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."

Comments

We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you just provide us your GPS co-ordinates? Thanks!

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[MichaelSmith]

Could you just provide us your GPS co-ordinates? Thanks!

Better not do that. They are uncomfortably close to mine.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[cappp]

The Wired article http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/state-department-anxious/ provides a little more detail.

The things that stood out to me:

According to the Daily Beast, Manning apparently had “special access to cables prepared by diplomats and State Department officials throughout the Middle East regarding the workings of Arab governments and their leaders.” The cables date back several years and traversed interagency computer networks that are available to the Army. They contain information about U.S. diplomatic and intelligence efforts in the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones, the diplomat said.

In chats with Lamo that Wired.com has examined, Manning said he had access to two classified networks from two separate secured laptops: SIPRnet, the Secret-level network used by the Department of Defense and the State Department, and the Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System which serves both agencies at the Top Secret/SCI level. The networks, he said, were both “air-gapped” from unclassified networks, but the environment at the base made it easy to smuggle data out. “I would come in with music on a CD-RW labeled with something like ‘Lady Gaga,’ erase the music then write a compressed split file,” he wrote. “No one suspected a thing and, odds are, they never will.” “listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s ‘Telephone’ while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history,” he added later. ”Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counterintelligence, inattentive signal analysis a perfect storm.” Regarding the State Department cables specifically, Manning told Lamo, “State dept fucked itself. Placed volumes and volumes of information in a single spot, with no security.”

Manning described personal issues that got him into trouble with his superiors and left him socially isolated. He said he had been demoted after he punched a colleague in the face during an argument, and was reassigned to a job in a supply office pending early discharge. He also told Lamo, “I’m restricted to SIPR now, because of the discharge proceedings.”

But in his chats with Lamo, Manning told the ex-hacker that all traces of evidence had been deleted from his work computers as part of the troop-withdrawal procedures that have started in Iraq. “I had two computers. One connected to SIPRnet the other to JWICS,” he wrote. “They’ve been zero-filled. Because of the pullout, evidence was destroyed by the system itself.” He also told Lamo that network security monitoring and logging was ineffective or nonexistent. “There’s god-awful accountability of IP addresses,” he wrote. “The network was upgraded, and patched up so many times, and systems would go down, logs would be lost. And when moved or upgraded, hard drives were zeroed. It’s impossible to trace much on these field networks."

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[BrokenHalo]

Could you just provide us your GPS co-ordinates? Thanks!

No, I only give those to "soliders".

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[commodore64_love]

>>>According to the Daily Breast

Now THAT'S my kind of newspaper. ;-) I think the Wikileaks founder should ignore the Pentagon. The leaking of video showing soldiers killing reporters, children, and other innocents is exactly what this country needs to erase the myth that government is "good" for us. Or that leaders can be trusted. Fucking bastards. They promised to end this damn war years ago, and yet here we are. The only way it will end is if, like Vietnam, we turn public opinion against the war and the government.

Keep up the good work Mr. Manning.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

THat would be: Latitude = 38.8854, Longitude = -77.0057

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

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.

I'm not looking to get into a pissing contest, since I like most of your posts here - but for those who haven't SEEN the video, there are two sides to the story. Whichever side you take on the story, you most definitely need to remember that old "fog of war" thing. Mistakes are made, in every war, and the video in question documents one of them.

Point of fact: there were weapons among the men on the ground who were killed. 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. The men in the Apache believed that he was preparing to fire on American troops.

As for Manning - I have just about made up my mind that he is nothing but a push-button shitbird, and he should have been run out of the military a lot quicker. As much as I support Wikileaks, I simply cannot see that Manning had any good reason for leaking that particular video. All he cared about was damaging the military, out of spite.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[iamwahoo2]

As for Manning - I have just about made up my mind that he is nothing but a push-button shitbird.

You win the debate on style points alone! As a side note, I will be adding "push-button shitbird" to my repertoire of insults.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

You're welcome to use the insult. Just for info, a "push-button" in the Navy is any technician who got to sit around in a nice cozy classroom for a couple years, then sewed a Petty Officer's insignia on, just for graduating. Not a terrible insult, but somewhat derogatory when used by men who had to EARN their ratings the hard way. A "shitbird" in any branch is the worthless little turd who never manages to do anything right, and is consistently more trouble than he is worth. Shitbirds are more often discharged with a "convenience of the government" reason, than any other type of discharge.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[yacc143]

And please use this format that we use for our drones for murdering inconvenient "enemys" that we do not want to talk about in a court of law?

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[qubezz]

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).

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

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.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[sycodon]

Are you the guy who bought out my entire supply of Tin Foil hats?

Thanks man! I was able to put in a pool with that money!

Say, if you are interested, I have some real video footage of aliens from Area 51.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Excuse me, when you say

the hard way

, you mean murdering kids overseas, right?

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[dave420]

Not this shit again. It's perfectly legal for Iraqis to have AK-47s. That is not a reason for them to be killed. Fog of war? There's no such thing when you're in a helicopter with such good vision of a peaceful square with no one firing a single shot at you. If the army gunner couldn't tell a camera from an RPG (considering they don't look anything alike), he shouldn't be a gunner. There were no troops on the ground in that square when the cameraman took photos. How could he be preparing to fire on American troops when there weren't any around? It took the troops that were there 15 minutes to arrive on the scene after being requested. It's another excellent illustration of the US armed forces' policy of "make up for poor training by spending millions on their equipment, and hope for the best".

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

Well - if you're an ignoramus, you might say so. I have more medals for Humanitarian Services than all other awards combined. We HELP people at least as much as we hurt people.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

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.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really believe what you just wrote? Did you even see the video? I'd like to see source stating there were weapons. As far as the heli pilots are concerned, they only saw the reporter's camera holster, you can clearly see that in the recording. The cameraman, at NO POINT, took his camera and aimed for something. He actually was talking on his mobile phone when they striked. Then black van comes, tries to save the wounded and gets shot too. But yea, there could have been weapons in there, too!
I just don't understand why they didn't burn down all adjacend houses. I mean, they could have the feared WMD in there!

Go ask the Iraqi people how they like it, beeing shot without any chance to clear misunderstandings. Not much different from our feared terrorists, if you ask me.

And Manning, he seems to care about people and their rights. You obviously don't. Stop talkin FUD.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just want to reiterate the point... If unarmed means carrying assault rifles then yes they were unarmed. Did you watch the video? Being post military I probably would have shot them too.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

Obviously, if you saw the video, your vision is so bad that you could never get into the military if you wanted to. There were most definitely AK-47's among the people who were shot up. How many? Sorry, I never got a reliable count - more than 4, probably less than 10. As for the camera, I couldn't tell what it was in the video. It resembles a weapon. It resembles a weapon enough that I may very well have made the call that got the cameraman killed.

It is also obvious that you have not read the headings and the commentary that are associated with the video. The Apache was CALLED to the area, BECAUSE ground troops took fire. They didn't just happen along - their buddies were shot at, they were called to find the bad guys, and they found armed men, right where they EXPECTED to find hostile troops.

If you were a soldier, you might understand that you ALWAYS shoot when there is a misunderstanding.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Giving them a sack of rice after destroying their houses is not helping them, you bastard.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Voulnet]

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.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[b4upoo]

It looks like government does not feel that the truth shall set us free. Who would have thunk it!

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

I presume that you are a combat veteran . . . .

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[darjen]

You don't have to be a combat veteran to comment on what should be common sense.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

No, you don't - but it helps when you know what you're talking about.

If you have never stood at the wrong end of a gun, it's near impossible to imagine being there for days, weeks, or even months.

Personally, I've only spent several hours of my life standing at the wrong ends of lethal weapons. I don't consider myself qualified to judge the actions taken by front line soldiers, day in and day out. But, at least I have a few clues about what they are going through.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[darjen]

You can try and justify this all you want, but I'm still not sure how it is anything less than cold blooded murder.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

I haven't exactly "justified" the killings, now have I? I've already stated that mistakes happen. The "fog of war". Innocent people die in war - and I cited that years ago as a reason NOT TO GO TO WAR.

If you read carefully, you'll see that I've found no reason to accuse any of the troopers involved with a crime. But, there WAS a tragic mistake made. Innocent people did die.

You confuse that with "cold blooded murder"??? You are obviously unqualified to ever serve on a jury. If summoned for jury duty, be sure to tell the prosecuting attorney that you don't understand the difference between murder and homicide.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Darby]

We HELP people at least as much as we hurt people.

No, you don't.
The military does nothing but harm America.
They're the worst enemies and the most vile traitors this country has.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[loshwomp]

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).

Just to clarify: It's a total understatement to call these "bullets". They're 30mm cannon shells filled with high explosive, so they're more like grenades than bullets. Each of the two Apaches in the video is firing about 10 of these per second at the civilians, which is why the "bodies" lying around are hardly recognizable as such.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[darjen]

Maybe I read a too much into your comment. But that's what I typically see from people trying to justify these killings as "this is just what happens during war".

This is more than a "tragic mistake". A mistake is something you didn't mean to happen. These troops are old enough to know the difference between right and wrong. They deliberately shot unarmed and non-threatening people. That is more than homicide.

Perhaps if you would be so kind as to point out how it fits under any of these categories and maybe I would change my mind.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

Damned shame that a veteran who has a clue feels the need to post as AC in a discussion like this, on /.

How is it that liberals seem to dominate a tech board? Did most of you graduate from Berkeley, or some such?

Whatever - I'll post my opinions however unpopular, under my own name, and let karma take care of itself. ;^)

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[mcvos]

It's not the US soldiers who are standing at the wrong end of a gun, it's the Iraqi civilians. And they never asked to be anywhere in the vicinity of any guns. It's the soldiers' responsibility to be able to handle their weapons responsibly, and to distinguish between a warzone and a bunch of harmless, unarmed civilians.

Some (not all) US soldiers seem to be horribly bad at making that distinction.

By your argument, Iraqi civilians are a lot more justified in shooting US soldiers than vice versa. They're the ones who are constantly at the wrong ends of lethal weapons.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

You seem to be looking to civilian criminal law for your definition of "homicide". I used homicide more as a clinical term, than a legal term. But, I can't avoid the legal definition, can I?

Critical to judging these soldiers, you must understand their motives. What they saw, and reality, didn't exactly jive. They saw a rocket launcher, when in reality, they actually saw a television camera. In any criminal proceeding, the court does try to understand the motives. First degree murder requires not only malicious intent, but careful planning. Second degree murder requires no planning. So, the prosecutor does his best to prove intent, or he'll be stuck with a third degree murder at best.

So - intent. They SAW a rocket launcher. They SAW enemy combatants. They SAW a threat to their compadres on the ground. None of those three things existed, but those three things are what the helicopter crew SAW.

Self defense and defense of others would most certainly work for them, if they were ever brought to court to answer for this tragic mistake.

BUT - these guys are NOT subject to civilian law, while serving in a combat zone. They are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. At worst, some of these guys MIGHT be charged with incompetence for failing to identify that camera as a camera. Not that he would ever be convicted, but he could conceiveably be charged.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Listen to the fucking audio. They were dying to murder those guys. They knew there were children in the minivan (the minivan that came by to pick up the wounded and bury the dead) and they said "it's their own fault for bringing the kids to a war zone", and proceeded to open fire on them. They killed childs, knowingly.

This is not WWII. This is not a war at all, it's an invasion. The US invaded another sovereign nation. Also, this guys are full of technology. This wasn't some guy with a shitty riffle shooting through the jungle and hitting the wrong target. The only reason most people join the military is because they are murderers.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Rinikusu]

That's false, however. There were American troops a few blocks down the street. The part in the video where the photographer leans out and snaps some shots? He was taking pics of the Bradleys sitting down the street. (they recovered the cameras and those were the last pictures taken) Of course it took 10 minutes for troops to get there. You don't just rush headfirst into a waiting potential ambush. If you didn't see the rockets/AKs, you weren't looking hard enough because I spotted at least one of each without any kind of "ambiguity". Then let's discuss the idea that that exact location had been used as an ambush/RPG launch point for running battles over the past few days. There's a lot of context you're missing from the video alone.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Iraqis have the right to murder any non-Iraqi they see, because they are being invaded. They sovereign nation has been invaded by a bunch of fags with high tech and an agenda to push.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Ah, I see. This medals were given to you by the same corrupt government/military that sent you there to murder all that people in the first place, right?

You invade other countries, you still their resources, and then give them a bag of food, and you are suddenly a hero. You are nothing but scam. I know there is no god, but since you are in the military you probably believe it, therefore "I hope you rot in hell".

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Rinikusu]

/* 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. */

War is 99% doing nothing, and 1% actually fighting. Just because they weren't in fighting posture doesn't mean they weren't ready to fight. A lot of the communication going on between the party is exactly what I'd be thinking people would be doing, discussing things like where the enemy is, who is going to take what position, what's the bug-out plan, how much ammunition, etc. If you were to see video of American troops, you'd find most of them laying around, playing Gameboys or PSPs, listening to their ipods, playing cards, whatever.

