in the way'.

Is there any (operating) system out there with some sensible, security-aware data flow tracking? Such as 'when you copy something from a classified document into a non-classified document the non-classified one becomes classified'? Or attaching this kind of security information to files or other objects? I know that this is a major topic of research in computer science, but have never seen it in real use.

Re:Is there no way to do better?

[qzulla]

Is there any (operating) system out there with some sensible, security-aware data flow tracking? Such as 'when you copy something from a classified document into a non-classified document the non-classified one becomes classified'? Or attaching this kind of security information to files or other objects? I know that this is a major topic of research in computer science, but have never seen it in real use.

I work in a class environment. I'll try to answer this.

Why should the OS care? Who is going to build an OS that can determine what is class or not. That is the owner of the datas (data's?) job. The computer does not care. It happily does what it does - manage data. It is not its job to determine what is safe and what is not.

That is for people to determine. In the end it is people who decide what goes where. I like it this way as there is some accountability and a paper (electronic) trail.

So you write an app that determines what is class. Oops! The DB is down/not up to date/hosed by a virus. In other words, you is funked.

Air gap. We have that. Locked ports. We have that. Two man rule. We have that. Can't talk beyond this. Sorry.

My point is technology can only go so far in protecting stuff. The people doing this stuff only need to think of a few words.

VPN. SecureID. One time passwords.

But ftp with no passwords and not even sftp with passwords?

Fire them all.

qz

Re:Is there no way to do better?

[TED Vinson]

Uh...no.

Implementations of Multilevel Security exist, but they are not easy to use and are expensive to develop and operate. This is why systems processing different classification levels are on separate (air-gapped) networks. Off-the-shelf hardware and software can be used with physical security measures preventing information compromises. [Of course, an ID10T sneaker-netting data between the security domains is always a potential problem. The weak point is always people...]

Enforcing a Bell-LaPadula type multilevel security scheme is at odds with providing a flexible, user-friendly system. In order to ensure no violations of a security property, users will end up not being able to do some legitimate actions because the security monitor will see them as security violations. A MLS system that is more user friendly is going to have leaks. It is hard enough to get an OS that can enforce security at a single classification level, let alone one that can quickly and accurately handle a huge possible range of cross-security-domain user actions.

Re:Is there no way to do better?

[vtcodger]

***Is there any (operating) system out there with some sensible, security-aware data flow tracking? Such as 'when you copy something from a classified document into a non-classified document the non-classified one becomes classified'?***

I doubt such an OS exists in any usable form. The problem is that not all the information in a document that is classified SECRET is in fact secret. Some is probably CONFIDENTIAL (A much lower level that does not require a full background check for access). Some is unclassified. If you start arbitrarily classifying every document with the level of the most highly classified data in the source documents, it will not be long before everything including the address of the White House, Paris Hilton's cell-phone number, and the Chemical formula for water is classified TOP SECRET.

It may be that someone has dealt with this problem intelligently since I first saw it in the 1960s, but I wouldn't bet on it.

Re:Is there no way to do better?

[HikingStick]

I worked at a company where we had Lotus Notes internally. Additionally to the other fabulous features (such as speed, stability and an intuitive interface) of that wonderful software it supported sending 'confidential' and 'highly confidential' mail.

Notes? Lotus Notes? The same system that will consume any and all throughput availalbe to it? The same system whose search feature (pre-release 6) would commonly identify the wrong words as successful search results?

Perhaps it's only my employer's deployment of Notes that is hosed up the wazoo, but I've tried really hard and I still can't find anything nice to say about Notes.

Wait...well...it came from the same parent company that created AmiPro. [reminiscing fondly] May I allocate some of my positive memories of AmiPro as nice things about Lotus Notes?

Re:Is there no way to do better?

[Aaron Isotton]

I was being sarcastic ;-)

Re:Is there no way to do better?

[yumyum]

Agreed! In my environment, all class systems are isolated from everything else, apart from power. All electronic media makes a one-way trip if brought into the area. Electronic copies of documents are very highly controlled. I'm very suprised that TS documents were on a FTP server. To me, that shows a severe break in the handling procedures of whatever company had the electronic media, which must always be clearly labeled with its classification. Technically, that company's whole network is now considered classified since it touched class material. And that is a major bitch to have to handle...

Re:Is there no way to do better?

[qzulla]

About all I can say is I agree. It is not on the fun list.

qz

How to improve your security...

[digitalderbs]

"The posting of private material on publicly available FTP servers"

$ ftp ftp.usmilitary.com
220 FTP server (SunOS 4.1) ready.
Name (ftp.usmilitary.com): guest
331 Guest login ok, send ident as password.
Password: guest@guest.com
ftp>

Thankfully, they caught on and learned their lesson : "the SRA anonymous ftp server has been shutdown indefinitely. In the coming months, a new secure ftp site will be introduced that will replace the functionality of this site."

$sftp guest@sftp.usmilitary.com
Connecting to sftp.usmilitary.com...
Password: guest@guest.com
sftp>

Re:How to improve your security...

[NeverVotedBush]

How I wish I had mod points - you would get either "Funny" or "Insightful" -- not sure which.

Re:How to improve your security...

[Rearden82]

That's much more "Insightful" than "Funny".

I had the unfortunate experience of dealing with a government agency whose website was hacked. After a month-long "security audit", their in-house security experts devised a comprehensive plan to lock down their server and prevent it from ever being compromised again.

The solution, in its entirety, was to turn http://www.dumbass.agency.gov into the new, "secure" https://www.dumbass.agency.gov.

I wish I was kidding.

Re:How to improve your security...

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the possibility that the hacker simply sniffed the passwords, it might be of some use.

Certainly not a comprehensive solution however.

Re:How to improve your security...

[smchris]

Yeah, geez. Damn contractors. Just a _little_ reading convinced me to use ssh/scp on my home DSL LAN. Guess I'm qualified to be a $100,000+ contract troubleshooter to go in and fix this U.S. military intelligence problem. heh, heh.

