Slashdot Mirror


Claimed US Military Wikileaks Source Arrested

svelemor writes "A 22-year-old Army intelligence analyst was ratted out by a fellow hacker, accused of providing the Collateral Murder video and hundreds of thousands of classified State Department records to Wikileaks. He is currently imprisoned in Kuwait."

27 of 698 comments (clear)

  1. Feh by Pojut · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can understand this dude getting in trouble for leaking information and such, but kudos to him for getting the collateral murder video out there in the wild.

    1. Re:Feh by causality · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can understand this dude getting in trouble for leaking information and such, but kudos to him for getting the collateral murder video out there in the wild.

      If there were any doubts as to the authenticity of these documents and videos, their veracity has now been affirmed.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Feh by kidgenius · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yeah, kudos for doing a self-edit on the video before releasing it to Wikileaks (who did another self edit) that could put the military into a worse light than they would've been with the missing footage in there. In the missing footage, we know that the helicopter pilots DID NOT fire TWICE when there were civilians/children in harms way. Seeing that might change the thoughts slightly on the pieces of video that were seen...

    3. Re:Feh by moonbender · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm sure the military will start releasing unedited footage so that everybody can get a fair and balanced picture.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    4. Re:Feh by kidgenius · · Score: 5, Informative

      It doesn't exist. Manning edited it before sending to Wikileaks. Wikileaks further edited it. Here are the details http://gawker.com/5513068/the-full-version-of-the-wikileaks-video-is-missing-30-minutes-of-footage

    5. Re:Feh by Pojut · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I loved how nobody bothered to point out that there were rocket launchers and AK-47's in the collateral murder video.

      Did you bother to point out that there were children in a van that was being loaded with a wounded journalist that got blasted to hell?

      Anti war people are so gullible.

      And pro-war people aren't? "Iraq has WMDs! Oops, we mean they don't." "If we go to Afghanistan, we can capture and/or kill bin Laden! Oops, I mean we can't."

      Come on. Seriously? You're acusing anti-war folks of being gullible?

    6. Re:Feh by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There was never any doubt about the authenticity of the videos - the military admitted they were real. What they argued was that the videos didn't show the context in which there had been combat nearby.

      Now, how nearby combat affects whether you can shoot at people retrieving the wounded without violating the Geneva Conventions is a different question. What is very clear, though, is that this is a small taste of what the Iraq War really looks like, and that some soldiers under the sort of combat pressure end up thinking along the lines of "Anyone who runs is an insurgent. Anyone who doesn't run is a well-disciplined insurgent."

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    7. Re:Feh by kidgenius · · Score: 5, Informative

      Umm...yes, we do have an idea what has happened. Read the Gawker article that I linked, or the actual SWORN Statements from the soldiers themselves. http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Death%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists/2--Sworn%20Statements%20.pdf

    8. Re:Feh by sammyF70 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Which is probably why Reuters, which asked for it under the Freedom of Information Act, couldn't get this video until it was leaked. They just lacked the connection to a congresscritter.

      --
      "DRM is like the Ford Pinto: it's a smooth ride, right up the point at which it explodes and ruins your day."-C.Doctorow
    9. Re:Feh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      On my way to the market where I setup a sniper gun and shot 12 random people including 3 children. I shot them 5 or 6 times each I wanted to make sure they died.

      You have to understand though I rode a subway packed with people on the way and I didn't kill any of them. I even bought icecream for a random girl just outside the market. I'm such a nice guy. People just don't understand how nice I am.

      Anyhow luckly after a trial kidgenius was on the jury and sent me home free as a result of my testimony of buying icecream for a girl and not killing a subway full of people.

      Glad that's all over WEW.

    10. Re:Feh by goldspider · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "And pro-war people aren't? "Iraq has WMDs! Oops, we mean they don't." "If we go to Afghanistan, we can capture and/or kill bin Laden! Oops, I mean we can't."

      Come on. Seriously? You're acusing anti-war folks of being gullible?"

      Both "sides" can be vulnerable to agenda-driven manipulation and can engage in willful ignorance of important context.

      --
      "Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
    11. Re:Feh by Abcd1234 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, except that same helicopter (same day, before the 17min Collateral Murder vid) crew DIDN'T fire when children and other noncombatants were present, and a second time when they also couldn't get a positive ID on insurgents.

      And yet no video has ever been released to back up the soldier's claims, despite the fact that this would *clearly* soften the blow for the military.