They did not identify children in the minivan until after troops got there. To the helicopter, the van was there to remove bodies and wounded, and evidence (they're not that stupid, guys). The tactics used by the "insurgents" were basically just that: Cars/vans ferry fighters/ammunition around, pick them up and carry them elsewhere. It's not like they have APCs, Bradleys and other military vehicles at their disposal, so civilian transportation it is.

The issue of whether or not the US should be there is a completely separate conversation. I happen to agree with that sentiment. However, the actions of the pilots/gunners in the video are completely appropriate to the ROE of their mission.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Khyber]

Not all of them are filled with high explosive. The M230 chain gun on the Apache can use either the M788 Target round (non explosive,) the M789 HEDP (Dual-purpose explosive round) or the M799 HEI (Explosive Incendiary.)

And at 30mm, you really don't need explosives to rip the human body apart.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Khyber]

My grandfather was (retired Lt. Col USMC) and that was one of the FIRST things he drilled into my head - Check your fucking target.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

You are either mistaken, or deliberately painting the soldiers to be baby killers. I heard that statement, "It's their own fault". The statement was made LONG AFTER the shots were fired, and after the ground troops arrived. Go back and watch again. There was absolutely NOTHING to indicate that there were children in that van when the decision to fire was made.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

"and to distinguish between a warzone and a bunch of harmless, unarmed civilians."

Key word, "unarmed". There were indeed weapons among the dead. It has never been established that the dead were all innocents. SOMEONE in that area had fired upon our ground troops, and that is the reason the Apache was called into the area. It COULD HAVE BEEN some of the armed men accompanying the journalist.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

SOMEONE in that area had fired upon our ground troops, and that is the reason the Apache was called into the area.

That's quite a feat, given that there were no ground troops in the area at the time such firing supposedly took place.

But don't let me stop you from your rationalizing.

You're good at it.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[toastar]

THat would be:
Latitude = 38.8854, Longitude = -77.0057

yes because surely Assanage is in arlington?

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[dragonhunter21]

Point of clarification: They didn't know there were kids inside the vehicle before they fired. They only knew after the kids were pulled out by the troops, and were notified as such. Now, the "It's their own fault for bringing kids into a war zone" line was said, but only after the kids were pulled out, and well before it was known that the people on the ground were innocent civilians. I watched the HQ video myself, and the "kids" were pixels. I was inches away from my screen, staring at the paused video, and they were pixels. Same for the "rocket launcher". On the helicopter, he's got a smaller screen, he can't pause the action, and he's always moving. It is a case of failing to identify, yes, but it wasn't the shooter's fault. He saw a bunch of guys that looked like they were threatening his buddies, he requested permission to fire, and he got it. If you saw a guy pointing a gun at your friend, what would you do?

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[dragonhunter21]

Sure, he's in a helicopter with a good view of a peaceful square. However, they don't have magic cameras. They're flying hundreds of feet in the air, wind currents are buffeting the aircraft, and they're under stress to find and neutralize the guys shooting at their buddies. If you watched the video, that's what he had to deal with. He saw a person with something on his shoulder, aimed at our boys, in the general direction of where they'd reported fire earlier. They obeyed the ROE to the letter. It's not like they just started blasting, they asked for permission. It wasn't that they wanted to kill civilians- they wanted to kill bad guys. They just misidentified.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[mcvos]

It has never been established that the dead were all innocents. SOMEONE in that area had fired upon our ground troops,

You don't see it as a problem that nothing has actually been investigated, and that lots of civilians were slaughtered because SOMEONE somewhere (somewhere else, probably) may have shot at someone?

How would you like it if lots of people in your street were gunned down from a helicopter because somebody in your town may have shot somebody? Do you honestly not see how disproportionate the response is, how any semblance of justice is completely absent, or how disgustingly inhuman that kind of behaviour is?

Kill everybody, just in case somebody might be guilty? What kind of world do you think you're creating with that kind of attitude?

Seriously, these people need to be tried for war crimes. That, or plain murder.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Golddess]

Reminds me of a term I heard recently, seagull manager. They fly in, make a lot of noise, shit on everything, and fly off.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[nacturation]

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.

WWII scenario:
Private: "Sergeant, we've spotted some Nazi SS troops in the trenches. Shall we fire?"
Sergeant: "What are they doing?"
Private: "They're just relaxing and hanging out."
Sergeant: "They have a relaxed attitude? Never mind then, let's just leave the enemy alone."

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".

You're like my sister when I was growing up... you have no sense of the sequence in which things happen and will happily recite things in a different order to suit your own position. That there were children was only identified after the ground troops got there and reported back to the Apache this fact. That's when the Apache dudes said that to ease their conscience.

Yes, it was terrible. Yes, they fired mercilessly. But let's stick to the truth about what we do know.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Voulnet]

Believe me, my country's been invaded. I've seen things with my own eyes. I've also seen how 'good' soldiers of the invading force (although very few in numbers) refused to raise weapons against civilians. If you are a good person deep inside, you will not hurt civilians, simple as that. If, however, you think of Iraqis as lower beings (as those US soldiers did) then you won't care if you killed civilians or not; you know you have the backing of the biggest force in the world. So, yeah, I know what I'm talking about; we've been on the wrong end of guns, cannons and missiles; and yes we've seen soldiers in the battle field being able to distinguish between right and wrong and opt not to kill civilians. Why your army doesn't care is obvious: They're not trained to care, they're not trained to judge.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[loshwomp]

...and the HEDP is what they're using in all of the shells seen in this video.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Mr. Slippery]

I didn't see the same video you saw.

Apparently not, since your description bears no relation to the video on Wikileaks.

Mistakes are made, in every war

Yes, they are. That is not an excuse to rank incompetence or for violation of basic standards of moral behavior.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Mr. Slippery]

I respect the troops, for doing the dirty jobs they are sent out to do.

Since, after all, they were only following orders, right? And apparently that's only an invalid defense if you're not an American.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Mr. Slippery]

It wasn't that they wanted to kill civilians- they wanted to kill bad guys.

And that's the problem: they wanted to kill "bad guys" so bad that they had the murderer's equivalent of blue balls. "Please be a bad guy please be a bad guy please be a bad guy -- bad guy! kill! kill! kill Whoops, wasn't a bad guy after all."

(We'll disregard the question of whether so puerile a label as "bad guy" applies to someone fighting an invading army.)

The only person you can trust is a weapon is someone who will regret using it even in a justified case. As Lao Tzu (or someone using his name) put it,

Weapons are the tools of fear;
a decent man will avoid them
except in the direst necessity
and, if compelled, will use them
only with the utmost restraint.
Peace is his highest value.
If the peace has been shattered,
how can he be content?
His enemies are not demons,
but human beings like himself.
He doesn't wish them personal harm.
Nor does he rejoice in victory.
How could he rejoice in victory
and delight in the slaughter of men?

He enters a battle gravely,
with sorrow and with great compassion,
as if he were attending a funeral.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

I respect the troops, for doing the dirty jobs they are sent out to do.

When one of the troops says "It's their own damn fault for carrying kids to a war zone", then I stop respecting him.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[commodore64_love]

First off I don't blame the soldiers. I blame the U.S. Congress and both presidents for putting them in that shitty situation. We have no business going to war simply because ~1500 people died on 9/11. That isn't even that great of a loss (more people die in a single month just from car accidents), and the war will only create a next generation of tettorists s the kids with dead parents grow-up hating Americans.

Second regardless of the content of the video, it should still be released so the People (the ultimate holders of authority) can see it with their own eyes, and decide if the war being fought is worthwhile. If the People decide it is not, as happened with Vietnam, then we withdraw. If the People decide the job being done is good, then we continue.

In either case the decision should be with the Citizens, and the release of videos like these help make that decision. The government has no right to censor what we see. They are not our Plantation Masters, and we are not Serfs to be treated like idiots.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Dude, they are invading a foreign country and murdering people for absolutely no reason. No, those guys are not the ENEMY, they are DEFENDING THEIR FUCKING COUNTRY FROM INVADING FORCES.

I know you have a hard time accepting this, but put in terms a 5 year old can understand, the US military are the BAD GUYS.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[commodore64_love]

This isn't a WW2 scenario, because in WW2 we were being invaded by Germans (via submarines sinking our ships and spies blowing-up targets internally) and invasion by Japanese (attacked Hawaii and Alaska). Iraq was not invading our territory. WE are the ones doing the invading. We have no business being there. We are the Nazis in your scenario.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Oh, ok then. I will go out and drive my car at 150 mph in the middle of town. If I happen to kill anyone, It won't be my fault, because I didn't see them. And if I happen to kill any kids, It won't be bad because I didn't knew they were kids, I thought I was just running over adults.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

They enlisted into the Army. Saying that murdering people is "ok" because it's "appropriate to the ROE of their mission" or some other stupid military jargon (I don't even know or care about the meaning of ROE) doesn't make it right. Don't loose focus here ... they enlisted into a force that exists for the sole purpose of murdering people overseas just to sell weapons.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[digitalunity]

It certainly shows a staggering lack of remorse or regret for their actions. The gunners begged for permission to open fire, and they did, and they killed everyone they were shooting at. Like a fucking video game.

Thing is, our soldiers were quite a ways away. The danger wasn't immediate. In a densely populated urban area, you don't shoot until you're sure the target is a combatant. Article 33 of the Geneva Convention says you can't punish one person for the collective actions of their countrymen.

The gunner could have easily guided ground troops in safely to determine if the targets were in fact hostile.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

You do understand that men walk around carrying AK's pretty much all over Iraq (and Afganistan, etc, etc). It's uncommon to NOT see AKs.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[keirre23hu]

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.

Hero whistleblower? If you sign a non-disclosure agreement that he had to have to have access to classified, he is no hero. You do not get to decide when classified data should be released, regardless of how it makes you feel. There are proper channels for complaining about things and he could have availed himself of those, if he had a problem with what was happening around him. Anyway, it is very obvious that this guy did this because he has a need for attention and respect, not because of his moral stance. The point is, the minute you sign those forms and take that oath, it ceases being about your personal feelings. You have a responsibility for following the law. The wrongs of others does not justify what he did. There are a million things that he could have done, instead of this that would have within the law.

He could be thrown in prison for life, and it would be completely justified because he agreed to risk that consequence unauthorized sharing of classified. You dont get to change the rules after the fact because you dont like them. That line of work is for people willing to accept serious responsibility. Its not like these are trumped up charges or they made a special punishment for him. he gets no sympathy, and he did not help anyone here.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[keirre23hu]

Its funny how people are quick to pontificate about how evil the US military is, but when confronted with the facts, such as what you posted here, there is complete silence from the critics. Yes, there have been some disgusting things done over there, some justified, and some not so much, however how can anyone blame these aircrews. If you decide as a reporter to go get one of the sides in a conflict, how can you be shocked if the other side sees you with the enemy, particularly when the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, and they assume you are not an innocent civilian.

It would be nice to see this degree of anger expressed at the guys who killed Paul Moran, Michael Kelly, Julio Anguita Parrado, and Christian Leibig among others and that nearly killed Kimberly Dozier. Does the fact that those guys didnt have Apache helicopters make it okay?

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[IICV]

If you have never stood at the wrong end of a gun, it's near impossible to imagine being there for days, weeks, or even months.

Can you point out which gun the Iraqi insurgents have that can threaten a helicopter? As far as I can tell, the shit they're armed with has a snowball's chance in hell of even hitting a helicopter like that, much less doing actual damage to it.

Those guys were in a (comparatively) low-stress situation. There was no one actually shooting at them, there might have been some fighting but it was not in the immediate area. And yet they chose to unload their guns at people. That is murder, pure and simple.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, really? The administration changes and the next one will continue the war with the excuse that they're cleaning the mess created by the other administration.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[zephvark]

You respect the troops for murdering random people for the glory of our politicians? Fuck you, sir. Flying fuck you through the hole of a rolling donut. You are a vicious and thoughtless swine.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

War and justice have almost nothing in common. That is why I argued so hard against going into Iraq. Dubya spent months trying to justify the invasion, before he actually launched the invasion. He spent years trying to justify the invasion after he launched.

The war was all about vengeance. Dubya was pissed that Hussein had made an attempt on his daddy's life, years ago. In my honest opinion, that fact weighed more on Dubya's mind than almost any other consideration. Well, that and the fear of some imaginary WMD's that competent research would have allayed. All Dubya had to do was listen to the CIA, who repeatedly told Dubya and all the world that Iraq was no threat to the US of A.

Let me state again, as clearly as possible - the war in Iraq was NEVER justified. We had only poor excuses for invading Iraq. No good reasons at all, only poor excuses based on fear mongering.

Justice. If there were justice in the world, Dubya would have called out Saddam Hussein, and the two would have met, with seconds, in some field somewhere at dawn, and the two of them would have decided everything that needed to be settled in just a few minutes. If there were justice in the world, politicians would do the fighting, instead of sending kids out to fight for them.