Seriously, like they sent some 25-year-old well-placed Republican KID who didn't know crap over to Iraq to set up their stock market, you have to wonder whether this was set up by some retarded bayou kin to somebody in "the party" who could get him the job.

Re:How to improve your security...

[bagsc]

Any CLI in Arabic is atrociously complicated, so you'd need someone who can use computers proficiently (very rare) and can read English proficiently (very rare) and is interested in a trip to Gitmo (very, very rare). The odds of an American reporter accidentally finding something on an FTP site is about a hundred times as likely as an Iraqi terrorist deliberately finding it.

Re:How to improve your security...

[Morrigu]

How convenient, then, that the only adversaries of the United States government and military are Iraqi terrorists; since obviously no one else on the entire planet would be interested in this sort of information.

Believe me when I say that if a reporter can find it, so can any number of motivated, interested parties from any number of nationalities and motivated for any number of reasons.

Need a more secure alternative to FTP?

[statemachine]

A spokeswoman for contractor SRA International Inc., where the AP found a document the Defense Department said could let hackers access military computer networks, said the company wasn't concerned because the unclassified file was on an FTP site that's not indexed by Internet search engines. "The only way you could find it is by an awful lot of investigation," said SRA spokeswoman Laura Luke.

Gopher... No one looks there!

Re:Need a more secure alternative to FTP?

[UncleTogie]

Gopher... No one looks there!
...just like most people would think of comics [or cartoon porn, sadly] if you mention Veronica and Archie...

Re:Need a more secure alternative to FTP?

[Anonymous Coward]

> > Gopher... No one looks there!
>
> ...just like most people would think of comics [or cartoon porn, sadly] if you mention Veronica [wikipedia.org] and Archie [wikipedia.org]...

Rule 34 [of security: If you want to make sure it leaks, make sure] There is an open port to it. No exceptions.

"accidental" my butt

[unity100]

such stuff dont get just "forgotten" - military is not a place that permits human errors to happen frequently like the stuff was coming up about the prison tortures and so on, and a year or so later more, and now this.

i bet the army left them to leak in order to put more pressure on bush adm, with whom they are constantly in bickering and dislike.

Re:"accidental" my butt

[Anonymous Coward]

such stuff dont get just "forgotten" - military is not a place that permits human errors to happen frequently

a hahahahah

hahah
hahahahahahhaah

wmahahahahahah

errhhhhh... I needed that :-)

Re:"accidental" my butt

[mdsolar]

So, Bush is going to blame the troops now? Pathetic. This stuff endangers the troops and so this is a big error, but I really doubt it was on purpose. As is clear, the torture violated the UCMJ and had to come out. It seems clear now that Rumsfeld and the President were well aware of it long before it came out and if they wanted it suppressed they were conspiring to obstruct justice. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/ 2007/06/18/BL2007061800791.html

Re:"accidental" my butt

[unity100]

cant blame army, cant make them do what is said, they are in a pickle.

anonymous ftp?

[bl8n8r]

> the SRA anonymous ftp server has been shutdown indefinitely

Anonymous?... FTP? They may have as well put them on bitorrent and named them britneys_boobies.zip

Re:anonymous ftp?

[slacktide]

Tracker Plz....

Obtaining this information from elsewhere...

[Anonymous Coward]

The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency -- which provides the military with maps and charts -- said it plans to review its policies after the AP found several sensitive documents, including aerial surveys of military airfields near Balad and Al Asad, Iraq, on its server. Anyone got a copy? It'd be interesting to see what quality these "maps and charts" were, although they're probably rescaled JPEG's which are of little use to anyone.

Other than that, the "site plan" is not that exciting of a leak. It is something that you can work out yourself with Google Earth, or for sophisticated attackers, a flyover with a high resolution camera. Military bases and the movement of troops and equipment isn't really a secret, because it is impossible to hide. The other "leaks" mentioned in this article are hardly that important either.

Combating GPS jammers isn't much of a secret either. And a powerpoint slideshow on the topic is CERTAINLY not going to contain anything other than some pretty widgets and doodads to win some funding. Maybe I should point out "academic papers" and "academic journals" on topics such as mobile phone interference and satellite communication. This sort of material is far more important to "foreign intelligence" wanting to update their military technology - and it is freely available to all. And guess what? It has more important uses within civilian industries than in the military.

That's the problem with secrets.

[twitter]

You never can tell where the lie ends and the truth starts.

Re:That's the problem with secrets.

[iminplaya]

Well, I would have to say that the truth starts with us. Some base it on belief. Some will base it on known facts. Obviously, I have insufficient data to decide what's true here. So I have to deduce it from past performance. But, like in the stock market or the race track, it doesn't always work out that way. But I'm still willing to stake odds. Keeps me interested in the game. 5:1 they were fake.

okay, explain that one

[Anonymous Coward]

The DOD has a special category of Unclassified documents called "For Official Use Only" (FOUO) which prevents the information from being released to the public under the FOIA. This information was not classified, but was not supposed to be released.

That just sounds like nonsense. In all seriousness, what is the intended utility of this, uh, classification called FOUO? Is there something like a built-in expiry date for FOUO's, or some other sort of access difference that would make one genuinely understand how this classification is not a classification?

Re:okay, explain that one

[jank1887]

FOUO is specifically designated to NOT be used as a way of keeping Unclass info away from FOIA inquiries. It's for things that aren't government secrets, but shouldn't be shared with the general public. You would likely agree with many of these. Examples:

Privacy Information, Social security numbers, medical, etc.
Company Trade Secrets
Legal documents, law enforcement documents, with limits
And there are others, some discretionary. Full definition in Chapter 4 here (~100 page PDF):
http://www.dtra.mil/documents/be/5400.7-R.pdf BUT, from Chapter 4:

C4.1.1. General. Information that has not been given a security classification pursuant to the criteria of an Executive Order, but which may be withheld from the public because disclosure would cause a foreseeable harm to an interest protected by one or more FOIA Exemptions 2 through 9 (see Chapter C3.) shall be considered as being for official use only (FOUO). No other material shall be considered FOUO and FOUO is not authorized as an anemic form of classification to protect national security interests..

