Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Seeking Out Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange
clustro writes "The Pentagon is desperately seeking the 'cooperation' of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, in order to stop him from releasing over 250,000 pages of confidential foreign policy documents. The documents were allegedly provided to Assange by Bradley Manning, the same solider who leaked a video showing a US Army helicopter killing unarmed civilians and international press correspondents."
You don't get to make that determination yourself
Why the hell not? What, can only "experts" determine that? Funny how the experts are always government paid.
If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
Leaking a video and foreign policy documents does not constitute "treason."
Your own personal view on whether something should or shouldn't be classified is irrelevant. There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.
I don't know where you live, but I still live in a democracy. So while my opinion on what should/shouldn't be classified might not be the definitive one, an important one, or even a good one.. it's always a relevant one. You presumably live in a dictatorship, so I can see how you might have a different opinion on it. Of course, your opinion on everything is irrelevant, since you live in a dictatorship.
AccountKiller
I really hope this is a troll. If so, kudos - it is very well done.
If not, I weep that there are actually people who think this way. It is instructive to understand this kind of mindset. If the democratic will says it's ok, then it must be ok. Countless atrocities committed in the name of the majority have occurred on the basis of this mode of thinking. The Holocaust comes to mind.
I think I'm going to be sick.
All he is saying is that if you do release confidential data based on your personal determination that it is a moral thing to do, you should not be guaranteed to not suffer any consequences. What if the Pentagon is telling the truth and releasing these documents would cause "serious damage to national security" and people die as a result of your decision?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Don't worry -for the next few years we'll be hearing that Julian's "#3 Lieutenant" has been killed or arrested - over and over and over.
This space available.
In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.
Really, did _you_ vote on it, will your vote be reaffirmed every generation or so to ensure its still what the people want ?
Perhaps you should have said, a previous generation let the powers that be keep secrets from everyone, and now we cant get them to give up their power.
You're kidding right? Explosions are flashy, they get a lot of attention and everybody sees it. The last thing that a group interested in keeping their activities under wraps would want is for everybody to start looking at them because a critic just turned into a fireball.
Poisonings, "muggings gone wrong", character assassinations, etc. are all much more subtle ways to go about silencing a nuisance. They want a resolution where they can, reasonably, act just as surprised as everyone else. I'd be much more suspicious if he died of a sudden heart attack, or was murdered by an apparent Islamic terrorist than if he went out in a blaze of improbability.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Depends whats in the docs.
Another 5000 name death list as used in 1965 Indonesia?
The names crossed off as killed or captured?
Direct color revolution support, not washed by pro democracy foundations?
Black sights in countries where people where promised never again?
Enough for this generations Daniel Ellsberg?
or a huge list of faith based contractors doing very bad things on endless sole source contracts?
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.
Yes. And Hitler was elected in democratic elections as well. (I know, I know, Godwin's Law) Just because we voted on it doesn't mean it's always the best case. We generally aren't informed on what exactly we're voting on. In this specific example, we're voting on who gets to keep things secret. Which means by definition we _can't_ know what exactly we're deciding. This is exactly _why_ we need people to leak things.
There's the famous saying about preferring that a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished for a crime he did not commit. I consider this to be quite similar. I'd rather have a thousand national secrets leaked than have that one thing covered up. Just because it's not the next Holocaust doesn't mean it isn't something that needs to be released. Not enough people leaked what was happening in Nazi Germany until it was too late, likely because they were afraid of the consequences. The more tools to lessen the consequences, the better.
I don't generally post on Slashdot... but couldn't resist. Post them. Now. Please. No doubt it'll hurt US relations with who-knows-who... but the truth is always the best way to create the best change. One day, this man should be nominated, and win, a Nobel Peace Prize.
From TFA:
Manning, 22 [...] As an intelligence specialist in the US army, Manning
I fail to see how a 22 year old guy can be an "Intelligence specialist".
(and get off my lawn BTW).
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Much more interesting to me is what will happen with the dummy that leaked the info. Article 106 of the UCMJ defines this offense as punishable by death. This soldier knew with absolute certainty that he was committing a grave offense. A court martial is not handled like your everyday court case, no amount of money is going to save his skin.
Got Code?
Treason is lying to the american public about WMDs. Perhaps you don't think the boss can commit treason. But the public is meant to be the boss - and they were lied too, and money was laundered, lives were lost and countless suffered.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
"What if people die as a result" of leaking the confidential data? Many, many people *have* died due to our offensive military operations in that part of the world. I wager that obtaining the documents is an effort to examine the premises and policies surrounding those deaths, a la the Pentagon Papers. The claims of "serious damage to national security" have been seriously overblown in the past. Give the documents to someone trustworthy (outside the United States) to evaluate for their likelihood to "seriously damage" us.
Depending on what he leaked he may be considered a hero by civil libertarians if some of the allegations and rumors swirling about these cables are true. I know I consider him one, this is far less a grave offense against the law and liberty than Cheney's death squads or Bush's/Obama's/Congress's support of the Patriot Act. You seem almost gleeful he has less rights during a court martial, any reason for that?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
"and people die as a result of your decision?"
How about the opposite: what if people die UNLESS you publish these documents and publishing them would save lives? That's not actually far-stretched, Pentagon and the US army is known for killing people, even completely unarmed civilians.
If you go the "what if" - route then you should consider several different outcomes and not only one.