Don't look for justice once war has been declared. There is no justice when politicians, or spiritual leaders, or anyone else have declared a war.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't get all this unwaivering loyalty to the troops. Its not like they're a bunch of draftees who are forced to be over there. The war has been going on for quite a long time now. All of the issues concerning the politics behind the war are out there all over the place. Basically unless you're a member of the armed forces who's been kept in since before 9/11, then you're over there by your own choice. The ugliness of the war has been publicized for years and years, meaning if you singed up, you knew damn well that you'd be doing so called "dirty work". I don't have any respect for that.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for the clarification. Sorry about any confusion. Would you please send us your coordinates, so that we could scratch you off of our list?

--
Pentagon
DHS
FBI
CIA

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Mr. Slippery]

Private: "Sergeant, we've spotted some Nazi SS troops in the trenches. Shall we fire?"

Were the civilians murdered by the Apache crew wearing uniforms or insignia of a hostile military force? No. The whole point is that there was no factual basis to identify them as hostile. So your comparison sucks.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Asaf.Zamir]

I love the way they connect people they don't like to enemy countries and Arabs. It's so convenient to get the public's approval like that.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[5pp000]

This is the part that stands out to me -- not from the same page, but a couple of clicks away we find an edited transcript of Manning's chats with Lamo, and scrolling down we find this:

(02:35:46 PM) Manning: was watching 15 detainees taken by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing “anti-Iraqi literature” the iraqi federal police wouldn’t cooperate with US forces, so i was instructed to investigate the matter, find out who the “bad guys” were, and how significant this was for the FPs it turned out, they had printed a scholarly critique against PM Maliki i had an interpreter read it for me and when i found out that it was a benign political critique titled “Where did the money go?” and following the corruption trail within the PM’s cabinet i immediately took that information and *ran* to the officer to explain what was going on he didn’t want to hear any of it he told me to shut up and explain how we could assist the FPs in finding *MORE* detainees (from http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/)

This, to me, is the truly incendiary accusation: that though our stated mission in Iraq is to establish a functioning democracy, in fact we are assisting the Iraqi government in functioning as a dictatorship. Documentation of this claim would be more important, IMO, than the video.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[P0ltergeist333]

I would urge both sides (the jingoists and leftists) step back and think about this story. As has been mentioned previously, there is such thing as the fog of war and it is perfectly understandable that anyone carrying a shoulder mounted ANYTHING could be perceived as a threat in a war zone. On the other hand, you have to wonder whether the Apache personnel could have figured out their mistake at some point between firing at the reporters and firing on a civilian who was helping wounded civilians. As for that video, the main issue here is that all war is hell. Call it a cliche if you want, it's the truth. Since war is hell, it should be entered into only as a last resort, and while I would not characterize the Bush doctrine of preemptive war as last resort, even when entered into as a last resort, war is STILL hell.

As for Manning, I think it is fairly clear by reading the conversations with Adrian Lamo that he was having a crisis of conscience. I have mixed feelings about his actions. When he joined the military, he became a literal tool of the government. As such, any issue of conscience should have been brought to his government. I come from a family with a military tradition (my grandfather, uncle, both parents, and my brother were all enlisted) and I was taught that you take your grievances through the chain of command. Despite this, as I have found out in the 'real world,' if you bring such a grievance that no one wants to hear or deal with to people who have no honor (sadly, it seems this includes the majority of people I have known who are in any kind of power) then your grievance will get buried and you will be in a shitstorm. It's pretty clear that he experienced this when he tried to go through proper channels concerning the "anti-iraq literature" and found out that the US was in essence propping up a corrupt dictator. At that point I can understand coming to a moral decision that there was no 'going through channels' and that the greater good could be served by bringing grave injustices out into the light of day. While I don't necessarily agree with his actions, I think characterizing his actions as "all he cared about was hurting the military" would be wrong from what I have read in the linked article and others. On the other hand, I think characterizing him as a "hero whistle blower" might be just as flawed.

In the end, we just have to hope that he did not leak anything that will cause permanent harm to America, and that just maybe what he did leak will cause the politicians and military to rethink policies and make positive changes. A just society should have no fear from the truth.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[linzeal]

Irrational jingoism pervades the discussion of Iraq and Afghanistan in the US, so much so that for some that means " My Country Right or Wrong, " extends to the individual actions of US soldiers. We saw this on during WWII where war crimes by the Allies were largely prosecuted, Korea/Vietnam where open fire orders killed millions of civilians and in every conflict since than. There is a reason why the US and Israel refuse to participate in the International Court of Justice, they would be there a long time answering for crimes they committed over the past 50 years. It is more disappointing than surprising since the military industrial complex and military bases are present as the top employers in many communities across the United States. It may only represent 5% of US GDP but this is spread across the United States in pork barrel projects and military bases.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[linzeal]

Total War is illegal, we made god damn sure about that after WWII. There were no American troops in the area, it took a Humvee 10 minutes to arrive on the scene. No weapons were ever found, no conclusive pictures of weapons and not a single person killed there was linked to militants.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[linzeal]

We aren't all libertarian/Republican IT monkeys. Some of us are scientists or engineers, which tend to be skewed towards the left side of politics.

If you killed everyone carrying an AK-47 in Iraq or Afghanistan you would have to kill half the country. The vast majority of people with guns in those countries carry them around their whole lives and never fire them in anger. It is a very Wild Wild West 'tude out there. Lots of machismo, engaging in a fire fight with everyone with a gun would be disastrous strategically as we found out in the first 2 weeks of occupying Baghdad where 100's of innocent people protecting their homes from looters were killed by American troops who happened to be in the area. Thank god neither you or the parent poster are making decisions over there, because you would be making the same mistake they made 6 years ago.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

flip video converter is the best program that helps you to convert all Flip camera videos to other popular formats as you like, such as WMV, AVI, MOV, MP4, MPG, 3GP, RM, RMVB, DV, FLV, SWF, MKV and HD video. Flip family includes: Flip Mino, Flip Ultra, Flip Mino HD, Flip Ultra HD and Flip SlideHD. At the same time, the converted video off Flip camcorder can work well with many multimedia players like windows media player, real player, iTunes, QuickTime, etc

import flip video to windows movie maker converter is an amazing program to help you to convert Flip video off Flip Mino, Flip Ultra, Flip Mino HD, Flip Ultra HD or Flip SlideHD to WMM compatible WMV, AVI, MPG so that you can free to use video from Flip camcorder on windows movie maker and edit Flip video with WMM.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Hadlock]

I saw the video. Re-watching it, knowing what to look for, it is most definitely not an RPG. On the other hand, being in a helicopter that is vulnerable to RPGs, I can completely understand the gunner seeing the kneeling man around the corner looking like someone loading an RPG. Who hasn't swerved out of the way of ____ on the road thinking it was a ___? Especially towards the end of a couple hour road trip at the end of the day. It's a tragic event but I think one party is not completely at fault here.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[neurosys]

Well.. I guess you're always right when you're the Monday morning quarterback.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[commodore64_love]

>>>If you sign a non-disclosure agreement that he had to have to have access to classified, he is no hero

And if he learned that leaders were rounding-up citizens and experimenting on them (see 1950s and 60s), he's still required to be silent?
.

>>>There are proper channels for complaining about things

Yeah but those channels all lead to death, or being "disappeared" in some prison.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[lras]

If you sign a non-disclosure agreement that he had to have to have access to classified, he is no hero. You do not get to decide when classified data should be released, regardless of how it makes you feel. There are proper channels for complaining about things and he could have availed himself of those, if he had a problem with what was happening around him.

Actually, your idea that he shouldn't reveal atrocities because he was ordered not to has not been in vogue since the Nuremberg trials.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

Well, of course I am. I am not a murderer. The only Ethically correct position to analyse this issues is from the outside.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Vernes]

So the contract always needs to be followed, even if you find out the company is breaking the law? You work for a cleaning company that appears to be training assassins? Yes, you can go to the police to try to get them arrested, but they still get to sue you for all your money? Is that how it works? And keep in mind, in this case the 'cleaning company's organisation borders seamlessly into the goverment. They CAN make you disappear if they really want to.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Khyber]

No, they're using the HEI.

HEDP makes FAR larger explosions than that. A single HEDP round will destroy most vehicles.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[nacturation]

I agree with you. The US should not be there, and a lot of lives would now be spared had they not. Let's not even discuss the faulty "intelligence" that led to this invasion, nor the fact that previous governments installed Saddam Hussein as the leader.

All that aside, you made two points that I disagreed with:

1. The group fired upon had "a pretty relaxed attitude". My response: who cares?
2. The Apache knowingly fired upon children. My response: at the time they fired, they didn't know there were children.

Make all the comments you like about how this conflict is unjust. Most will agree with you. But stick to the facts when you do so.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[keirre23hu]

This is absolutely not true. The correct answer is not to sneak in removeable media and copy classified then send it to whoever. Had he said he was feeling morally questionable about the war and he didnt feel as though he should have access to classified they would have pulled his clearances and he could have completed his discharge. He could have then written letters to his congresspeople about what he saw. After all, they are able to obtain clearance to hear about it. Then he would have done his part. This is not Soviet Russia, where are all of these "disappeared" soldiers who have had misgivings about the war? They would have families you know?

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

You are right, I made a few mistakes. I saw that video a while ago, when it came out, I didn't remember all the details. You are right about item #2. Regarding #1, I was replying to a comment that stated that the guys where all armed and threatening, but they weren't all armed, and they looked "relaxed" as in, they weren't pointing the few guns they had at anything, and they were civilians. AKA: It wasn't a confrontation, it was a slaughter.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[loshwomp]

First, you write:

Not all of them are filled with high explosive.

...and then a bit later:

No, they're using the [high explosive incendiary]

So which is it, Mr. Wikipedia research? Those don't look like incendiary rounds to me, but either way, they're explosive. In this video. Which is what we're talking about, here.

Even non-direct hits will cause almost massive trauma to human targets.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[GarryOwen]

Dave, watch the video again. One of the insurgents around the camera crew had an RPG. It is very clear that it is an RPG and not the cameraman. RPGs are not legitimate self defense weapons in Iraq. If you would like I can find you some still frames with the RPG highlighted to help you. Also, you can find the official report which has the developed last pictures from the cameraman, these pictures are of American troops, so I am guessing there were some nearby if he was able to photograph them.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[CharlesClarkson]

I think you have to ask, "What would Picard do?"

Data: Captain, I wish to submit myself for disciplinary action. I have disobeyed a direct order from a superior officer. Although the result of my actions proved positive, the ends cannot justify the means.

Captain Picard: No, they can't. However, the claim "I was only following orders" has been used to justify too many tragedies in our history. Starfleet doesn't want officers who will blindly follow orders without analyzing the situation. Your actions were appropriate for the circumstances.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[sycodon]

Truth Hurts eh mods?

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[dpastern]

I guarantee he'll end up missing, if he isn't already. The governments of today will NOT tolerate this. They will kill to keep their dirty secrets quiet.

Dave

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[JosKarith]

"This is not Soviet Russia"
True - in Soviet Russia they kept their interrogation camps on their own soil, rather than subcontract out to other countries for deniability.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[EllisDees]

>If you have never stood at the wrong end of a gun, it's near impossible to imagine being there for days, weeks, or even months.

Like, for instance, every single person in Iraq and Afghanistan? Hell yeah there are terrorists there, because we made them.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[EllisDees]

>WWII scenario:
>Private: "Sergeant, we've spotted some Nazi SS troops in the trenches. Shall we fire?"
>Sergeant: "What are they doing?"
>Private: "They're just relaxing and hanging out."
>Sergeant: "They have a relaxed attitude? Never mind then, let's just leave the enemy alone."

Sure, that a good analogy. Now let's replace 'Nazi SS troops' with 'civilians' and 'trenches' with 'city streets'.

Iraq scenario:
Private: "Sergeant, we've spotted some civilians in the city streets. Shall we fire?"
Sergeant: "What are they doing?"
Private: "They're just relaxing and hanging out."
Sergeant: "They have a relaxed attitude? Never mind then, let's just leave the enemy alone."

That sounds about right.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

So which is it

"Not all" here means "some are explosive, some are not".

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[StikyPad]

Push-button isn't really much of an insult; it's more of a spiteful term. The military (or the Navy at least) offers automatic advancement to people who show aptitude for, and successfully complete training in, a "technical" skill set. Most everyone else has an n-month waiting period at the very least, followed by competition for advancement based ostensibly on job performance and testing.

That said, the advancement doesn't do much in the way of responsibilities or respect -- an E5 in the Navy isn't nearly as big a deal as it is in the Army or AF -- rather it's mostly a way to pay people commensurate with their skills. Supply and demand. Pretty much anyone can push a broom or paint a bulkhead (and even most push-buttons will have to at some point), but repairing an engine or a radio requires a bit more knowledge and problem solving skills; hence higher rate (rank) and higher pay.

The other side of the coin is that competition for advancement in "push-button" ratings (jobs) can be much heavier than in other rates. It depends on the job* of course, but in many cases the non-technical ratings offer much faster advancement on the scale of an entire career, even with the slower start.

