Wikileaks Receiving Gestapo Treatment?

An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks announced on Mar 21 (via its twitter account) its intentions 'to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am.' It appears that during the last 24 hours someone from the State Department/CIA decided to visit them, by 'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours. Apparently, the offending leak is a video footage of a US airstrike."

Comments

Doesn't matter what country you are in...

[Pojut]

...providing a service similar to what Wikileaks provides is always dangerous.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in...

[Pojut]

Thus, your "no" was incorrect - certain groups *are* screaming that this new health care plan is 'oppression' and taking away from all of our rights.

In a hilarious twist, most of the people who are saying that it's oppression and taking away our rights were also fully supportive of the Patriot Act.

http://haacked.com/images/TerroristsHateFreedom.gif

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in...

[uberjack]

That said, what is the point of announcing that you're about to reveal something seriously damning about the government, instead of just releasing? The outcome seems fairly obvious in this case.

Re:Doesn't matter what country you are in...

[MarkvW]

Social stability affects everyone.

[citation needed]

[Bartab]

Seriously. Saying "we have something" is boring. Post it, or shut up.

Re:[citation needed]

[krou]

Which means they're idiots. Seriously. Wikileaks is likely to be under surveillance all the time. To come out and openly say, "We have classified material, and we'll show it to you in a couple weeks' time", what the hell did they expect would happen? It'd be like Daniel Ellsberg announcing at a press conference that he's got secret documents called the Pentagon papers, and that he'll release them in a week later.

Re:[citation needed]

[vlm]

To come out and openly say, "We have classified material, and we'll show it to you in a couple weeks' time", what the hell did they expect would happen?

Actually, it shows profound respect for the men and women doing the fighting, that they're willing to hold a very important story for awhile to minimize any theoretical impact to the boots on the ground. And letting everyone, including the brass, know whats coming, lets them start work early on the coverup/spin or maybe even genuinely change things to improve the situation.

Well, what did they expect?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

There are national security laws for a reason. If Wikileaks is going to publish sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws — and while I haven't seen the details, if this really is military video footage it might well be — then of course the security services are going to take steps, the same way they would with anyone else. Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

Re:Well, what did they expect?

[jandrese]

OTOH, it's very easy for governments to simply "classify away" embarrassing secrets that are in fact no danger to national security. That's exactly the sort of thing that Wikileaks is built for. It's a national security risk only in that it risks the jobs of the people who fucked up, who may be in charge of security.

Re:Well, what did they expect?

[JDmetro]

National security is an excuse used when a government does something illegal and doesn't want anyone to know.
And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

Re:Well, what did they expect?

[davegravy]

Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

When national security laws are used to cover-up the immoral actions of high-level personnel, Wikileaks *IS* above the law.

Re:Well, what did they expect?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

That's a silly argument when governments try to use it to justify privacy invasions, and it's an equally silly argument to make against a government, some of whose members/staff will necessarily have access to information that should not be immediately available to the general public.

Re:Well, what did they expect?

[jimwelch]

As always, in a "free" country, the question is who watches the watchers?
Embarrassing vs Dangerous or both?
Is the "reporter" out for glory or sees real criminal behavior or a political agenda?
Who gets to decide? If they are arrested, a jury/judge gets to watch the watchers.
The correct answer: all of the above.

Re:Well, what did they expect?

[OzPeter]

And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.

So how many curtains do you have on your bedroom windows?

Re:Well, what did they expect?

[slimjim8094]

Of course. But is Wikileaks the entity that gets to decide what should and shouldn't be classified? How about posting the assumed names and covers of foreign agents? Missile launch codes?

Most of us would argue that there's a lot of classified info that, for the common good, shouldn't be classified - like the non-court mass wiretappings. But if you think governments (really, people in government) can make mistakes, then you also think Wikileaks, or people in it, can also make mistakes.

Unless you're going to argue that nothing should be classified, which is I suppose a valid argument - but you'll have a lot of resistance.

Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

Re:Well, what did they expect?

[Trails]

I think the counter point is that we don't know we have a fundamental problem without people leaking things.

Further, giving away genuine, non "CYA" national secrets that puts civilians/military personnel at risk would be a horrible blow to wikileaks. My point is that there is incentive here for wikileaks to expose only BS-type classified stuff.

Remember, "Deep Throat" gave up classified docs to the press, he broke laws in order to protect lawfulness.

Re:Well, what did they expect?

[MartinSchou]

How about posting the assumed names and covers of foreign agents?

That depends on who you ask.

If you ask the US government if it would like to know the assumed names and covers of agents in the US, who work for North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, I think they would really like to know. But on the other hand, if you ask the US government if they would like the assumed names and covers of their agents in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, I think they'd say no.