Also from the article

[mdsolar]

Freeman, who showed the AP the documents from Sandia and the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command, said he made a conscious effort to avoid information labeled classified but still managed to accidentally download files from Sandia with "top secret" classifications, forcing him to wipe his computer hard drive clean and notify authorities. Now, top secret is not suppose to be anywhere near the internet, so it could be disinformation, but I kind of think that this was a real error in handling classified material because it happens. People put things on laptops that shouldn't be there for example. So, what the AP found was unclassified, but that does not mean that classified material has not been treated this way, and the article does point this out.
--
Solar power in the wild: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Don't worry, the FBI will be along shortly

[Anonymous Coward]

FBI: "These are not the documents you were looking at".

Bagram Air Base

[markov_chain]

Primary objective: Destroy SAM radar at Bagram Air Base
Secondary objective: Photograph terrorist camp at Bandar Abbas

Ah, memories!

Re:Bagram Air Base

[NeverVotedBush]

Stealth Fighter! That was great -- and that jet whistle!

Re:Bagram Air Base

[Anonymous Coward]

> Ah, memories!

Ah, Microprose! How many hours I spent with flaps extended at 20 feet altitude, stall warning chirping at me incessantly, practically fluttering my F-19 around Soviet airspace like a leaf on the wind, to rack up those points for "they didn't see you" towards a CMOH. Screw weapons, just gimme 3 tanks of fuel and a camera. The more fuel I had, the longer I could loiter, and the more points I could rack up by not being seen!

Long as we're fluttering down memory lane...

(1-1-2029, the stars are shining bright)

Nerves connected to the center,
We are tied to the machine
Invisible and silent,
Circling overland

The planemakers designed it
To out-turn, outmaneuver
Intruders in the skies,
Intruders in our skies.

(1-1-2029, tonight the stars are shining bright)

Backbone of the fighter force,
Of the defense industry,
Devoted tools of the power,
Warrants of the order.

(1-1-2029, tonight the stars are shining bright...)

Silicon advisers leading the way,
We reach our cruising altitude...

Invisible and silent,
We're circling overland
Circling overland
Circling overland

1-1-2029,
West Europe, midnight,
Invisible and silent,
Circling overland,
Scanning, taping, filing,
Instantly checking
Every human, car, and plane
Of the quarters we survey...


- Front 242, Circling Overland, from Front by Front, 1988

If you don't know the song, but do remember the Microprose game, you must get the song. Grab a copy of F-19 or F-117 from your favorite abandonware site, put Circling Overland into the MP3 player on repeat, turn down the lights, and fly a night photo-recon mission under Cold War "don't be seen" rules of engagement.

I'll bet there are a lot of Airmen who got started by that game.

Re:Bagram Air Base

[newr00tic]

Nice. :)

Um, I thought we were withdrawing...

[r_jensen11]

So much for our plans of getting our troops out any time soon. Unless this 'leak' was intended to foil such attempts of creating a new base, and actually result in getting our troops home quicker.

Solution:

[mdsolar]

H-1B Visas. Just hire some competent foreigners to handle national security. Oh, wait....

Cut corners

[flyingfsck]

The actual buildings won't look anything like the plans, due to 'cutting of corners' that is endemic in Middle Eastern construction. So instead of a rectangular jail with 1000 rectangular cells, there will be a roughly circular construction, much smaller than planned, with a few large and somewhat rounded out rooms. This is why mosques always have rounded domes. That is the ultimate example of corner cutting...

Yes - Get someone with a clue.

[azrider]

Implementations of Multilevel Security [wikipedia.org] exist, but they are not easy to use and are expensive to develop and operate. This is why systems processing different classification levels are on separate (air-gapped) networks. Off-the-shelf hardware and software can be used with physical security measures preventing information compromises. [Of course, an ID10T sneaker-netting data between the security domains is always a potential problem. The weak point is always people...]

The implementation is not only inexpensive, but relatively easy. I have built and demonstrated just such an automated RED->BLACK system to the DSS (Defense Security Service - the folks who have to sign off on all DOD related classified networks). That prototype cost less than $2000 and took less than 30 days from conception to implementation.

The problem comes in when you have to rely on the carbon-based life forms involved to certify that the data is unclassified. Many times, I have seen people with TS/S/Confidential clearances say "I didn't know".
When we performed the demonstration, the main issue stressed was that the machine could securely interface RED and BLACK networks, but the system would fail if the parties involved did not pay attention to the classification of information transferred.

This is the same reason that MS-Office products (which do not always show hidden data) are always a problem (witness the recent disclosure of the intelligence budget - including Black programs - due to the presenter not sanitizing the background information in a Power Point presentation).

Re:Yes - Get someone with a clue.

[TED Vinson]

Built and Demonstrated != Certified, Accredited and Deployed.

Much of the cost is not just making the system secure, but in formally proving that it is so. This is the level of requirement for EAL 1 / TCSEC A1.

The personnel costs are a killer in getting/keeping all the data labeled accurately and having skilled security administrators to manage exceptions.

Declassification is difficult, too:

-If you say document X is classified and it really should be unclassified, you create an administrative problem.

-If you say document X is unclassified and it really should be classified, you can go to jail (or people die or a war is lost, etc.)

Which side do you think people are going to err on?

Re:Yes - Get someone with a clue.

[azrider]

Built and Demonstrated != Certified, Accredited and Deployed. Much of the cost is not just making the system secure, but in formally proving that it is so. This is the level of requirement for EAL 1 / TCSEC A1.

Yes, but the first step is getting DSS to agree to the possibility. Prior to the demo, their answer was not only no, but hell no. After the demo, they said to proceed with the project.

Declassification is difficult, too: -If you say document X is classified and it really should be unclassified, you create an administrative problem. -If you say document X is unclassified and it really should be classified, you can go to jail (or people die or a war is lost, etc.) Which side do you think people are going to err on?