* Nuclear technicians and submariners face very little competition, let alone nuclear submariners. There are, however, few willing candidates in either area, let alone qualified candidates. Both require security clearances, which not every applicant can obtain. The course material (for nukes) is challenging to begin with, and it's easy to get kicked out of nuke and/or submariner school for non-academic reasons on top of that. Submarines tend to make more frequent deployments and rarely make port calls (never, for some subs), so the job sucks too. (I don't care how many years you lived in your mom's basement without seeing the sun. Unless you were sharing your bed, your toilet, and your desk with 80 other stinky bastards, taking turns staying awake, all while eating food from the local school cafeteria, forgoing internet access, and doing training and drills at both regular and random intervals, then you're ill prepared.)

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[dave420]

They consistently inflated the threat they were under to their commander. One guy on the street became three, a tripod became an RPG, and one or two AK-47s turned the guys into an armed platoon of evildoers. They lied about the situation to fit the ROE. Heck, they asked for clearance to attack before they even saw the "rpg". What they did was fucked up, and the fact you are defending them is even more fucked up.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[dave420]

Please show me the stills of the RPGs. Also show me how having photographs on a camera, allegedly the last taken, is a reason to kill someone? I don't get your 'logic'. Fuck the official report - it's not impartial in the slightest.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

You Sir, are a dumb fucking idiot. If you take your car and drive it around town killing Muslim terrorists, you will be hailed a hero, regardless of whether they are kids or adults.

Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

How would you know? You're a piece of shit coward who has never done anything for anyone else. Your ability to judge, talk shit, and do nothing for anyone else in the world is profound... But nobody is impressed outside of other little deusch /. nerds who grab onto anything they can to justify their jacked up sense of reality.

As they should be.

[daveschroeder]

Aside from the fact that the Army had no reason whatever to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed", and the fact that he skipped out on a planned appearance at a panel today in Las Vegas, NV...

In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. 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.

When an individual, on his or her own, decides that some secret information should be leaked -- no matter the reason -- they subvert that process. It is nowhere near akin to leaking sensitive information from totalitarian or repressive regimes, or even from corporate entities.

Some might assert that information is overclassified, or classified such as to hide wrongdoing or illegal or questionably behavior. Fine, but:

1. You don't get to make that determination yourself. However...

2. ...if you do, this kind of decision is a moral/ethical one which must necessarily be tempered with consequences. I.e., if, in a free and democratic society, you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, and you're going to unilaterally decide to do release it because of your own personal beliefs or convictions, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it.

People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences (unless they stupidly out themselves, as Manning did). This creates an unhealthy environment for any kind of legitimately protected or sensitive information -- indeed, the rule of law -- in a democratic society.

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.

Just about the only thing WikiLeaks believes should be protected from leaking is negative information about WikiLeaks itself.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I hope for intelligent responses to this post that actually acknowledge the need for some information to be protected, and for processes to protect that information, of which the government is the steward. Or, for any reasonable alternative other than any and all information should always be able to be indiscriminately leaked without fear of reprisal.

Re:As they should be.

[calmofthestorm]

Good thing he's not a United States citizen then, or else he might be violating his social contract.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

I might be defending the leaker, but in this case he leaked the videos under a false guise. The videos didn't show "murder". If they had, I would still be undecided. However, he found some videos which might prove his point, but in reality the guys they shot at had a rocket launcher. There will always be collateral damage in war, and that is all he showed us. He has indeed committed treason to the tenth degree.

Re:As they should be.

[Afforess]

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.

Re:As they should be.

[Majik Sheff]

Yup. Now he's an enemy combatant. Now about those GPS coordinates...

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really enjoy sucking the cock of the Almighty State that much ?

I knew there were obsequious worshipers of tyranny, but you, sir, take it to a whole new level.

Re:As they should be.

[davester666]

Yes, I believe they have the man responsible: Bradley Manning. I expect he is totally screwed for the rest of his life.

Are you trying to claim that the people he gave the information to, who NEVER ASKED HIM FOR IT, should also be screwed? If so, what if he happened to have emailed the info to you?

Re:As they should be.

[Microlith]

He has indeed committed treason to the tenth degree.

Leaking a video and foreign policy documents does not constitute "treason."

Re:As they should be.

[daveschroeder]

Are you trying to claim that the people he gave the information to, who NEVER ASKED HIM FOR IT, should also be screwed?

No, if you'll read my post, I didn't claim that, but...

If so, what if he happened to have emailed the info to you? ...

Oh, I don't knpw...let me think: I probably wouldn't post it to the internet and protect the identity of the person who emailed it to me at all costs.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe one day, you will catch a stray bullet in a war zone. Maybe, one you didn't deserve. Maybe you'll change your mind about all this crap you wrote up based on essentially theory and idealism with hints of fascism.

Until then, shut the fuck up.

Re:As they should be.

[Ethanol-fueled]

You, sir, are a troll. If you had a clearance you'd know that the info is either banal or humiliating to the U.S.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

in response to your sig: It's entirely possible that we live in a democracy. We just won't live in a republic. Democracies are a tyranny of the mob which is why the founders deliberately did not create one.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

sure, I'll agree to that as long as any government official who uses that excuse to hide their dirty laundry automatically loses his right to life should any citizen wish to take it from him. there's so much corrupt dirt in the system now that I have NO trust that they are stewards of anything but their own lust for power.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Government and military have shown repeatedly they cannot be trusted. This is after all about a war based on lies in which untold numbers of people have died and suffered greatly. So fuck you and your social contract.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

treason (plural treasons)
noun
Definition:
1. betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.
2. treachery: betrayal or disloyalty
3. act of betrayal: an act of betrayal or disloyalty

Re:As they should be.

[Jafafa Hots]

Ever hear of the Pentagon Papers?
Classification is supposed to be used to protect the American people, not protect criminals in office, or protect certain classes' privileges, or protect certain corporations' contracts, or to DECEIVE the American public.

If you are privy to misuse of the law in such a way or of such abuses, it's the patriotic and moral thing to do to expose them.

We don't know (yet) what this information is, but breaking the law is sometimes justified if the law is unjust or is being used to protect uinjust actions.

The person taking such action, choosing to break a law they see as wrong faces the consequences knowingly. History will judge whether they were right or wrong.

And in general we should be uncomfortable with the idea of our government deciding that we don;t have a right to know what its doing - pretty much goes against the ideas behind the founding of this country and is abhorrent to anyone not having an authoritarian mindset.

Somehow I'm sure our country and citizens will manage to survive the release of this information that the government feels it must protect us from.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya, definitely a troll. Who is mod'ing GP up ? Cheney, you there ? ;)

Re:As they should be.

[Vellmont]

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.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:As they should be.

[JWSmythe]

    Nope, that sounds more like the definition of spying. Giving the intelligence to the enemy, or to the general public doesn't matter. For all we know, he's been trading valuable information, and publishing embarrassing information. I don't honestly believe that, but I'm sure if he "cooperates", it will be used at his trial, assuming he gets one. Otherwise, we'll hear about a tragic boating accident in which he didn't make it. You have to watch the buildup of gas fumes in the engine compartment, a boat can just explode without any notice.

   

Re:As they should be.

[clarkkent09]

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?

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we the people delegated those decisions to the government "experts". Ain't that a bitch?

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you bother watching the video?! THe guy did NOT have a ROCKET LAUNCHER. It was a god damn camera with super long lens. (I am not trying to be funny, that's what really happened)

Re:As they should be.

[jdpars]

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. Constitution > Webster

Re:As they should be.

[bug1]

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.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

A free and democratic society does not keep secrets. You mean something less than free and something less than democratic.

Also, the website in question is not a party to the agreements that make information "classified". They are, of course, not obliged to respect those agreements.

If we have a free press, then the information about government wrongdoing can, of course, be published without fear of reprisal. Why would you suggest anything less?

Why do you always reveal a pro-business, information can be criminalized bias in all your postings? What government projects do you work on?

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

rule of law is only just when it actually reflects the will of the people. it doesn't. it reflects the will of those at the top of the pyramid. you conveniently switch contexts from paper to reality and back again to make your argument seem sound, but that's not how things happen. what's on paper is irrelevant. Corrupt people do not deserve respect of their 'rules of law.' That's why wikileaks exists.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

>In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. 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.

Your whole argument is stupid. You assume we live in some perfect democracy where the will of the citizens decide the fate of the country. Nevermind the misinformation, the propaganda, and the lies of the former administration that illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to the American population which has resulted in over 1 trillion dollars in tax payer money. How again does this government represent the will of the people? When was I asked to vote on which information was to be released to the public?

They should release everything they can. I don't understand how such a stupid argument could be modded +5. You must live in some sort of magic America where every person has equal political power to decide the fate of the country. This government does not serve the will of its citizens. It spews propaganda and misinformation to make people support actions which go against their real interests. The voting process is a joke to create the illusion of political power for retards like you.

Re:As they should be.

[kdemetter]

People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences (unless they stupidly out themselves, as Manning did). This creates an unhealthy environment for any kind of legitimately protected or sensitive information -- indeed, the rule of law -- in a democratic society.

Isn't that the exact point of wikileaks : to make it possible to leak information the world should be aware of , without risk for the whistleblowers.
You could say some information should be kept secret ( like military strategies , etc ... ) , but if they can be leaked , they will be leaked , and the chances are it's going to be leaked not to the general public , but to someone with less then good intentions.

At least , when it gets leaked to wikileaks , the whole world knows about it , and so the goverment has no choice but to change there plans , and making them more leak-proof , which means it also becomes more difficult for those with bad intentions to get the information.

Re:As they should be.

[jdpars]

This guy is more intelligent than most of the other replies have given him credit. If every ounce of military information were publicly available, we would not be able to have covert or clandestine military operations. Our enemies would know every move we make. Obviously, the "Collateral Murder" video wasn't some tactical plan, but my point is this: Someone, somewhere, has to make the decision about what should and should not be given out to the world. As the OP pointed out, anyone who decides to release that information must be prepared to suffer the consequences, good or bad. If Manning thought he could just get away with releasing the video and go on with his life, he was wrong.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

When an individual, on his or her own, decides that some secret information should be leaked -- no matter the reason --

...as is bound to happen eventually - then we will finally see that they are keeping secrets for the right reasons, no?

Re:As they should be.

[Derosian]

Aside from the fact that the Army had no reason whatever to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed", and the fact that he skipped out on a planned appearance at a panel today in Las Vegas, NV...

So you would have made the same call? You saw the video I assume otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it. You saw how casually they were walking about considering a helicopter was circling above... Way to make hollow excuses for a lack of insight on the part of one soldier.

Re:As they should be.

[Yaa 101]

That depends on the information, not on opinion, not even yours...

Re:As they should be.

[Miseph]

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.

Re:As they should be.

[BLKMGK]

Thank you, sincerely, for having linked to the site with additional scrutiny of that video. Having seen that video I too was pretty upset and I can imagine how this guy might have felt after viewing it if he hadn't had benefit of the additional scrutiny that was obviously done after the fact during the investigation. I think this is a pretty good example of why he shouldn't have been so quick to leak this material. He saw the video, he got angry, he leaked it, but the rest of the story was that it may very well have been a justified shooting. Without benefit of the additional scrutiny he thought he was justified perhaps. If indeed, as that page asserts, Wikileaks had information that proved the men were armed and failed to mention it then it casts a shadow over them as well!

I agree with much of what you say about folks leaking things deemed "secret". Some information truly should be closely held and embarrassing comments about other world leaders that were supposed to be kept in closed channels are probably a good example! Undermining the system as you assert is a bad thing. However people should question their Govt. and shouldn't be dissuaded from doing so. Certainly the camps in Germany gassing Jews were deemed "secret" so rigidly following along without pause isn't something I'd argue is a good thing. This guy however sounds like he didn't put quite as much thought into this as he should have and was perhaps personally motivated more than he was morally motivated despite his claims otherwise. He should indeed pay the consequences and he could perhaps have found a less biased outlet...

Re:As they should be.

[obarthelemy]

The main issue is, there is indeed SOME need for SOME info to be classified, mainly for national security reason. Once that need is established, people start stretching it. Care to explain to me why/how that specific video should be kept classified/secret ?

Second, I'm starting to have doubts about how free and democratic some societies are. What's the yardstick ?

Re:As they should be.

[number11]

treason (plural treasons)
noun
Definition:
1. betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.
2. treachery: betrayal or disloyalty
3. act of betrayal: an act of betrayal or disloyalty.

First, his country is not the US. Therefore:
Second, he isn't disloyal to it, because he owes it no loyalty; and
Third, doesn't apply either.

OTOH, those of us who are citizens of the US, we find his info very interesting and relevant to what politicians we might support in the future.

Re:As they should be.

[Urza9814]

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.

Re:As they should be.

[Etrias]

You've got that backwards. Who watches the watchmen? I see what you did there.

You've played this little switch to make it look like WikiLeaks is the custodian, the watchman...but your own logic proves otherwise. You even say that this is Pentagon information, that some secrets should be kept secret and that by just living in the US, we've agreed to that contract.

Wrong, sir. Simply wrong. I'm going to bypass most of what you said because it's simple double-speak. You frame this in a way that is cowardly. Unarmed civilians, collateral murder...both within quotes as if to say that killing unarmed people is okay, that it is a justification. I'm not going to wade into the situation of the battle, but I posit to you that we can and should do better.