      So, just so I have this straight: I'm supposed to believe the statements of these soldiers, who've already proven to have bad judgment, and to trust that the military, a military that's proven time an again to be very happy to whitewash incidents if it's in their interests, has the video to back up these claims, but has just decided to hold on to it for no good reason?

      Uhuh. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...

    12. Re:Feh by smash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Anti-war folks like to blame the administration for not knowing facts that came to light months or years after the decision to go to war was made.

      Uh. There NEVER was any intel that iraq had WMDs in 2002/2003. That they didn't have them wasn't "new evidence that came to light years later". It was simply knowledge that was confirmed after it was too fuckin' late to not go to war and destroy the country.

      But, we stopped them selling oil in Euros at least (which is one thing Iraq WAS trying to do in 2003, along with Iran now... oh look they're terrorists too now), thus propping up the ailing US dollar.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    13. Re:Feh by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, 30mm rounds are pretty expensive. You want to be sure to get them in a good cluster, and preferably lying down already, before you open up on them.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    14. Re:Feh by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You've obviously never lived in a war zone. Where do you go? How do you support your family? You don't just "get the hell out." You don't just pack up and move that easily. This isn't just a one or two week conflict where you can temporarily move to another town or city until things blow over. This war has been going on for nearly eight years!!

      The better question is, why doesn't the US get the hell out? They have no business being there. There are no WMDS there. Wasn't that the whole justification the government gave in attacking Iraq?

    15. Re:Feh by chrb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Now, how nearby combat affects whether you can shoot at people retrieving the wounded without violating the Geneva Conventions is a different question.

      Article 50 of the Geneva Convention defines a "civilian", and makes it clear that there is a presumption of innocence on the part of civilians - a solder is not allowed to "assume" that an unidentified person is an enemy combatant and then fire upon them:

      "Article 50: Definition of Civilians and Civilian Population

      1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A 111, lIl, (31 and 161 of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
      2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
      3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character."

      It is the soldiers job to clearly identify that a target is a combatant before opening fire. If the soldier is unclear as to whether or not a target is a combatant, then that person is to be treated as a civilian: "In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.". The presence of combatants within a civilian population does not excuse firing on civilians: "The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character." The rules are very clear on this issue.

      One of the important distinctions is that this was an occupying military force battling internal resistance fighters. It was not a war between nation states. Under the Geneva Conventions, an occupying force has the absolute responsibility of providing for the basic needs of the people under its control, including food, clothing, shelter, medical attention, and the maintenance of law and order. It is not supposed to kill them. Under the conventions, in an actual battle with soldiers of an opposing nation state, a commander has a duty to protect civilian life, even if it comes at the cost of exposing his troops to greater danger. The commander/soldier must be able to justify any military action that results in the loss of civilian life as being "reasonable" and "unavoidable" in the context of the military target. Hence, a soldier could not slaughter a million civilians in order to kill 100 enemy, but if the enemy had one civilian amongst them, then the killing of that civilian as a side effect of killing the enemy may be justifiable. But this is a completely different matter to that of killing civilians because you "presume" them to be combatants due to their presence in an occupied city. Baghdad is one of the most populous cities on the planet - ranked 22nd with a density of 9,250 per square kilometer. Within a few hundred meters of this incident there are thousands of people living. The men in the street could have been anyone - there was no attempt made to identify them as being combatants or civilians, and therefore the laws of war state that they must be treated as civilians.

    16. Re:Feh by MrNaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you accept that wars, by necessity must be dirty, and that one side should do what it must to win, then the September 11 attacks come into a whole new focus. That was just one side striking out the only way they could. Had they an industrial economy, a seat at the UN and a decent counterintelligence machine, I'm sure their objections to the US's economic and military adventures in their region would have been voiced differently.

      Don't ever justify what is wrong. It's one hell of a slippery slope.

      --
      I hate printers.
    17. Re:Feh by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >Anti-war folks like to blame the administration for not knowing facts that came to light months or years after the decision to go to war was made.

      If only that were true... we have proof that the Bush administration actively MANUFACTURED A cause for war. We have the records of meetings between the CIA and MI5 where the CIA request (and MI5 agrees) to cook intel to make it look like there is a solid case that Iraq has WMD's...
      True the records of these meetings only came out a long time after the war started - it came to light later. But that's the EVIDENCE of the lie coming to light later - I think saying those who TOLD the lie couldn't know about it before-hand is a bit silly ?

      It's clear from said records that the CIA agents in that meeting were there under ORDERS from then President Bush. He had tasked them to find him an excuse for an invasion - or create one if they couldn't- and they were meeting with MI5 to request their help in that act of fiction.