Unfortunately, my experience at that particular company (a major defense contractor) was that they routinely erred in the second way, to the point that three of us on the team were told that we could only pass information to the company's Information Security department with prior management approval.

Saddam and WMD

[Cheech Wizard]

The world witnessed Saddam use his WMD against the Iranians and Kurds on multiple occasions. This takes the notion that he had WMD out of the "belief" realm and plants it solidly in the "proven fact" category.
Poppycock. What have you been smoking? That was during the 1980's when the US government (then president / 'actor' Ronald "Ray Gun" Reagan) was supplying Iraq with the WMD to use against Iran. US supplies weapons, Iraq uses them as directed by the US, then 10+ years the US complains... Not to mention --> After the Gulf War they were destroyed which is why none were found during or after the 'latest' invasion.

You been under a rock for a few years or something, or have I mis-understood your comment?

Right now the US is paying over 12 Billion US$ a month just for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and for what?

Re:Saddam and WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

Right now the US is paying over 12 Billion US$ a month just for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and for what?

Since you asked... as I see it, our invasion of Iraq created the perfect training and breeding ground for terrorists (everyone killed in Iraq has parents, most have siblings, some have children). Our job now is simply to keep them disrupted so Iraq doesn't turn into another Taliban that sells national resources to fund projects that project power outward. Right now the terrorists in Iraq (as opposed to the insurgents, who just want their country back) have no capability to project power. But if they get control of the government, army/police, oil stockpiles, the one semi-deep-water port, the international airport, etc., then they have the potential to project power beyond the borders of Iraq. We need either Iraq to have a reasonable representative Republic rebuilt, or for the whole country to be so weak and chaotic that no one faction can assert sufficient control to project power. Unfortunately, the former is looking less likely.

Re:Saddam and WMD

[Cheech Wizard]

Dream on. I remember how Reagan crowed about how the US won the cold war by bankrupting Russia through actions like CIA funding the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now it's the US's turn as Russia (not to mention China) rise as the new world powers in large part because of the US's military focus (All war, All the time). And with all the fuss about taxes in the US, the US spends more for 'defense' (offense, really) than all the other countries in the world combined.

Invade Iraq - What a great idea! Let's destabilize an important oil supplying country, leading to destabilizing an entire region, breeding thousands, if not 10's of thousands, more terrorists!

It's also interesting to note that the US military uses as much fuel (gasoline, jet fuel, etc.) as all the citizens in the US do. Pretty soon, as peak oil starts to hit home, the US will be fighting just to keep the military supplied with fuel.

History has shown colonialization does not work.

And just to remind, all but 1 or 2 of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia...

Right now the terrorists in Iraq (as opposed to the insurgents, who just want their country back) have no capability to project power. But if they get control of the government, army/police, oil stockpiles, the one semi-deep-water port, the international airport, etc., then they have the potential to project power beyond the borders of Iraq.
If the US leaves Iraq, it is likely the Iraqis will kick out the 'outside' terrorists (who are currently getting great training in Iraq). Essentially the only way the US can 'win' in Iraq is to kill 80 to 90% of all the Iraq population (as was done in the early days in the US with the Indians {The only good Indian is a dead Indian} under the banner of Manifest Destiny) and set Iraq up as the 51st US state at great (to say the least) expense.

Re:Saddam and WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

Um... thanks for largely agreeing with my post. I'm not sure why you opened it with "Dream on".

The only part of your post I disagree with is that if the US leaves there will be anyone left strong enough to "kick out" the terrorists. I see it more likely that Iran and Saudi Arabia will wield immense influence, and Iraq will become a proxy state for (local) external powers until some hard-line nationalist organization seizes control and turns Iraq into its own terrorist state.

Re:Saddam and WMD

[mpe]

What have you been smoking? That was during the 1980's when the US government (then president / 'actor' Ronald "Ray Gun" Reagan) was supplying Iraq with the WMD to use against Iran.
Further background is that the Iranians had just booted out a US backed tyrant (who was given asylum by the US). The Iraqi government (egged on by the US no doubt) decided to invade Iran over a preexisting border dispute. (Which IIRC was actually started by said US backed tyrant.

Not to mention --> After the Gulf War they were destroyed which is why none were found during or after the 'latest' invasion.

If such weapons actually existed you'd expect them to be used against an invading army.

Re:Saddam and WMD

[workindev]

Bull. The US never supplied Iraq with WMD, and did not turn a blind eye when Iraq used WMD. A comprehensive study performed on trace remnants of the WMD's used by Iraq found that Iraq used WMD from the USSR, Germany, and Japan, and completely ruled out the US or Britain as the source of the weapons. The US also publicly condemned Iraq's use of WMD, and enforced the exportation of dual-use materials to Iraq. That picture of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand? He was visiting as a Presidential envoy trying to repair relations after our strong and public condemnation of their WMD usage, and to convince them not to use WMD any more.

Sure we threw some weight behind Iraq in the conflict, but considering what kind of enemy Iran had just become, that isn't a shocking revelation.

Re:Saddam and WMD

[cheezedawg]

Poppycock. What have you been smoking? That was during the 1980's when the US government (then president / 'actor' Ronald "Ray Gun" Reagan) was supplying Iraq with the WMD to use against Iran. US supplies weapons, Iraq uses them as directed by the US, then 10+ years the US complains...

I don't know where you got your facts from, but you are dead wrong. The United States did not arm Saddam's Iraq. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the US only accounted for less than 1% of the total arms imports to Iraq between 1970 and 1991. The vast majority of Iraq's arms came from the USSR, France, and China. Even Austria imported more weapons to Iraq than the United States did. The SIPRI also concluded through a chemical analysis that the chemical weapons that Iraq used against Iran did not come from the United States. And the United States was the first to reveal evidence that Iraq had used chemical weapons against Iran, and they swiftly condemned Iraq for this violation of the Geneva Protocols (including passing several resolutions in the Security Council).

If you think that these facts supports your assertions in any way, than I think it might be you that is smoking something.