Re:Well, what did they expect?

[DM9290]

There is certainly a potential problem with classifying things inappropriately, but my opposition to Wikileaks is based on three principles that are not affected by such problems:

1. If Wikileaks is useful, we already have a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government (see my sig).

Did you just say you are opposed to Wikileaks because there is a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government?
Dude thats the whole reason Wikileaks exists.

Supporting an organisation that actively tries to place itself above the law is not the solution to those problems. We should fix bad laws for the good of everyone, not merely try to circumvent them.

That's a catch 22 situation. If we can't see what information is being suppressed we'll never know whether or not the justification for suppressing it is good or bad, and consequently whether the law is good or bad.

Wikileaks in particular has exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of civil disobedience/public interest whistleblower argument.

The governments of the world have exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of national security/just shut up and trust us argument.

Re:Well, what did they expect?

[Entropius]

Neither do the people doing the classifying. Since nobody seems to be making good decisions about what to keep secret, we're in sort of a bind. Wikileaks' attitude -- that anything that ruffles the conscience enough for someone with a clearance to leak it ought to be public -- is as good of a leading-order approximation as any.

Re:Well, what did they expect?

[Stellian]

There are basically two types of interesting classified information that Wikileaks can leak:
  1. Classified information that should really remain classified for everyone's safety
  2. Classified information information that's actually just cover-up for government's abuses

If they leak the first type, I expect the government to act quickly and change those atomic launch codes - if an unprofessional spy organisation like Wikileaks can find them, you can be quite sure North Korea has them for a while. I also expect the persons responsible for keeping such info secret be fired/jailed/shot, and I expect democracy to act in that direction.
If they leak the second type, I also expect democracy to act and the abuses curbed.
In both cases, Wikileaks has a valid reason to exist, and the mere fact they are breaking the law to do so it's not unethical - they exist precisely to point out flaws in the law or they way it's enforced.
The primary sources for the leaks will also exercise some form of personal judgement and are much likely to release type 2 info - the percentage of people with anti-social disorders is low.

Don't do that

[Monkeedude1212]

'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours

Following someone for 22 hours and detaining someone for 22 hours are so incredibly different they should not be lumped together like that. It's the difference between a creepy stalker and an oppression of basic freedoms.

Don't leave it up to my imagination how long each of those 4 actions took place. Because I'm imagining the "detaining" being about 15 seconds as they accidentally walked into each other, and then they both stepped to the side, oops still in the way, stepped to the side again, oops, and did this about 5 times.

Re:Really?

[Idiomatick]

If the source is verified to be wikileaks does it matter what site they post on? I hate twitter, and I mean, quite a bit. But it doesn't make info posted on their less valid. Just less thorough.

Like a backseat driver...

[OdoylesRule]

It's easy to decry from the position of luxury afforded by enjoyed freedoms. "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill

What do they expect?

[tnk1]

If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video, what do they expect is going to happen? Even if the video shows things that the government doesn't want us to see, I'd be a little disturbed if they did nothing about the breach of security. It's like saying that if a guy knocks over a bank with my money in it, it's okay for him to have done it as long as he only took the money from the mobsters who use the bank. Determining that footage "shows bad things" is not a security determination, it's a political determination. I don't want security personnel making value judgments about the data that is entrusted to their care. If it is classified, they need to find out who the leak is and deal with it.

To be honest, while I think its a good thing that cover-up data can come out, I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like "murder-coverup" is just as political an act as covering it up, not to mention a little sensationalistic. I mean, if its airstrike footage, it's not like they brought the aircraft camera into the room to film the alleged conspirators rubbing their hands together and saying "terminate them!". It's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something. Maybe there is some date/time or even location data in the video. What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.

Impeach George Bush!!!

[Vinegar Joe]

This proves he's a war criminal/fascist dictator!

No way!

[LanMan04]

Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

I disagree. That's like saying:

"Which is worse? Someone NOT guilty of a crime being convicted, or someone guilty of a crime NOT being convicted? I, and most people, would say the latter."

I would assume (not trying to build a strawman) that this would be your general line of thinking. I'd rather have the occasional "oops, we should have classified that" than "we're being safe and classifying everything (including stuff that's classified and shouldn't be).

An occasional blunder to not classify something that should have been secret is less dangerous to a free society than having everything locked up (probably embarrassing things too). I have a friend who works for the DoD in an intelligence role. He once said, and I quote, "No one ever got fired for over-classifying information". That is a mindset we need to change.

Re:[citation redacted]

[ae1294]

Maybe that's the point. They've been under serious surveillance for awhile now so maybe they wanted everyone else to know...

There really should be some sorta law...