The government makes mistakes and we have seen too many times that it tries to cover them up rather than owning up to them. As a country we should strive for that higher ideal. Then perhaps the need for secrets, especially of a botched military operation where civilians died, doesn't need to become a state secret.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

I fully support Julian.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I probably wouldn't post it to the internet and protect the identity of the person who emailed it to me at all costs."

Good thing you don't run Wikileaks then. Pandering to the agenda of authority would seem to be a little ad odds with it's goals.

Re:As they should be.

[clarkkent09]

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 ?

No, but it is self evident that this is so to any human being with a brain. Ok, what do you think? Would you vote to make the names and locations of our spies abroad public? How about nuclear weapon designs? Post them on the Internet? Military communication encryption codes, nuclear launch codes, military plans, diplomatic strategy etc etc. Of course the government's power to keep secrets from the people can be and has been abused but the idea that there should be no secrets at all is ridiculous.

Re:As they should be.

[Mitchell314]

Direct Democracy is rule of mob. Saying plain ol' Democracy is a rule of mob is like saying a Parallelogram is a four sided figure with all equal sides. We live in a Representational Democracy, roughly speaking a Republic and Democracy where representatives are determined by the people.

Re:As they should be.

[bersl2]

Why would that go over diplomatic channels, which are probably already tapped by several countries? Wouldn't that go over some separate line of communication, or at least with some other kind of encryption?

Maybe I'm thinking too much about the image of actual physical cables, but certainly espionage doesn't use the same communication channel as diplomacy. That's just asking for disaster.

Re:As they should be.

[Mitchell314]

There should always be the right to disent. Even the right to disent from the right to disent (so long as they stay a tiny minority).

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell dream world do you live in?

"the Army had no reason whatever [mypetjawa.mu.nu] to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed""
Common people carry guns in Iraq. Not just pistols either, but assault rifles. I've read in many places that AK-47s are common. Simply carrying one does not make one an "insurgent" http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/12/earlier-this-we/

"the fact that he skipped out on a planned appearance at a panel today in Las Vegas, NV"
WTF would that prove?

"In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. "
Where did you pull this line, Glenn Beck? The democratic process depends on an educated society and a free media so that citizens can make educated decisions. Despotic societies depend on secrets and uneducated citizens. Not to mention the people in charge of the video were not elected.

"if you do, this kind of decision is a moral/ethical one which must necessarily be tempered with consequences. I.e., if, in a free and democratic society, you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, and you're going to unilaterally decide to do release it because of your own personal beliefs or convictions, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it."
If everyone thought the way you do, we'd still have slavery, women wouldn't be able to vote, and any killer with connections would walk free.

Re:As they should be.

[ZipK]

First, his country is not the US.

Leaker: Bradley Manning
Occupation: U.S. soldier
Citizenship: U.S.

Re:As they should be.

[clarkkent09]

I saw the video and it is tragic and disturbing, but that is simply saying that war itself is tragic and disturbing, which is something people should realize without needing a video. Whether this particular soldier made the right call or not is meaningless because you cannot expect thousands of soldiers in thousands of situations like that to make the right call every time. Things like this are unavoidable, they have happened in every war so far and will continue to happen. Btw, if I was standing next to a guy with an RPG and US helicopters were circling above I wouldn't be casually walking about.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you would have made the same call? You saw the video I assume otherwise you wouldn't be talking about it. You saw how casually they were walking about considering a helicopter was circling above... Way to make hollow excuses for a lack of insight on the part of one soldier.

You have a funny definition of "above". Way to make hollow excuses for the lack of knowledge regarding the powerful and sophisticated optical targeting systems of a modern weapons platform on the part of a group of insurgents.

Maybe if they had been aware of how far away their opponents could see and could bring the pain from they would have been a little more cautious.

Re:As they should be.

[mikes.song]

Well, he's screwed, unless his info shows major corruption. If his info is solid, his captors may be screwed.

Re:As they should be.

[Omnifarious]

I hope for intelligent responses to this post that actually acknowledge the need for some information to be protected, and for processes to protect that information, of which the government is the steward. Or, for any reasonable alternative other than any and all information should always be able to be indiscriminately leaked without fear of reprisal.

Well, I agree that some information needs to be protected.

In my opinion, most of the governments in the world use their control over information to the great detriment of their citizenry. They do this on purpose, with malice and forethought. I presume that most people who are in charge of making this happen rationalize it with thinking that they're somehow serving the greater good. In point of fact, they aren't. I can't state that emphatically enough. They are not serving any greater good, no matter what kind of excuses they think they have.

Information about the activities of our government that should be secret should basically only be information that would pretty directly result in someone getting killed if it was public knowledge. Strategic plans, detailed specifications for key military equipment, identities of spies, that sort of thing. Also, in some cases, I would also accept that diplomatic negotiations should be kept secret for some relatively short period of time in order to avoid jeopardizing said negotiations.

Too often used is the excuse that information should be kept secret because it would give our enemies ammunition to discredit us. If that's the case, the information discredits us whether or not its secret. All you are doing by keeping it secret is fostering a false sense of self-righteousness in the populace, one that is ultimately incredibly dangerous and inimical to democracy.

So far Wikileaks discretion and judgement in these matters has been impeccable. Sure, you might think the video depicting the helicopter shooting up civilians is biased for any number of reasons. But those reasons should be up for public debate, not hidden behind a decision to make some piece of information secret. Nobody would be able to argue that the army couldn't have known the civilians were unarmed if the video weren't out there to argue about.

Re:As they should be.

[drsmithy]

Circling above ? The chopper was a couple of *kilometres* away. They could probably barely even *hear* it.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Constitution > Webster

Doubleplus modup!

Re:As they should be.

[Omnifarious]

You could say some information should be kept secret ( like military strategies , etc ... ) , but if they can be leaked , they will be leaked , and the chances are it's going to be leaked not to the general public , but to someone with less then good intentions.

That is also an interesting point. If it's on wikileaks, everybody knows its public knowledge and plans can be changed accordingly.

I still think that wikileaks has a bit of a duty to try to filter out stuff that's obviously going to get someone killed if it's publicly known.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

"If, in a free and democratic society, you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, and you're going to unilaterally decide to do release it because of your own personal beliefs or convictions, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it"

Regarding the 'consequences', per Daniel Ellsberg, leaker of the Pentagon Papers, in an MSNBC interview earlier today:

  "We don’t have an official secrets act in [the United States], criminalizing the disclosure of certain information. Except with certain narrow forms of information [such as] nuclear weapons data. The identities of covert agents, those things are subject to law. The classification system as a whole is an administrative system that doesn’t have legal force in this country."

Re:As they should be.

[gmthor]

You do realize that confidential has no meaning for the regular civilian? It has nothing to du with democracy whatsoever. Yes the leaker did something illegal, but only because he is a soldier, for you and me, this is only some printed paper.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Part of the people's rights in a free and democratic society is the ability to actually leak sensitive or classified documents if they believe it is for the best of society, themselves or whatever. There is a reason why people are required to sign NDA's and the likes when viewing certain information. Probably the only information that you shouldn't release is stuff that will get innocent people (even soldiers) killed unless you have a very good reason for doing so. Granted, you will face consequences depending on the information released.

You make the distinction between information from a totalitarian or repressive regime and from a free and democratic one, I believe there is no distinction. Why is information from one more "classified" then the other?

Personally, I believe that if you have information that blows open a cover up, wrongdoing or whatever then you should leak it. Make sure you leak it anonymously because there are some pretty powerful people out there with influence which could lead to you being jailed, dead or worse.

Secondly, Manning was a arse. What was the point of leaking thousands of classified documents which are probably just boring old government shit? The only good thing which he leaked was the Collateral Murder video which the army should have released themselves (even if just only to reuters to view and report on) especially if there was no wrong doing involved.

Lastly, leaking information is not subversive, in a free and democratic society very little should be classified by the government (note the release of classified information recently posted on slashdot). Over-classification leads to corruption and power grabbing.

Re:As they should be.

[cirby]

Handing over a huge pile of classified information counts as "Aid and Comfort." Oops.

Re:As they should be.

[Required Snark]

Yes,the Valery Plame investigation should be reopened immediately with a new independent counsel. Not only should the office of the president and vice president during the Bush administration be examined, but the the DOJ and various intelligence organizations should be examined to see if they were involved in the leak or the following cover up.

Specifically, the new intelligence groups created by Bush/Chaney that were outside the regular chain of command should be investigated. If I remember correctly, these were in the Pentagon, and were staffed by neo-cons, and they reported primarily to Chaney.

All we know right now is that the name of an active serving CIA asset was revealed to the public, with the result of "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Clearly treason. We also know that Scooter Libby was convicted of obstructing the investigation. So a crime was committed and a successful cover-up occurred. We cannot let this treasonous act go unpunished.

Well, my right wing Slashdot readers, how does it feel when the shoe is on the other foot? Ready to see high ranking members of the Bush team spend the rest of their lives in jail, or be lined up against a wall and shot? Personally, I would volunteer to fire one of the guns, but I guess I just am the kind of person who holds a grudge.

Re:As they should be.

[AgentMagneta]

I am not a U.S citizen and have had problems with U.S foreign policy. For once I understand the U.S government to some degree.

In greater scheme of things sometimes even more sensitive information moves over diplomatic channels than over the spy network. One of the first things that spring to mind is diplomatic cables from Saudi Arabia. As a close U.S ally but with a government that the U.S can't really condone I guess some of those cables can be too candid for public consumption. Also many governments in the area can't work with the U.S if the U.S goverment is disclosing secrets as it would lead to embarrasment at home or worse. Compromised diplomatic cables would be an embarrasment to any country.

I like Wikileaks and it fills an important role in exposing the will of politicians to shroud the transparency of government. But to say that in a free and democratic society that secrets shouldn't exist... Is childishly naive.

Re:As they should be.

[linzeal]

This has nothing to do about any of those things. This has to do with Foreign Policy documents from the US State Department. If the US is engaging in illegal acts to further its FP missions than they should be immediately stopped. The military is a blunt instrument and the CIA death squads are not surgeons as evident by the 1000 or so dead civilians so far from US CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen and should never be relied upon to bring forth results in FP. The vast majority of our attempts to shape policy in countries by use of lethal force, no matter how targeted have failed. One could note the vast amount of war crimes perpetuated by US backed insurgent groups in South America, Middle East and Southeast Asia for examples.

Re:As they should be.

[linzeal]

Daniel Ellsburg, who released the Pentagon Papers while working for the Rand Corporation during the 1960's and 70's was on MSNBC today and implied that they may attempt to assassinate him with the same sort of shadowy CIA manhunting squad used against him by Nixon. In his words they were sent by Nixon to " permanently incapacitate him" in Washington DC during some political rally.

Re:As they should be.

[zmollusc]

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

When did 'we' decide this? I don't remember 'us' being asked. Was this decision made in perpetuity or are 'we' agreeing to an extension of it every time a president is elected even if it is with less than 50% of the vote? Maybe soon 'we' will decide to ban private firearm ownership, get tattoos and implants and right-size our dissidents?

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha, and you believe on that? You don't live in the United States, don't you? WE ARE ALREADY LIVING on a police state. A friend of mine got pulled over yesterday and spanked by two state troopers just because he is black. He tried to find help at a public attorney, the attorney said won't take his case because he stand no chance as the local press will wave a campaign against him and destroy his life, as he cannot stand against white cops with clear files.
That is the pathetic dictatorship we living in: the press, the police and the government all together to hunt you if you are hispanic or black.
And, meanwhile, the colored boy they made us vote in the White House is just doing what colored people do: licking white bitch Hillary balls! And letting her find another pathetic excuse to attack Iran and give Iran oil fields to the big American oil corporations, as they did with Iraq and its "WMDs"...
OUR COUNTRY IS A PATHETIC DICTATORSHIP and a JOKE! OUR "DEMONCRACY" is a JOKE! Our constitution is just a pathetic joke and our country is the worse tyranny in Earth!
And that is why people laugh at us when we show our US passports at international airports: because they know we are a bankrupt country: economically as the Chinese own our international debt and determine our FED prime rate, for example; politically, as DC is a circus, as we are governed by a clown, a bearded woman and a bunch of animals; and morally, as no one in the damn world can stand us trying to find excuses to bomb Iran, N. Korea, Brazil, Turkey, Venezuela, and all the other countries that got some mineral riches our corporations might want.
I am ashamed of being American, and that is the reason I applied for European passports to my kids so they can live this pathetic place forever.

Re:As they should be.

[codepunk]

Exactly and I do not think that most people here quite understand how much trouble this soldier is in. In reality this soldier may be facing a firing squad for releasing that video.

Re:As they should be.

[CodeNameSly]

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.

This argument doesn't hold much water. Should every law in a democratic society be renewed every few years? I agree there may be an argument for more openness, but secrecy in some areas is and will always be important. Furthermore, as the first post in the thread stated, this leak is not being chosen democratically, either. Unilateral action by an individual or small group of individuals is not necessarily in there interest of the people. Also you claim "we cant get them to give up their power." Have you tried? When was the last time you wrote to your representatives urging them to press for legislation declassifying reams of diplomatic documents?