      The MI5 agents and the commanders who approved it were prosecuted and punished. It was a major scandal in Britain and frontpage news for weeks... nobody on the US side was punished - and nobody even thought of maybe IMPEACHING the president who MANUFACTURED FALSE INTELLIGENCE to excuse a war that the vast majority of the population did NOT support (evidence: two years into the Iraq war Mister Bush's approval ratings not only hit his personal all-time low, but the lowest of any president in the ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES). I kid you not... Bush managed to remain president unimpeached and unchallenged while he was LESS liked than Abraham Lincoln in the South the day before the civil war started !

      This in the country that impeached one president for spying on his political enemies and another for getting a blowjob... you know somehow I think (and I always thought Clinton was a bit of a so-so president) but all politicians lie... personally I'd choose the guy who lies about a blowjob over the guy who lies to start a war any day.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    18. Re:Feh by SETIGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given that the intelligence analyst who allegedly leaked the video chose to risk spending time in a military prison by leaking it, I'd guess that the video was not typical. If he'd seen any more damning video, he would have released that. I'd guess he thought it was unusual to kill that many unarmed civilians because there might have been an RPG in the vicinity. I'd also guess he's disappointed that no action has been taken since he released it.

  2. Why Was He Discussing Operations? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Informative

    He's putting US Citizen's lives in danger by exposing a cover up by the US Military? Now there's some Dubya bush logic!

    From a BBC article with more details from the person who turned him in:

    I gave them conversation logs that implicated Special Agent Manning. They were particularly interested in a code word for a major operation.

    So you know, in addition to the videos and diplomatic cables he was out and about bragging about this and discussing major operations and their code words. While you might be able to justify the videos, I don't know how you could justify bragging to people about it and discussing current military operations on the internet. That could probably be construed as putting the lives of many soldiers in danger.

    --
    My work here is dung.
  3. Re:Lifetime in jail vs keeping quiet, though choic by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    when you join you take a oath to protect the people of the US, and that includes the others serveing with you.

    No, you take an oath to defend the Constitution. *BIG* difference.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  4. Re:War is not pretty by BobMcD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you think there has ever been a war where civilians didn't get killed, you are kidding only yourself. So if you say that no civilian deaths are every ok at all, then that is to say that no war is ever ok at all, including a war of defense. If you are ever ok with a war, well then civilian deaths WILL be a part of it. The military can and should (and does) work to minimize it but mistakes happen, collateral damage happens.

    This is clearly true, but in the terms of the 'collateral murder' video, it is totally off-topic. Nothing in that video is collateral, it is direct and intentional. To stay on topic you'd need to say...

    If you think there has ever been a war where civilians didn't get murdered, you are kidding only yourself.

    If you were confused as to what all the controversy was up until now, that ought to clear it up.

    Also remember the issue of the war being just and the actions of soldiers are separate matters. If you feel this unjust and the costs are not worth it, your beef is with the civilian government. They set the mission for the military, the military just carries it out.

    This is almost completely true. However, citizen soldiers are expected to retain a shred of humanity at all times. Others in the past have claimed that they were 'just following orders' and it didn't work out so well for them either. And I'm not just talking about the obvious, but also the rape camps in Bosnia, Japanese internment, torture, abductions, and dozens of other examples of shameful behavior and even atrocities committed by sanctioned military personnel. The point here isn't that all soldiers are monsters. Clearly this is not the case. The point is that when monsters are discovered amongst the ranks they need to be removed before (more) senseless violence occurs. The men in the 'collateral murder' video are (or were) an example of this. They lost their ability to evaluate targets and gave in to the urge to get a higher score than the other helicopters in the unit.

    This is never acceptable.

    Now, you are correct in that it is and will always be a failure of command. And as members of a democracy, this discourse actually is a function of the civilian government. We're congregating and discussing our political views.

    If you feel this unjust and the costs are not worth it, your beef is with the civilian government.

    One final point, there is only ONE government, and it is entirely civilian. The military is not some sort of aristocracy that is immune to the will of the people. It answers to the executive branch, which answers to us. So telling civilians that they aren't in a position of authority to deal with issues like this is a symptom of the problem, rather than any actual fact.

  5. How ironic... by MikeRT · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You talk about transparency and democracy, but you blithely dismiss the fact that the asshole who "declassified" this data violated the laws and policies established by his own democratically elected government and the bureaucracy that the same democratically elected government put in place to prosecute this war. Furthermore, when he thought he found criminal conduct, he had an alphabet soup of agencies that could independently investigate and prosecute the people he turned in. The FBI, Army CID and DoD Inspector General, to name a few.