Not to mention --> After the Gulf War they were destroyed which is why none were found during or after the 'latest' invasion.

You are correct. It turns out that Saddam did unilaterally destroy most of his old decaying stockpiles after the first Gulf War. The problem is, he was required to do this under international supervision, and he was required to take some simple, clearly defined steps to show that he was not continuing with his WMD development. He never did this, in blatent violation of the disarmament mandate that was unanimously placed on him as a condition of the cease-fire.

In the absense of this information that Iraq was required to provide, the ONLY reasonable conclusion was that they had not disarmed (which, btw, was confirmed by the ISG following the invasion).

Right now the US is paying over 12 Billion US$ a month just for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and for what

We are paying the money to help promote the politcal stability that is necessary to maintain the military victory that we already achieved. If we leave now, then in all likelyhood the situation will collapse to even worse than it was before. Now that would make the sacrifices and efforts we have already made a waste.

Re:Saddam and WMD

[Cheech Wizard]

I don't know where you got your facts from, but you are dead wrong. The United States did not arm Saddam's Iraq. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the US only accounted for less than 1% of the total arms imports to Iraq between 1970 and 1991.

That's conventional arms, not biological agents. The US not only helped arm Iraq with military equipment right up to the time of the Kuwait invasion in 1989, as did Germany, Britain, France, Russia and others, but also sold and helped Iraq to integrate chemical weapons into their US-provided battle plans while fighting Iran between 1985-1988. According to a New York Times article in August, 2002, Col. Walter P. Lang, a senior defense intelligence officer at the time, explained that D.I.A. and C.I.A. officials "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose" to Iran. "The use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern," he said. One veteran said, that the Pentagon "wasn't so horrified by Iraq's use of gas." "It was just another way of killing people _ whether with a bullet or phosgene, it didn't make any difference."

Details about Iraq killing Iranians with US-supplied chemical and biological weapons significantly deepens our understanding of the current hypocrisy. It began with "Iraq-gate" -- when US policy makers, financiers, arms-suppliers and makers, made massive profits from sales to Iraq of myriad chemical, biological, conventional weapons, and the equipment to make nuclear weapons. Reporter Russ Baker noted, for example, that, "on July 3, 1991, the Financial Times reported that a Florida company run by an Iraqi national had produced cyanide -- some of which went to Iraq for use in chemical weapons -- and had shipped it via a CIA contractor." This was just the tip of a mountain of scandals.

A major break in uncovering Iraqgate began with a riveting 1990 Nightline episode which revealed that top officials of the Reagan administration, the State Department, the Pentagon, C.I.A., and D.I.A., collectively engaged in a massive cover up of the USS Vincennes' whereabouts and actions when it shot down an Iranian airliner in 1987 killing over 200 civilians. The "massive cover up" Koppel explained, was designed to hide the US secret war against Iran, in which, among other actions, US Special Operations troops and Navy SEALS sunk half of Iran's navy while giving battle plans and logistical information to Iraqi ground forces in a coordinated offensive.

As Ted Koppel explained in June, 1990, "It is becoming increasingly clear that George Bush [Sr.], operating largely behind the scenes throughout the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence, and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy." A PBS Frontline episode, "The Arming of Iraq" (1990) detailed much of the conventional and so-called "dual-use" weapons sold to Iraq. The public learned from other sources that at least since mid-1980s the US was selling chemical and biological material for weapons to Iraq and orchestrating private sales. These sales began soon after Donald Rumsfeld traveled to Baghdad in 1985 and met with Saddam Hussein as a private businessman on behalf of the Reagan administration. In the last major battle of the Iran-Iraq war, some 65,000 Iranians were killed, many by gas.

By late 1992, the sales of chemical and biological weapons were revealed. Congressional Records of Senator Riegle's investigation of the Gulf War Syndrome show that that the US government approved sales of large varieties of chemical and biological materials to Iraq. These included anthrax, components of mustard gas, botulinum toxins (which causes paralysis of the muscles involving swallowing and is often fatal), histoplasma capsulatum (which may cause pneumonia, enlargement of the liver and spleen, anemia, acute inflammatory skin disease marked by tender red nodules), and a host of other nasty chemicals materials.

Re:Saddam and WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderation: -1 (Blatant plagiarism)

Re:Saddam and WMD

[workindev]

You really need to recheck your "facts", because most of what you just wrote is complete garbage. Let's review the timeline of events.

- The US-backed Shah in Iran fell in 1979 and became an Islamic theocracy
- Revolutionary leaders labeled the US as "the Great Satan", and the US embassy was raided an hostages taken in 1979
- Iraq attacks Iran in 1980, believing that the political instability would lead to a quick victory
- The US is officially neutral in the conflict, but unofficially supports Iraq because they are fighting our new enemy
- After a strong offensive in 1981, Iraq is driven back and is on the defensive front by 1982
- The US determines that an Iranian victory is not in their interest, so they begin supporting Iraqi measures, including removing them from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list for 18 months in 1982
- The US Pressures the Import/Export bank in 1982 to extend credit to Iraq to finance the war, and the US Departmant of Agriculture approves loan subsidies to Iraq to buy US grain
- President Reagan issues a National Security Directive in the summer of 1983 stating the goal of resolving regional conflicts and increasing political stability in the region , to serve US interests
- Iran accuses Iraq of using WMD in the fall of 1983
- By late 1983, Iran is lobbying for a UN Security Council resolution condemning the use of WMD
- In November 1983 US intelligence confirms the use of WMD by Iraq. The state department condemns the actions, and the National Security Council issues a directive for the military to respond to tensions in the area.
- Donald Rumsfeld leads an envoy to Baghdad in December 1983 to establish direct contact between Washington and Baghdad. Rumsfeld specifically tells Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz that Iraq's use of WMD and human rights record is inhibiting a direct relationship between the two countries.
- In early 1984, Iraq issues a threat to Iran that they will use WMD on any invading troups.
- In March 1984, Iraq tried to import 22,000 lbs of Phosphorous fluoride (a precursor to chemical weapons) from the US. The State Department blocks the sale and issues a harsh condemnation of Iraq's continued WMD use. Iraq is place back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism
- In March 1984, the US voted for a UN Security Council Presidential Statement condemning the use of chemical weapons
- In March 1984, Donald Rumsfeld returned to Iraq, but was received coldly because of the recent public condemnation by the US. Rumsfeld blames it on Iraq for ignoring the repeated US warnings that the WMD issue would emerge if they did not discontinue using them. - In April 1984, the US strengthened controls on the export of WMD precursors to both Iraq and Iran.
- In April 1984, President Reagan issued another National Security Directive to help avert an Iraqi defeat to Iran. The directive required "unambiguous" condemnation of the use of WMD in all US policy
- On November 16th 1984, the State Department reports that Iraq had discontinued using Chemical Weapons in the war.
- Less than 2 weeks later, on November 26th 1984, the US and Iraq formally restored diplomatic ties.