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, wasn't it Richard Armitage who "leaked" the name, of the Desk Agent Plame?

And didn't he do it, accidentally (or at least incidentally) in an off the cuff remark while doing an interview about Plame's husband?

Yeah, that's exactly the same as intentionally leaking classified documents.

Re:As they should be.

[tsm_sf]

we have collectively decided, as a society

We decided? My best interests? How do you know what my best interest is? How can you say what my best interest is?

Re:As they should be.

[Redfearn]

"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.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Dave,

Everything you mention is very true, but shouldn't we citizens be allowed to witness the mowing down of ruthless, despicable, armed terrorists with our tax dollars? I mean, come on, it's not fair that only a select handful get to bask in the glory that these bastards got what was coming to them. Why WOULDN'T we want to make this public? This is good stuff. Shouldn't we all be able to enjoy the show?

What is that...they weren't armed? Sucks being them.

Re:As they should be.

[sirsnork]

Actually that would be an interesting experiment. Every law reviewed by the population every few years. This would give the population control, it would also limit the amount of laws that could be feasibly enacted ehich is something everyone should agree is a good thing. Every first world country is burying itself under the new laws it creates every year when we all have perfectly good laws already on the books to punish those same crimes.

Re:As they should be.

[Mr. Freeman]

"In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. 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."

Nonsense. It is based on the circumstances at hand. It is not "always OK" or "never ok" to leak classified information.

Example: Nuclear weapon blueprints. Probably not a good idea to leak those. Probably also not good to leak troop movements or things like access codes to restricted areas.
However, illegal wiretapping, murder covered up by the army, Abu Ghraib abuse problems, etc. are all things that NEED to be leaked in order to ensure the democratic process continues to work. The people have decided that some information needs to be secret. The people need to make sure this power isn't abused... by any means necessary. Once we allow the government to subvert our freedom the entire point of this country is gone. If you don't want freedom then there's plenty of other places to go that don't have it. Feel free to move there any time. The USA was founded on the principle that freedom was more important than anything, even security.

Re:As they should be.

[hawkingradiation]

It is difficult to take a stand on a morally divisive issue. The more people stand up the better. We would all be better off for it. In this case, it is hard to judge when you don't even have the information to make a stand; like when we don't have the documents to show what the government is doing. I sure hope the government doesn't use that "state secrets" excuse, like they did for Area 51 and other cases which seems to be a precedent. Part of me hope Julian will release the information, the other part of me feels that if I were in the same situation: what would I do. Would I want to risk the wrath of the world's most powerful nation militarily to help others to avoid the same fate, or would I release the document in the hopes that enough of us will take a stand before we all get blasted up by some sort of microwave weapon in a protest for free speech. Yeah, I know it sounds grim, but the tools are all there for the people in office, certain classes and corporations interests...

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a left-winger, shouldn't you be supporting gun control or something?

Re:As they should be.

[DarkKnightRadick]

I don't remember agreeing to no such social contract, nor that I have ever agreed to such. A free and democratic society wouldn't have need of secret documents.

Re:As they should be.

[DarkKnightRadick]

From the Wikipedia entry on the USA:

The United States of America (also referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America /mrk/) is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that the exact point of wikileaks : to make it possible to leak information the world should be aware of , without risk for the whistleblowers.

As long as they don't overdo it and become fearmongers for their own objectives.

You could say some information should be kept secret ( like military strategies , etc ... ) , but if they can be leaked , they will be leaked , and the chances are it's going to be leaked not to the general public , but to someone with less then good intentions.

Quite possibly, but let me throw in your other quote here too before I respond.

At least , when it gets leaked to wikileaks , the whole world knows about it , and so the goverment has no choice but to change there plans , and making them more leak-proof , which means it also becomes more difficult for those with bad intentions to get the information.

The question is, can they make it more leak proof? Does wikileaks, upon finding the information, release how they got the information allowing the government to plug the leak? Or do they continue to abuse the leak in order to get as much information as they can until the government comes across the leak?

You can argue that they're doing white hat type work here to help plug the leaks, but if they're not giving the information on how they found it out, it turns into a black hat operation.

Further, what happens if they leak details of an operation in progress? Spies, clandestine operations, sleeper agents, and so on? If an operation has enough momentum, there's no way in hell we can stop it fast enough to stop the negative results.

All I can say is, as is Wikileaks has been doing not too bad in terms of releasing data. However, the moment they become so cocksure of their power that they release information that harms good, honest people in secret operations will be the moment nearly everyone, including most of the public, will turn on them.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

A friend of mine got pulled over yesterday and spanked by two state troopers just because he is black.

Does that mean if I'm not black I can't get spanked by two state troopers? DAMN!

Re:As they should be.

[Eternal Vigilance]

When did 'we' decide this?

You don't have clearance to know that.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't commit treason against a country you are not a citizen of.

Re:As they should be.

[NeutronCowboy]

Oh hey, look, I was wondering when you're going to show up again. I'm not surprised it's on a topic that's dear to your heart. And you've even managed to not completely and cravenly defend an undefensible government action.

As for your question as to what is supposed to be classified: that's ultimately up to the will of the people, through the method of election of representatives who enact the will of the people. Or so it goes in theory. In practice, rules have to be bent, and will be bent - in both directions. The court of law is exactly the place where this is supposed to be, and will be, hashed out.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

What if leaking could save lives? Would you be just as guilty if you don't release and people die as a result of your decision?

Re:As they should be.

[Protoslo]

First of all, I think that people do need a video to realize that war, and in particular the Iraq war, is tragic and disturbing. It's one thing to hear that lots of civilians are mistakenly killed in the course of our military occupations, it's another thing altogether to see some of the exact circumstances in which that occurs.

Do you recall the story that broke soon after the video, regarding a house that special forces stormed on bad intel, in which various people were killed, including two women that the soldiers apparently arranged deceptively so that they could claim in their report that they were previously killed in an "honor killing?" The incident that the commanding general of SOCOM had to fork over a wad of cash and apologize for? If there had been a video of that, with black-clad soldiers going "Oh shit! I think these people were just civilians!" and then digging out their rounds from the bodies, tying them up, artfully arranging them, and discussing their cover story, how do you think that would have gone over? Instead of everyone forgetting in a few weeks, we'd still be watching the congressional hearings on CSPAN.

Regarding the guncam video, do you find the destruction of the van, and the attack on the building with missiles while apparent bystanders walk by to be equally unavoidable as the deaths of the journalists? I am a little surprised that the video didn't at least make you wonder at all about the wisdom of the RoE they were operating under. You don't have to demonize the pilots and gunners personally to find fault in the incident. The military's reports found that the crewmen did make the right call in every case, and summarily declared all 20+ men killed in the various attacks "AIF" (Anti-Iraq Forces), so you can't write everything off as a tragic mistake; it was tragic official policy.

Even if all of these things are rendered "unavoidable" by our political need for near-airtight force protection (like the dozens of unarmed civilians killed at Afghan road checkpoints), many people are not aware that they occur. If everyone knew exactly what went on in Iraq and Afghanistan, they might not support the military missions there (or future hypothetical invasions) so much; war reporting certainly had that effect during Vietnam. If no one ever gets outraged, what motivation is there to avoid these entanglements, or even to try harder to avoid civilian casualties in the conflicts we are already fighting?

I can only imagine that all the random milita members on the streets with rifles and RPGs that day didn't realize that the helicopters ~1km away were or could be targeting them. I agree that the Reuters stringers took a foolish risk, and that the initial incident is not indefensible. Maybe "AIF" ambushes are always that ridiculously nonchalant. Everything that happens afterward, though...

Also keep in mind that the only reason anyone (any American) ever cared about this incident was that it was subsequently discovered that two of the "AIF" were Reuters stringers. Imagine how many incidents there must have been where people who didn't work for a major Western news organization were creatively classified as insurgents. I'm sure that some of them weren't pointing giant telephoto lenses at the Bradley convoy down the block, and would be harder to blame for their own demises.

Re:As they should be.

[RocketRabbit]

That's the point. He is a soldier, one who you are supposed to be able to trust with this information.

His decision, right or wrong, to release this information will provoke a survival impulse from Uncle Sam.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we spend our time, money and energy on identifying our "enemies" that you speak of, and see how we can avoid having these "enemies" in the first place rather than having an elaborate system of creating "enemies" which has this nasty side effect of our government doing things behind our back? Please really, does this ever occur to anyone one here who says "our enemies"?
I am sincerely disgusted by the use of construct "our enemies" that doesn't address the root cause of why do we have these, or other "enemies" in the first place.

I know I am not going to make many "friends" with such blunt questions but that is me.

Re:As they should be.

[Gaygirlie]

"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.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

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? When was the vote on that?

The people didn't elect to form the NSA. The people didn't vote to establish the Pentagon, the CIA, Homeland Security, or FBI. Those were all the result of administrative efforts without any input whatsoever from "The People." They were not the product of a democratic process but rather of semi-autonomous, *appointed* military government departments. You seem to have forgotten that we the people have not voted for *any* of our military staff save the commander in chief.

So frankly, your rhetoric about "subverting" the democratic process is complete misdirection and disingenuous. If the military, given their ability to force someone willingly or unwillingly to do something, decides that they want to collect information, act upon it, or excise penalties for leaking it - that is *their* decision, and has nothing to do with a democratic process. If the people don't like that establishment, they've no other choice than that of force - there's no "voting out" our generals or directors of intelligence. Let's call white elephants, white elephants, and stop wasting time with double-speak about "democracy."

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Inexxorably the people who die when hideous truth surfaces are those who fought hardest to hide it. As light to a vampire: let there be light.

If someone dies from discovering America supports the mass murder of civilians, or destabilizes regions and impoverishes countries just to target a small minority who sometimes act in their midst - you can bet it will be some psychopath responsible for it all, any other death is either collateral, unintended, or unrelated.

Is it any wonder the psychopaths in control would consider it a threat, if not to the nation, to themselves?

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. 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.

Well, sure and back when there were laws against freeing slaves, freeing slaves was a subversion of the democratic process. After all, society had decided that some people should be slaves - and had empowered and entrusted the government to prevent them from being freed.

To some extent, by definition, people who "subvert the democratic process" (break the law) are punished - but whether they always should be punished in some absolute sense is less clear.

Re:As they should be.

[fotoguzzi]

Chaney played Dracula. I think you want Cheney, who has been accused of sucking blood.

Plame drove every morning to CIA headquarters at 1 I'm a Spook Drive. I'm sure it never crossed anyone's mind that she might once have been an agent.

We tried everything we could think of to protect you, babe, but your cover has been blown.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like the slashdot editor that refused to post this story until most of America is asleep also messed with the listing. Despite your post being at a "2" moderation, it is acting as if you have a negative mod, and can't even get it listed. Not to mention other 3+ mod replies not even showing up except some post written in horrible english hating Americans. Just wow.

Re:As they should be.

[OrangeTide]

Every 4 and 6 years I elect representatives that ideally can adjust policy to suit the desires of current generations.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't recall ever being asked if I wanted the government to keep secrets from me. In fact, I don't know a single person who has ever been presented with that choice.

So who the fuck is this "we" you keep talking about? Oh right, you mean the people in power who wish to remain in power.

Re:As they should be.

[ultranova]

Some might assert that information is overclassified, or classified such as to hide wrongdoing or illegal or questionably behavior. Fine, but:

1. You don't get to make that determination yourself. However...

Yes, you do. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Ultimately, it is you who determines your actions.

2. ...if you do, this kind of decision is a moral/ethical one which must necessarily be tempered with consequences. I.e., if, in a free and democratic society, you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, and you're going to unilaterally decide to do release it because of your own personal beliefs or convictions, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it.

Either releasing a document is right or it isn't. If it's right, why suffer for doing the right thing if you can avoid it? And if it's not right, suffering a punishment for it doesn't make it any more right.

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.

Oh, sure. But if I get my hands on classified material, and have the opportunity to publish it without getting found out, it's my personal view on whether that material should or shouldn't be classified that determines whether I will.

Re:As they should be.

[DrugCheese]

More people die each year from car accidents in the US then every terrorist act combined yet were not spending hundreds of billions of dollars coming up with scientific ways to prevent that, and it could be done easily. Instead we spend hundreds of billions of dollars coming up with scientific ways to better kill. People are already dying - release the documents.

Re:As they should be.

[KarlIsNotMyName]

With the last decade of torture and other war crimes, I wouldn't trust the Pentagon further than I could throw it.

Re:As they should be.

[KarlIsNotMyName]

Parent isn't a troll. You disagreeing with someone doesn't make them a troll.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

>In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information [about what state employees do] should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.

I hope you are kidding. Certainly our employees are accountable to us and they are to tell us the actions they do which affect us.

-- Danny

Re:As they should be.

[daveime]

Many, many people *have* died due to our offensive military operations in that part of the world.

Yes, well that's what happens in wars ... people fucking die.