I find it astonishing how willingly people will swallow bullshit handwaving out of the desire to avoid conscious guilt.
Let's get the facts straight: The civilians didn't have a rocket launcher. It has been shown that the initial reports were clearly fabricated lies. It shows us a policy of prioritizing military propaganda over professional thoroughness. As such, we have no reason at all to believe their other claims and can only draw conclusion from the raw material we have.
And what if You were driving your daughters somewhere through your hometown and came upon what to you looked like an explosion with dying people crawling to safety?
To Americans it's the 'warzone' but to people that live there it is 'home'.
*DrugCheese rants*
What are you talking about? Didn't you know that the war in Iraq was won in 2003? Or maybe you've forgotten Preseident Bush's speech declaring victory on a certain aircraft carrier about a certain mission whose goals were considered accomplished? He very clearly stated that is was the "end of major combat operations."
While I'm being facetious here, the point is that you claiming that "war is war" is directly contradictory to the official government stance, which is that the operations in Iraq are a police action. Does the killing of unarmed civilians sound like a valid police action to you? Does that sound like something that will win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis? I'll admit that yes, even in police actions sometimes mistakes can be made but there should be an investigation and if warranted, a trial, not a cover-up.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Your opinion on what should and shouldn't be classified has no direct relevance to the situation, if this isn't want you want you should exercise your democratic rights by participating in the same democratic process that established the current classification processes.
This discussion we're having right now is a big part of that process. Speech is obviously a necessity in a democracy. This idea you have that democracy is sitting in isolation, calling up your representative and having a little chat with him/her is utterly ridiculous. Democracy happens by people forming opinions, and voting for people who hold those opinions. Peoples opinions are influenced by discussion. Giving your opinions to elected officials is part of the process, but it most certainly isn't the only part. Does this really have to be spelled out for you?
AccountKiller
The camera that the reporter was carrying was mistaken for a rocket launcher. The reporter's fate was sealed when he aimed that thing in the direction of our troops on the ground.
There were no allied troops in the area. It took about 10 minutes for US Bradley vehicles to show up after they were ordered to the site. The helicopters were just blowing people up they thought looked suspicious, on open city streets. The pilot states that there are AK-47s and rocket launchers, but in the video (purported to be higher quality than what the gunner sees), I can make no such identification.
The fate of the occupants of the van later driving by, two adults and two children, was also sealed when they saw the Reuters cameraman's driver badly injured on the sidewalk (by a previous volley of American bullets from the sky). They stopped, got out to assist, carried him to their van, and then were repeatedly blasted by another hail of bullets from the Apache pilot.
They arrested a hero whistleblower, at least for revealing this video. The government lied, and denied Reuters FOIA requests for information regarding how their reporters were killed, to continue the coverup. The pentagon probably wants to contact Assange to get a statement or any evidence about receiving '260,000 pages' (perhaps a fantasy) so they can throw Bradley in prison for life for the embarrassment, while the Apache gunner gets his GI bill to live another life (and probably become a police officer).
What video did you see?
The "group of armed man" was actually a group of around 12 guys, all in a pretty relaxed attitude, none of them was pointing their guns at anything. Only a few of them had guns. Some of them where reporters.
They fired mercilessly destroying the whole place. They stayed to check if anyone was moving, when they saw a few still alive, wounded, agonizingly crawling on the ground, the shoot them again.
Then a minivan appeared, carrying UNARMED CHILDREN AND ADULTS, to clean up the mess, help the wounded, bury the dead. They where all shot dead. They guys in the helicopter new there were kids. And they said (over the radio) "It's their own damn fault for carrying kids to a war zone".
Well, damn, that wasn't a war zone until the US military arrived. And guess what? They had no reason whatever to be there. They made up a war because they needed to sell weapons. Try defending that.
Also, you guys need a good derogatory slang for "military". In Spanish, we say "milicos de mierda". That's the only way anyone here refers to anyone even remotely linked to the murdering machine that is the military.
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Uhhhh - I didn't see the same video you saw. I saw an Apache firing on a group of armed men, located in an area from which our ground troops took fire.
The thing that I find most interesting about this argument is that the predominant sides of the argument consist of the side that says, "These guys were irresponsible/criminal Rambo-types. They/we need to do better!" versus the side that says, "These were good soldiers doing the best they could in trying circumstances. Bad things happen in war."
Now, considering that the fighting in Iraq is an anti-insurgency campaign, and the U.S. military is supposed to be winning "hearts and minds," dead civilians, dead reporters, wounded/dead children foster hatred of the U.S. and undermine the mission. Therefore, the people defending those soldiers and saying that mistakes happen are essentially saying this:
"This war cannot be won."
You're commenting on the politician who sent the troops there, or the troops? There is a difference. I have no use at all for George Dubya Bush and his cronies. I thought the reasons given for invading Iraq were bullshit - and I hate the Bush administration for giving people like you ammunition to use against the military. But, if you're honest, you'll admit that the troops and the politicians are easily distinguishable. The politicians, to a man, are cowards hiding behind the guns held by the troops.
I respect the troops, for doing the dirty jobs they are sent out to do.
I have no respect for the politicians who can't figure out when and where the troops should be used.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
No, the troops are human beings with a brain. They are the ones pulling the trigger. They are equally guilty. If you fire your weapon without making sure who your target was, then you deserve as much blame as the one who told you to fire.