As others have noted, the US provided a minute portion of Iraqi foreign arms imports (less than 1%), and the chemical weapons used by Iraq were provided by the USSR, not by the US or other western countries. The US was very careful not to support any WMD usage by Iraq, and was very quick to condemn it, and they refused to restore diplomatic relations with Iraq until after it had been confirmed that WMD usage had stopped.

Your factless claim that the US provided WMD to Iraq is completely without merit.

Re:Saddam and WMD

[Cheech Wizard]

Dream on...

Re:Saddam and WMD

[cheezedawg]

There is no doubt that the US gave Saddam chemical and biological weapons to begin with, encouraged, and helped direct the use of, their use and is responsible for Iraq having chemical and biological weapons to begin with.

Here is a report that concludes through a chemical analysis of the CW that Iraq used against Iran that they could not have come from the US or the UK, and that they most likely came from the USSR. To quote:

"The absence in the sample analysed in Sweden and Switzerland of polysulphides and of more than a trace of sulphur indicates that it is not of past US-government manufacture, for all US mustard was made by the Levinstein process from ethylene and mixed sulphur chlorides. ...
The sources of supply might as well be indigenous as external to Iraq, given the technology implied. Involvement of the last three categories would, in some circles, implicate the USSR as supplier."

So that is some strong evidence that we didn't give Saddam chemical weapons. Where is your evidence that we did?

BTW - Saying that 'everyone thought Iraq had WMD' is simply silly. You do, however, have republican talking points well embedded in your beliefs.

I didn't say that everyone "thought" that Iraq had WMD. I said that he did have WMD, and we know that because we saw him use them, so it is stupid to deny it. I also find it sad that apparently the only way that you can accept that somebody disagrees with you is if you assume that they are indoctrinated with some talking points from a worthless political party.

Like Viet Nam, the US will eventually have to leave. The sacrifices and efforts the US has already made are already a total waste, but thousands more will die as the US (pResident Bush) will blindly try to 'fight on' as terrorists increase in number and effectiveness.

Of course we will eventually leave Iraq. Believe me- nobody wants to stay there any longer than necessary.

Our efforts there have not been a waste, and it is offensive for you to claim otherwise. Our military achieved an astounding victory, and that was followed by the drafting of a new constitution, wildly successful popular elections, and the formation of a new government-- all within the planned timeframe and on schedule. It is possible for us to win in Iraq (or more appropriately, maintain our victory there), and more importantly, we can't afford not to!

Re:Saddam and WMD

[Cheech Wizard]

As I have said, If you believe, You should be there helping as a mercenary or US soldier. Good luck!

I bet Bush II was an idiot and financially I have won and continue to win by betting the price of gold and oil going up.

Our military achieved an astounding victory... Tee hee hee... Yeah. The US 'beat' a tiny nation into a quagmire. What a great accomplishment. I'm really impressed... You do, however, have republican talking points deeply embedded in your belief system. Don't be a 'chicken hawk'. Go there! Be part of the 'solution'!

Re:Saddam and WMD

[Cheech Wizard]

By the way - In addition to joining up with either the US military or a mercenary company, why don't you send the US government a few thousand US$ (minimum considering it's costing over US$12 BILLION a month) more than your tax return calls for to 'support' the Iraq and Afghanistan 'wars'. Hey - You support them. Give 'till it hurts!

Re:Saddam and WMD

[cheezedawg]

As I have said, If you believe, You should be there helping as a mercenary or US soldier. Good luck!

That is some weak, twisted logic that proves nothing. Do you value fire fighters? Then why aren't you a fireman! Do you think that law enforcement is important? Then why haven't you joined the police force! Do you believe that border security is important? Then why don't you apply to be a customs agent! Do you not want to live in your own garbage? Become a garbage collector!

I could go on, but I hope you can see the absurdity of your post.

Go there! Be part of the 'solution'!

Let me ask you this- do you think that you are part of the solution? What do you think is motivating the people that oppose our goals in Iraq to do the horrible things that they are doing? They know that they cannot beat us militarily, so why are they still trying?

I submit to you that they are motivated because the defeatist rhetoric coming from people like yourself and other blind opponents of the war is showing them that their tactics are working. If they keep doing what they are doing, or better yet, ratchet up the violence and get even more spectacular bloodshed into the news here, we will give up and go home. Unfortunately, it looks like they are right! In a similar vein, this defeatist rhetoric is deterring many Iraqi people and neighboring governments from supporting the fledgling Iraqi government, because as it stands right now it will probably fail as soon as we leave. And now is the time that the Iraqi government needs this support the most!

If you want to be part of the solution, then maybe think about the message that you are sending out. You of course have the absolute right to say whatever you want to, but don't kid yourself that this rhetoric has no effect on the outcome.

Re:Saddam and WMD

[workindev]

No, that's documented history. My dreams are quite a bit more exiting than that.

Interesting rebuttal, by the way.

Re:Saddam and WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

And just to remind, all but 1 or 2 of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia...

And just to remind, Timothy McVeigh was from New York. So, unless you are proposing that we should also invade New York, why the hell would you bring up such an idiotic point?