    Did he contact agents from any of them? No. Did he even contact a member of Congress to try to hold an official investigation? No.

    He decided that he and he alone was the authority to make that call.

  6. Re:War is not pretty by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then don't sell it as a clean war. The whole "smart weapons make a war clean" drivel is bullshit. That's the beef I have with this whole crappot that's cooking down in the middle east now. We get told that our boys are there to make the place safer, we go there to protect and bring them peace and justice, we don't shoot civilians and we only defend ourselves when those bad, bad terr'ists want to keep us from bringing those poor people freedom and democracy.

    Right? Ain't that what we're being told time and again? And that these people are so incredibly happy that we're there, that we kicked that madman Saddam out and that we're now protecting them from becoming the next terrorist slaves?

    Take a moment to ponder this: You're living in a country with a loonie as the dictator. He's far from a benevolent dictator and you're kinda suffering from his quirks and whims, but you adjust to it, somehow. Then suddenly people come from some sort of promised land, where everything is wonderful. You don't know really a lot about this country, but everyone who talks about it (hushed, of course, since, well, they once were your buddies back when you had that war with your neighbor, but since they became some sort of enemy for your dictator... but most people still consider them pretty cool guys and they know that they're insanely strong and well armed) knows that these people know what they do. They have gone to other places too and usually it went well for them. And somehow also for the places they went to, so they gotta be really cool. Somehow. Ok, they invaded your country, but, be honest, the people from the promised land just kicked the loonie from his seat, what side would you root for.

    But somehow these guys ain't what you expected. You know, you kinda expected them to come, put a cool government like their own in charge and go again. Just like they did before. But they don't go. And you're far from having that sort of 'free' government they enjoy. Instead, their awsome firepower circles above you and drives through your streets, they stop you for no appearant reason and search you, treat you like some sort of criminal. Ok, there are some people who still fight them, so it's kinda understandable... but you never did anything against them! Hey, you really liked the idea that they come and kick out that dictator. But now, everything took a turn for the worse. Instead of knowing that you can't do or say this or that, you could now suddenly get shot! Suddenly one of their awsome firepower machines opens fire at you and you're dead. It happened to your uncle Franky. Your cousin Bill is missing now, they said those guys took him 'cause he happened to hang with the wrong people. He was just there to smoke some pot, but they didn't believe him.

    How long 'til you stop thinking these people are really cool?

    How long 'til you start fighting them?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. Re:War is not pretty by Courageous · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you think there has ever been a war where civilians didn't get murdered, you are kidding only yourself.

    As an aside, I believe that the above is also literally true, unfortunately. One of the reasons that war should be avoided unless absolutely required is that murder, rape, and other terrible crimes will almost certainly occur on both sides, no matter how much you hope they wouldn't.

    C//

  8. Re:War is not pretty by Skreems · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you think there has ever been a war where civilians didn't get killed, you are kidding only yourself.

    That's really the problem. See, a lot of people in the USA were against going to war in Iraq. Not only is it NOT a defensive war (something I would be okay with in any circumstance except where my own govt. was as psychotic as North Korea, say) but it was sold on a total lie (WMDs). Well, when that didn't pan out, the justification for the war morphed into, "well, he was a really bad guy. Plus we'll be welcomed as liberators!" And when that didn't pan out, because surprisingly enough not everyone welcomes having their country decimated and thrown into near civil war, it morphed again into "We'll only kill the bad guys, so it's fine."

    Everyone who was against the war anyway still knew this was false, but it's enough to shift the tone of the national debate. If you've got a military leader on one side of the table saying, "we have high technology, and will only kill bad guys," it's hard to say you think they should stop anyway. Either you're questioning the effectiveness of the military, which will automatically bias some people against you, or you're saying they shouldn't even kill bad guys, which will bias even more.

    This kind of documentation is vital simply to remind each and every person in the country that, as you said, there is never a war where civilians don't get killed. Not just because we forget, but because our leaders were, for a while, actively trying to convince us otherwise.

    --
    Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
    The Urban Hippie
  9. Re:War is not pretty by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's easy to tell the difference between a tripod and an assault rifle from your desk when you can freeze the image and look at it closely.

    Now do that in a moving helicopter when you are dealing with a dozen other things, lights flashing around you, noises, the ever present danger of being shot out of the sky.

    "The great uncertainty of all data in war is a peculiar difficulty, because all action must, to a certain extent, be planned in a mere twilight, which in addition not infrequently—like the effect of a fog or moonshine—gives to things exaggerated dimensions and unnatural appearance."