Not always the right people, but hell, when the guys with the AK47s are hiding in convoys of old women on donkeys, what exactly should they do ? Line them up and segregate the old women and terrorists into two orderly lines ?

Collateral damage is always unfortunate, but somehow implying that the US does it "deliberately" is nonsense. But, it's a part of war, always has been, get over yourself. I'm pretty sure a couple of residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were injured while you were dropping your A-bombs, but that never bothered you.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every 4 and 6 years I elect representatives that ideally can adjust policy to suit the desires of current generations.

... who then fail to do jack and just sit on their asses. Or even better, they do something which always makes bad situations worse.

Re:As they should be.

[Ashriel]

The only way releasing classified information on foreign policy gives aid and comfort to a nation's enemies is if it exposes some egregious wrongdoing on the part of the nation having its information leaked, in which case moral obligation to expose unlawful practices comes into play

I don't think that this is the case (not that I'm implying the U.S. military isn't innocent or anything). I think this is a case of some pissed-off loser wanting to exact some sort of revenge against his superiors for the slights he feels he's been given.

In either case, treason, as defined by the U.S. Constitution, does not apply here.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

my kingdom for a mod point

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Subject of the article: Julian Assange
Citizenship: Not the USA
Loyalties: The World

Re:As they should be.

[Rogerborg]

When your choice of government is between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, in what way are you "deciding" to sanction their common policies, i.e. that "nobody watches the watchman"? You're only voting on the very few superficial differences between them.

Re:As they should be.

[bug1]

The need for secrecy is usually a reaction to a security failure, not a preventative measure.

The best way to be secure is to have lots of friends and few enemies, trust is the most valuable weapon to achieve that, secrets detract from trust.

Re your secret nuke launch codes, there is a saying (from the *BSD folk), without physical security there is no security, if all that is needed to launch nukes is some secret sequence of numbers then thats a design failure right there.

Lock the fckn door to the room with the button in it maybe ???

Re:As they should be.

[Xenophon Fenderson,]

That's an awfully cavalier attitude to have when your own life isn't on the line.

Re:As they should be.

[Bazer]

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?

He will be eligible to work there?

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not the majority in this democracy.

Re:As they should be.

[LordVader717]

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.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is nowhere near akin to leaking sensitive information from totalitarian or repressive regimes

Why not?

I mean, sure, the USA, despite all their faults, are not a totalitarian or repressive state yet. But on the other hand, when you say "we the people decided that certain things should be kept secret from us", what does that actually mean?

What it means is that the government, rightly or wrongly, has the ability to declare that certain things are not supposed to be made public. You can argue that this is OK in a democratic society, but the very idea of democracy is that there'll be checks and balances, as it were, and that the government is controlled (watched, scrutinized) by the people.

The government's ability to declare things to be secret cannot be reconciled with this: the process of declaring things secret is fundamentally incompatible with this, and therefore open to abuse, even if it was only created with the best intentions in mind.

This doesn't mean that it's worthless, or that it should be abolished. But it does mean that when somebody "subverts" the process, as you put it, it's not automatically a bad thing. Quite the opposite, it may well be necessary to ensure that society will stay free and democratic and that it will NOT turn into the aforementioned totalitarian or repressive state.

I hope for intelligent responses to this post that actually acknowledge the need for some information to be protected, and for processes to protect that information, of which the government is the steward.

OK, I can't let this pass. So what you're saying is that you basically hope that people will agree with you, and that doing so is indeed a sign that a response is "intelligent"?

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

*Alleged* Leaker

Re:As they should be.

[maxume]

Lock the door to avoid using a secret?

With what sort of lock?

Re:As they should be.

[BoberFett]

Wrong. The people haven't delegated anything for a long time. The state of "democracy" in the US is a joke. We're given a choice between sock puppet A and sock puppet B, and the same person has their hands in both of them. Then once we have chosen which sock puppet is more entertaining, the actual business of governing is then further removed from actual choice because laws are written not by our "representatives" but by special interest groups and unelected bureaucrats. When was the last time congress declared war? Yet somehow we've been in a perpetual state of war for many decades now. Apparently those "experts" that we delegated authority too have further delegated their responsibilities to god knows who.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

When the government lies to the people in order to suit the purposes of a tiny number of
citizens and in so doing injures the great majority of citizens, THEN the truth needs to be exposed.

Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, Mr. Schroeder.

Re:As they should be.

[BoberFett]

I think they should be. Perhaps if every law had a sunset clause, we'd have one concise set of laws that people could live with rather than a maze of laws so complex that it takes an expert to understand the rules he is bound to live by.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right from the start, I'd like to state that I must, by the nature of my occupation, respect the law.

This is different from a normal citizen who can do whatever the law does not forbid: I must not do what the law does not say I can do. In a sense, therefore, I have less freedom than a normal citizen.
I have to follow laws about secrecy (albeit regarding economic activities) and am impeded of disclosing or even accessing someone's information outside a due process.

That said, please don't state things as if the US government works. It does not. I'm a foreigner (in a somewhat friendly country) and (like many) I have access to information from various sources, friendly and unfriendly to the US. I don't particularly follow Wikleaks nor am specially interested in international Politics. But, despite a long democratic US tradition, it's clear that China is on a slow ascent to democracy while the US are on a slow descent -- which unfortunately started decades ago (probably around WW II). It's noteworthy that recent presidents have been far away from a democratic reality. All of them (specially Bush, but Obama is no exception) have walked a pragmatic path -- meaning democracy is applied whenever it doesn't conflict with US interests (which not always coincide with the US public interest).

Of course, I'm not comparing the US to North Korea or China, but if I had to think about democracy these days, nordic countries (like Iceland) would be the way to go.

All your points would be valid in the latter countries -- but not in one which uses local attacks as an excuse to invade countries and torture the enemy, like the US does. This is even wrong on a moral basis; considering the religious foundations of the US, it's certainly not needed that I discuss torture at length. We all know it's wrong.

People are not stupid. If Wikileaks brings news that are inappropriated and should be kept secret, of course even official retaliation is to be expected. This is not the same as information about killing civils or authorization for torture. In fact, I'm deeply worried that someone could even propose to keep that a secret, for such acts are like diseases in a democratic country and must be eradicated as soon as possible (because in fact such people betray the values of democracy... thus betraying the US itself). In fact, men like Assange not only are bringing truth to public knowledge -- how better than this can one act? -- but he's actually helping good Americans to go after corruption in their own country. If I were an American, I'd protect this guy.

Heck, even if I were an evil American, I'd understand it's very bad if something happens to him. This is a golden chance for enemies to act and sink the US name deeper in the mud.

Although things are pretty scary, I thank Mr. Assange and hope for his safety... I see the world becoming a better place, compared to e.g. 20 years ago. People like Assange are sorely needed if we want such improvements to continue.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

people die as a result of your decision?

Considering the business the pentagon is in, it'd be rather ironic for them to use that argument...

But of course, as we all know, what signify a few lives lost? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

And who gets to make that decision, the bureaucratic hires of our "elected" representatives, who work for Wall Street now anyway? Tell me again what makes them all knowing, wise and special?

Feh, "Overclassified" is a nice word for "Don't upset whoever is currently in power."

Re:As they should be.

[BoberFett]

Not sure which asshole mod modded this redundant. This is an excellent post. Particularly "the information discredits us whether or not its secret."

If the information is embarrassing to the US, then perhaps we should stop doing things that embarrass us.

Re:As they should be.

[BoberFett]

I used to be soldier in the US army as well. And frankly, I say fuck the US government. Somebody needs to take those assholes in DC down a peg.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I disagree with the government then I should bend over and take whatever punishment I receive for doing something that I don't think is wrong? What?

Re:As they should be.

[DrugCheese]

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'.

Re:As they should be.

[KDR_11k]

With some creative interpretation it could be considered mutiny.

(a) Any person subject to this code (chapter) who--
(1) with intent to usurp or override lawful military authority, refuses, in concert with any other person, to obey orders or otherwise do his duty or creates any violence or disturbance is guilty of mutiny;

If you interpret general security rules like keeping confidential information secret as an order and overriding military authority (over the data) while the Wikileaks people count as "any other person" that could work. I don't know how strict courts martial are with wording like that but if they succeed capital punishment is possible.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is nowhere near akin to leaking sensitive information from totalitarian or repressive regimes, or even from corporate entities."

Thanks goodness. What happens when the information that is chosen to remain secret is the fact that the system has evolved into a totalitarian or repressive regime. The necessary skills and motivations have already been demonstrated abroad.

Relax citizen your looking down the barrel of your own gun.

Re:As they should be.

[KDR_11k]

As long as the gunner can reasonably misidentify that he's in the clear.

Re:As they should be.

[KDR_11k]

Republic and democracy are independent of each other, a republic can be a democracy as well (and so can a monarchy, the opposite of a republic).

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

treason (plural treasons)
noun
Definition:
1. betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.
2. treachery: betrayal or disloyalty
3. act of betrayal: an act of betrayal or disloyalty

repeat after me:

He's not a United States citizen!

Calling him a treater can only be done using North Korean Logic (all none-North Korean people are treaters).

North Korean Logic: The act of twisting bad/good sounding word to ones favor.

Re:As they should be.

[Josh04]

Many, many people *have* died due to our offensive military operations in that part of the world.

Yes, well that's what happens in wars ... people fucking die.

Not always the right people, but hell, when the guys with the AK47s are hiding in convoys of old women on donkeys, what exactly should they do ? Line them up and segregate the old women and terrorists into two orderly lines ?

I think he'd rather you GTFO of the war, actually.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

*Cheney ... stupid.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your "argument" reminds me of the man behind the curtain saying, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the fact that the Army had no reason whatever to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed"

How about we just correct this outright. The Iraqis were armed and they were not civilians.
 

"When I did come up on the scene, there was an RPG as well as AK-47s there," he said. "You just don't walk around with an RPG in Iraq, especially three blocks away from a firefight."

Source

Re:As they should be.

[garaged]

it's so sad and frustrating that people can't see that simple fact, here in Mexico money was wasted to register every cell phone in order to combat "the mobs" less than a month after the registering was complete, the database is being sold on internet.

I certainly know that is way too easy to locate a cell phone having its number, it was easier to register everybody's data than actually look for the reported numbers, and of course thet didnt made illegal to hide the calling number, just as does nextel, the company that gives (unvoluntary?) service to most of the kidnappers

Re:As they should be.

[yyxx]

In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. 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.

In a free and democratic society, citizens have responsibilities. Those responsibilities include refusing unlawful orders when they are in the military. If you obey an unlawful order, you may actually be committing a crime.

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.

Your personal view is very much relevant, because that's the ultimate arbiter for determining whether you should obey an order or not. That doesn't mean that merely believing that an order is unlawful necessarily gets you off the hook, but following orders (including classification) is not automatically legal or safe (let alone moral).

If you read Manning's side of the story, he believed he had been ordered to manipulate documents in a way that resulted in innocent people being thrown in prison. He also believed that the US was trying to conceal crimes. He may or may not have been right in his assessments, and that may or may not be sufficient as a defense, but it is certainly not as clearcut as you seem to think it is--in particular because we live in a "free and democratic society".

Or, for any reasonable alternative other than any and all information should always be able to be indiscriminately leaked without fear of reprisal.

Who, other than you, has said that "all information should always be able to be indiscriminately leaked without fear of reprisal"? How does what Manning did or what Wikileaks is doing possibly fall under such a heading? Manning and Wikileaks may or may not be right in what they are doing, but they are doing it out of conviction, they are not doing it "indiscriminately", and they are certainly not doing it "without fear of reprisals".

I hope for intelligent responses to this post that actually acknowledge the need for some information to be protected

Of course, some information needs to be protected. Your problem is that you argue as if (1) you can trust the government completely, and (2) being in the military absolves people from personal, moral, and legal responsibility. Both are clearly wrong. I mean, have you slept through the last decade of politics? Have you not read your history about war crimes trials?

It's people like you who are a threat to our free and democratic society. And your glib, straw-man dismissal of the risks and motivations of the people who leak documents makes you a rotten human being in my opinion.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

I should be able to issue my own driver's licenses. Why the hell not? What, can only "experts" do that? Funny how the experts are always government paid.

Re:As they should be.

[gslj]

After reading your post, I refreshed my memory by looking up an earlier leak, the Pentagon Papers. I believe that particular leak was completely justified because it proved that a succession of presidents had lied to the American people. The reason that the Pentagon and the diplomatic corps are worried about this current leak may just be that they have similar wrongdoing in them...because they acted improperly and illegally and do not want this known. Personally, if there's anything in them about "extraordinary rendition" or torture, I want that known, and it will NOT come out through proper channels. For such things, the system does not and cannot work.

So what should a moral citizen do? The answer is that he DOES make the determination himself that certain things are immoral to keep hidden. No man should ever place his conscience in another's keeping. The Nuremberg trials were all about that principle.

So, break the law if you feel it necessary. This is called "Civil Disobedience." And yes, sooner or later pay the price for it. My impression is that the founder of Wikileaks knows that he will pay the price eventually, but wants to have an effect on the world first. My feeling is that the price he will pay with is his life. Our governments are not above assassination, any more than they are above kidnapping or torture.