Re:Saddam and WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

WWII cost the US approx $300 Billion in 1940's dollars, which is over $3.5 Trillion on today's dollars, or about $72 Billion per month.

According to your logic, World War 2 was 5 times as bad as the current conflict in Iraq.

Hardly news...

[Simulant]

Much ado about nothing if you RTFA.

It's material so sensitive that officials refused to release the documents when asked. As if that means anything. If you want to see government secrets online, go to http://www.cryptome.org/ Anyone else notice that the threat level is ramping up right before an election year? It's as if the terrorists WANT to keep the Republicans in office. Funny how that works.

Re:Hardly news...

[Dekortage]

It's as if the terrorists WANT to keep the Republicans in office.

Of course they do. The current Republican administration is making America look especially stupid and arrogant and greedy and unscrupulous to the rest of the world. If your goal was to ruin America, it's in your best interest to keep these people in charge of it. As the old phrase goes, "Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves."

I am hardly suggesting that all Republicans are stupid, arrogant, etc. (Nor am I suggesting that anyone should be hanged.) There are just as many people in other parties who match this description. But the current presidential administration happens to fill these roles with gusto. Let's hope the next election turns out well.

Re:Hardly news...

[Experiment 626]

Anyone else notice that the threat level is ramping up right before an election year? It's as if the terrorists WANT to keep the Republicans in office. Funny how that works.

Considering any year can be categorized as either:

• The year "right before an election year"
• An election year
• A mid-term election year
• The year a new presidential term begins

It seems likely that no matter when something happens, someone will assume its timing to be politically motivated.

Stupidy and Misinformation

[RexRhino]

The military accidentally leaks valuable information, and the military intentionally "leaks" disinformation. It is not an either/or thing.

"Leaking" disinformation would be useless if the military didn't actually leak real information. And if you do accidentally leak real information, it only makes sense to also release disinformation to create uncertainty.

But there is probably no way that layman like most of us here can determine if this is fake or real simply from the information in the article.

l337 in$igh7

[martin_henry]

m0d p4ren7 up

Please stop with the propaganda words

[Anonymous Coward]

I know the government and the lapdog controlled media are good at brainwashing the mouth breathing herds, but would you please just stop this on slashdot, and man up a little in the brain department and just *stop* using that damn word "detainee". It's intellectually insulting and you should be embarrassed to repeat it.

    They are prisoners. Grabbed and snatched at gunpoint, threatened with immediate death if they don't comply, same as in any other war. Being detained implies a short duration in a casual event then you are free to go about your business, something the current usage contradicts immensely, they just psychologically wargamed it and found it sounded less severe for PR purposes to help to "sell" the current fiasco. It also helped them to ignore the Geneva convention rules.

Thanks, nothing personal, but being part of the brave new world order crowd's newspeak push from the current crop of blood profiteers betrays our overall commitment I think most people here at slashdot have to overall freedom/honesty issues. And it matters not if you are pro Iraq war or not, just be aware that words have meaning and repeated enough they become part of the collective consciousness, and the use of that word is *pure freaking evil*. It legitimizes and minimizes some pretty heinous things. Don't let the blood profiteers win in other words, resist it, and starting with something as simple as word usage can be of immense help.

then when i attack using my hacked USA box

[Anonymous Coward]

you will let me right in..

nothing is done by accident.

[DragonTHC]

If they were left online, it was by intention for some sinister reason.

Re:First Post!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck off.

So when are the online FPS maps coming out?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously... who's modding?

OUO and the Navy

[mdsolar]

In fact Official Use Only was a category required by the Navy for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's dealings with Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant in Tennessee. This OUO classification meant that after a major incident, a public licensing hearing was held, but nobody attended because the NRC could not even reveal the accident at the NRC licensed plant. The FOUO is being used as a work around to areas where there is required public disclosure (NRC rules) but a national security interest (how Navy reactor fuel is handled). This may turn out to be an abuse, but it is certainly the way it is being used http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/us/06cnd-nuke.ht ml. In the past, DOE handled military use of nuclear materials and NRC handled civilian use. Here we have weapons material being converted to fuel under NRC licensing, but with OUO restrictions. This is obviously not working very well at all.
--
Do energy right: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

That sounds familiar

[Anonymous Coward]

> The ideal solution to this kind of problems would be an USABLE operating system with some kind of sensible data flow tracking (e.g. you can't copy a 'classified' file into a 'not classified' folder or upload it to a 'public' server) and which doesn't get in the way all the time.

So basically, you'd want an OS that limits what files and folders you can copy? I hear Vista does that fine, the technology is called DRM ;)

Ron Paul

[cheekyboy]

Dude, go read up and listen to any interview with Ron Paul.

He at least believes in the truth and god traditional honesty.

Hes a fully qualified doctor too, i think he delivered 3000 babies plus so hes not a person that takes
life with a grain of salt like 5 time death defiying lord Chaney.

I had to take "software export course" - hypocrisy

[peter303]

Our software company management decided to become very rigorous about software security standards, and so are many of our customers which are Fortune 100 companies. It feels like you are in communist country where nearly anything can be a "state secret". Our software has lots of dependencies on third party libraries, open source, and GPLs which is a landmine here. For example theres a fear terrorists might steal the encryption code in the license manager to send unbreakable messages, etc. Or that competitors will discover a legal flaw in code and sue to block it.
It is very amusing the governement cant even come close to what it imposes on private industry in terms of protection.
And do agree its valuable to be fully aware whats in your code.

Accidentaly?

[Anonymous Coward]

don't go there ITS A TRAP!!!!

Oblig Airplane Quote

[mypalmike]

Ted Striker: My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow. We're bombing the storage depots at Daiquiri at 1800 hours. We're coming in from the north, below their radar.

Elaine Dickinson: When will you be back?

Ted Striker: I can't tell you that. It's classified.

It's not that simple

[HiThere]

Historic "facts" are usually a tissue of lies, with a few definite facts holding them together.

E.g., Julius Caesar was killed in the Senate after assuming dictatorial power. This appears to be a fact.

Why? Does anyone know? Why do they believe that their knowledge is fact? You can certainly accept that the written records then are no more honest than they are now, merely much sparser.

For all we know Brutus had been Caesar's lover, and was angry at him for being jilted. (Caesar is reliably reported to have been bi. "The wife of every husband and the husband of every wife." is one description applied to him, probably not by an admirer.

Who did kill Kennedy? Why do you believe it? How certain are you of the honesty of your sources? Why are you so certain (or dubious)?

Uncertainty is not only a principle of physics, it's everywhere. Physics is unique in being able to mathematically express the degree of uncertainty. According to some theories of physics every possible history of the current instant is a real history, which a particular (possibly incalculable) probability. The sum of all the probabilities of pasts is one, but there are an infinite number of them. At any particular nanosecond (about a light-foot) everything outside the light-cone has to be considered unknown. Your brain is about a foot in diameter.

N.B.: The theory of physics that I mentioned is called "sum over histories" and is considered orthodox since Feynman. It's just not usually considered for macroscopic objects...but Hawking has applied it to the entire universe...back when it was around a foot in size.

This means that EVERY theory which is consistent with all locally available evidence is true with a probability. So the next question is "How much do you trust your memories?" Just recently my red coffee cup disappeared for a week, and reappeared as a blue one. Same shape, texture, design, etc. Memory glitch? Merging multiverses? But if memory of sensory experiences is faulty, why not memories of other evidence?

Physics is making naive theories of reality look more and more absurd. Perhaps truth and false shouldn't be considered booleans, but reals (range [1.0, 0]). Then there are the "physics as computation" people who assert that these truth values (probabilities) don't have infinite precision. Only around 10^26 digits of precision. That's a kick. I would have expected 10^33. But maybe I'm misremembering, and they really said 10^126? Since that was an upper limit to the precision, I'd be comfortable with that, and continue to believe that it was around 10^33 (or, possibly given slightly different assumption, 10^66) digits of precision. (Check "quantum foam" for why those numbers.)

But our minds can't deal with that kind of precision. And another result of physics says that if a measurement can't be taken, then the result is intrinsically undecided. It's not at all clear to me what this implies. One thing, however, is (relatively) certain: Certainty is an oversimplification.

Then there's the question: How do you know you're not living in a simulation? That would explain the limited degree of precision, the lazy evaluation of truth, etc. And the loss of information about what history really was as it fades into the past. Storage conservation and cpu cycle conservation.

But other physicists are now asserting that the universe *IS* a computer. I think I may be experiencing a bit of stress trying to understand what that means. I tend to consider the computer and the program to be separable, but I'm not sure whether they do or not. I *suspect* that this is just an extravagant phrasing for "we can establish an isomorphic mapping between portions of how the universe works and portions of how a computer works, but that's just a guess.

Wow, Never been in the military have you?

[World.Pop(MPAA)]

The unfortunate truth of the matter is that the military's best personnel leaves shortly after their first or second enlistment, while officers tend to grow like fruit, and not "ripen" until they've hit the 10-15 year mark. The military is rife with incompetence, to the point that it's amazing that anything ever gets done. Speaking of classified documents, I seen plenty of accidental disclosures turn into proceedings because some idiot felt justified to work with the material on their own laptop. And while I think the military has a great level of incompetence, you should see the contractors we hire! The problem I think you fail to see is that this isn't something anywhere near related to a "counter-insurgency" scheme. This issue is related to contractors working in the Engineering field. There's a fundamental problem in the hiring of contractors in the military, one that stems from some crazy belief that it is better to hook up a retiring service member with an extremely technical job (despite lack of qualifications) than a school trained engineer. Case in point, I work with a supposed "Microsoft Certified Security Expert" (a retiree "double-dipping" as they call it) who doesn't know what the .NET Architecture is...This guy is responsible for the integrity of some DOD Web Servers, most of which are running SharePoint Services! Unfortunately, this is only one example of the many blatantly obvious conflicts of interest that serve to degrade our capabilities. My response to the read is to join up and go work in an intel shop. I did about a years stint in one overseas and was dramatically underwhelmed.

Re:Saddam and WMD - Bush II - Loser

[Cheech Wizard]

Moderation: -1 (Blatant plagiarism) I'm lazy. So be it. Bottom line is the truth (facts) hurt. Not to mention I'm not posting as an 'anonymous coward' as you are...

By all means, join the US armed services or the mercenaries, get on over and help out. Or are you a 'chicken hawk'????

As an "I told you so" person (who doesn't post as an 'anonymous coward') I get excuses all the time from people who spend years trying to justify idiot things like the Viet Nam war. My mother still, at 90 and a staunch republican, still believes the Viet Nam war was a 'good' thing and universal health care is a communist plot.

When Bush II took office in 2001 I bought gold coins. Every business he was involved in failed so it was a shoe it. With Bush as pResident, I've done very well. Bush II did to the US what he did to the few companies his father's influence got him into. They all failed under Bush II's CEO 'leadership'. All were rescued by Saudi interests. Unfortunately, the US has, and will continue to suffer, the same --> Financial and reputation failure. So - I DO thank Bush II for improving my financial situation significantly. He couldn't run a successful business and he can't run the US government (well, then again, there's Cheney, Bush II's boss). About 7 years ago I bet, by buying gold, that Bush II was an idiot. I've won and continue to win. Thank You, pResident Bush!

Re:Saddam and WMD - Bush II - Loser

[Anonymous Coward]

Did ya think that one up all by yourself, or did you copy and paste it from somewhere too?

Re:Saddam and WMD - Bush II - Loser

[Anonymous Coward]

Question- do you really think that it is clever or demeaning to only capitalize the R in President Bush? Because I have to say, it just makes you look like a challenged 3rd grader. You know- the kind of third grader that has to wear a bicycle helmet all day in his "special" classes.

Re:Saddam and WMD - Bush II - Loser

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah. So you are uninformed and lazy. Not a good combination, but also not surprising considering your political leanings.