-Gareth

Re:As they should be.

[KDR_11k]

I think the issue is WTF the US Army is doing down there. Not how they fight the war but that there is a war in first place considering it's one that has been started on lies and done nothing but waste money and further destabilize the region.

Re:As they should be.

[bryanp]

How about the opposite: what if people die UNLESS you publish these documents and publishing them would save lives?

That's the point at which an individual has to decide if leaking the information is worth the price he will have to pay. Doing the right thing doesn't mean that bad things can't result for you personally.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

We also know that Scooter Libby was convicted of obstructing the investigation. So a crime was committed and a successful cover-up occurred.

Really? Because Martha Stewart was convicted of obstructing an investigation into insider trading, yet no one was ever convicted of insider trading. Sounds like you can be convicted of obstruction without a crime ever having been committed.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

"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?"

Hate to be the one to point out the obvious to you, but if the Pentagon is involved people will die either way, I think you meant to say that Gods chosen people, white Americans, might die rather than evil brown skinned people on the other side of the world.

Re:As they should be.

[yyxx]

Oh, I don't knpw...let me think: I probably wouldn't post it to the internet and protect the identity of the person who emailed it to me at all costs.

Well, fortunately, other people actually have a sense of moral responsibility and weigh the facts before they make such decisions.

And because we live in a democracy and a free society, these people have fairly significant legal protections to do so, because people in free and democratic societies realize that governments are not inerrant and that their societies only remain free and democratic if citizens show moral responsibility, courage, and vigilance.

Re:As they should be.

[betterunixthanunix]

My security engineering textbook actually has a chapter on nuclear launch codes and how that system was designed. You could, in the absence of all other security mechanisms, simply brute force the codes, since they are of deliberately limited length; the military did some research and discovered that when people are under stress (which is likely if they are being asked to arm a nuclear weapon), they can only accurately enter a certain number of digits even if those digits are being read to them.

In my opinion, though, the most interested detail is the motivation for nuclear launch codes. As you pointed out, there should be (and there is) some physical security measure in place to ensure that some random guy does not launch a nuclear missile. The purpose of the arming codes is not to prevent Joe Schmoe from starting World War 3, but to prevent the soldiers themselves from doing so without authorization. Prior to the Kennedy administration, nuclear bombs were armed when they were deployed (dropped from an airplane), and the only measure in place to prevent a pilot from doing so without orders was a single soldier standing near the plane, who was supposed to shoot the pilot in such a situation -- but the commander might issue the order to strike without authorization.

As for the codes being leaked...that was considered as well. The codes change frequently, some change daily (i.e. the codes that the president carries -- there are other codes, like maintenance codes), so even a leak would have a low potential for causing a problem (a pair of rogue soldiers hell bent on launching a nuke would have to get the authorization codes on the same day they are leaked).

Really, people bring up nuclear secrets (and for some reason, launch codes) whenever they want you to abandon all logical thought and stop questioning the need for broad secrecy. A lot of things that people think are secret really are not secret, or are things that were once secret but are not anymore: it used to be the case that anything related to nuclear weapons, even chemical data about the fuel, was automatically classified, but that policy was relaxed somewhat. Sure, there are things that are secret and that are better kept secret, like the locations and planned movements of US military units in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the identities of spies in foreign countries, but there is a limit and things are supposed to be declassified after a certain amount of time, with certain rare exceptions.

Re:As they should be.

[JoshuaZ]

The only way releasing classified information on foreign policy gives aid and comfort to a nation's enemies is if it exposes some egregious wrongdoing on the part of the nation having its information leaked, in which case moral obligation to expose unlawful practices comes into play

Really? There are no other ways releasing documents could do that? It couldn't for example have details of spies within enemy groups, or details of surveillance techniques, or details about the resolution of spy satellites and their orbits. There are lots of very damaging things that could be here that have no moral problems associated with them at all.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Subversion of the democratic process?" There is no such thing as a "democratic process." You can call a country democratic or not, but that is meaningless by itself. As far as I am concerned, a country where the presidential candidate with more votes LOSES to the one with fewer can hardly be called a "democracy." Second, you say this as though it is a bad thing? The rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its CONSEQUENCES, not whether it is an act of "subversion of the democratic process." What is legal and what is right (or moral) have nothing to do with each other.

For people interested in where Mr. Schroeder is coming from, look no further than his website (http://das.doit.wisc.edu/). This man is a nothing more than a shill for the United States government.

BTW, you don't help your argument by citing right-wing authoritarian websites like the Jawa Report.

Re:As they should be.

[commodore64_love]

>>>In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process.

Bullshit. The democratic process doesn't work when the People don't know that their leaders are child murderers (see the leaked video). It's no different than BP's attempted coverup of their oil spill, in order to mislead investors . Let the light of liberty shine on the dark places our leaders attempt to hide from us.

Re:As they should be.

[commodore64_love]

>>>in reality the guys they shot at had a rocket launcher.

It was a CAMERA ya dumb fuck. Didn't you read the accompanying text? The U.S. soldiers shot-and-killed reporters. And in the second video they killed a van full of children. I'm glad this leaked - the People deserve to know how U.S. leaders are terrorizing citizens in these foreign countries. In my book they are no better than Osama Bin Laden.

Re:As they should be.

[jbssm]

but hell, when the guys with the AK47s are hiding in convoys of old women on donkeys, what exactly should they do ?

You mean, the guys with the AK47s are hiding in convoys of old women on donkeys in their own country that USA invaded?
Well, I guess they are pretty much correct. IF someone invaded my country I would also try to get back at them ... probably with AK47 smuggled in the country after the war started, cause unlike Americans we are not gun nuts and we don't all carry a gun to work in civilized Europe.

Re:As they should be.

[jbssm]

In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. 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.

I kind of remember a free and democratic society that 70 years ago put Hitler in power and supported ethical and religious discrimination with awful results. But according to your line of thought, they where completely right, after all it was a democratic decision.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is nowhere near akin to leaking sensitive information from totalitarian or repressive regimes, or even from corporate entities.

Are you saying the US has no repressive regimes?

Re:As they should be.

[moonbender]

Yes, well that's what happens in wars ... people fucking die.

Yeah. During a state of war, ie a state of government sanctioned mass murder, people die. Is that supposed to be some sort of insight? I suppose it is for someone who comes up with the two worst cases of the employment of WMDs in modern history as some sort of guiding example.

Re:As they should be.

[Jawnn]

I might be defending the leaker, but in this case he leaked the videos under a false guise. The videos didn't show "murder". If they had, I would still be undecided. However, he found some videos which might prove his point, but in reality the guys they shot at had a rocket launcher.

[citation needed]

Re:As they should be.

[Civil_Disobedient]

People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences

No, they leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be consequences.

Whistle-blowers are not a protected class. If you work for an organization that is breaking the law (particularly if that organization is a government agency) and you blow the whistle on their illegal activities, you should fully expect to be fired. That's the reality of the situation.

And if by some miracle you're not fired, expect the whole affair to be whitewashed and swept under a rug, with no consequences to the people that broke the rules in the first place (it's incredible just how hard it can be to fire a bureaucrat).

By anonymously releasing the information, you can complain while still protecting yourself from recrimination, and simultaneously raise enough of a shit-storm to actually get something done about it for a change.

You seem to think WikiLeaks operates outside the fray of a "free and democratic society," but I contend it is actually a vital part of it.

Re:As they should be.

[Jawnn]

Ever hear of the Pentagon Papers?

Probably not. The right-wing revisionism that ignores the crimes of Republicans and their lackeys may be more subtle outside of the Texas public education system, but it's still there. It won't be until the every generation alive during the Nixon years is long dead (if even then) before that mess will find it's place in our nation's history, uncolored by political agendas.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

When an individual, on his or her own, decides that some secret information should be leaked -- no matter the reason -- they subvert that process. It is nowhere near akin to leaking sensitive information from totalitarian or repressive regimes, or even from corporate entities.

So what if they subvert the process? Clearly, you believe that (a) our democratic system is functioning in the best interests of the people, (b) that our trust in our elected representatives is well-placed, and (c) that the democratic system is ethically superior to totalitarian/repressive regimes, corporate entities, or presumably any other form of government. I, however do not believe any of these things are necessarily true. Sure some information should be protected. I'll grant you that. You claim that an individual has no right to arbitrarily disclose secrets. Well, that means that only government officials can do so. Which, in turn means that we need to be able to trust them. Unfortunately, our government (and many others) have repeatedly shown that they are not worthy of that implicit trust.

Re:As they should be.

[therealkevinkretz]

"the Army had no reason whatever [mypetjawa.mu.nu] to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed" " Really? You think that killing anyone you can't prove summarily and immediately is unarmed is a reasonable engagement policy? This occurred in a city with an overwhelming ratio of noncombatants to combatants, not a well-defined battlefield or firefight over occupying some ground.

Re:As they should be.

[whisper_jeff]

In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. 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.

For that quote alone your post deserves to be rated 5. If I could, you'd certainly get a +1 Insightful from me.

Re:As they should be.

[siddesu]

actually, every law should have a mandatory expiry date.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the edited video we have shows weapons at the scene.

Even if the act was reprehensible it was not illegal as the rules of engagement were followed

If you have issue with what happened in that video you should speak to a politician about withdrawing support for military activities in the Middle East

Operational recordings are classified for a good reason and any person who knowingly releases classified material to people unauthorized to have it should be arrested and charged. If there are mitigating circumstances the judge may impose a lighter sentence but I don't think that "public interest" should be a good enough excuse.

All wars are horrible which is a good reason to not ever go to war, it is not a good reason for soldiers to disobey lawful orders or break security regulations

Re:As they should be.

[anagama]

With free and open government, there is nothing to leak. With dishonest, sneaky, and evil governments, there is much to leak. Whether a government is evil is not defined by the manner in which its leaders are chosen, and the US does not get a pass for evil behavior simply because people can vote.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make sure that you direct your anger and disdain at the Government that sent the troops into that position and not the soldiers who were following their legal orders to the best of their ability.

Re:As they should be.

[siddesu]

And Hitler was elected in democratic elections as well.

No, he wasn't, stop spreading that BS please. Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, then engineered the Reichstag fire, then enacted draconian laws on grounds of security, used that to rig the next election, which still didn't bring him majority. He then forced Hindenburg out, forced the new Reichstag into giving him legislative powers, effectively suspended the constitution, and then proceeded on to murder his opposition in and outside of his party, and, finally, using the "emergency" legislative powers to declare himself a Furher. Or somesuch. But he was never elected at any point of his national political career by a majority.

Re:As they should be.

[Hatta]

All we know right now is that the name of an active serving CIA asset was revealed to the public, with the result of "adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Specifically which enemy was "adhered" to or given "aid or comfort" in any way?

Re:As they should be.

[Nadaka]

The problem is that when that process is used to hide crimes and events that have little to do with security and everything to do with preventing the embarrassment of the government, then the process has failed. And in the grand American tradition, it takes a hero to stand up for the principals of this nation over its laws. Today we would be a far worse nation without individuals standing against the tyranny of the establishment. Are we better off because people like Bob Woodward, Rosa Parks, Abraham Lincoln and Paul Revere decided that the laws of their time did not reflect the spirit of this great nation? I think so.

Re:As they should be.

[JWSmythe]

Well, explosions are flashy, but it's not totally uncommon. The bilge fan fails, and the rest is history.

    Check this search.

    This is what can happen (with pic).

    That was just an example. There are plenty of ways a person can have an accident that never gets questioned after the initial investigation. Car accident, slip & fall, mugging, home invasion, or even "natural" causes as you mentioned. Boating accidents are an easy way to explain away whey no body was found, and little evidence left behind.

Re:As they should be.

[anagama]

Yeah right. Try the blue Kool Aid next.

Re:As they should be.

[Mitchell314]

From your own article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA#Government_and_elections

The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy,

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Who wants a mustache ride?!

Re:As they should be.

[linzeal]

It is either a Social Contract or Natural Rights, I for one would rather hammer out my own document that protects my rights based on my consent to be governed, even if such consent was presumed by birth than trust a bunch of philosopher-types and theologians to endlessly argue over what inalienable rights are.

Re:As they should be.

[anagama]

Which is 100% of the problem. Nobody should be in the clear for wrong doing, from the top on down.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Talk to your representatives about your opinion, become informed about local candidates so that you vote for the one that best represents you.

Outside these channels your opinion does not count in a representational democracy.

Re:As they should be.

[Hatta]

In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process.

That's assuming we live in a free and democratic society. That's far from the case.

I.e., if, in a free and democratic society, you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, and you're going to unilaterally decide to do release it because of your own personal beliefs or convictions, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it.

Why? If it turns out that the material was wrongly classified (remember, it's illegal to classify things merely because they're embarassing), shouldn't we be thankful?

There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.

When those processes have obviously failed, it's our duty to stand up and correct them.

Re:As they should be.

[mr_bubb]

Bullshit. Ellsberg and the people who talked to Woodward and Bernstein risked their careers and sometimes their lives to reveal secret information, and almost certainly broke the law in doing so. But the law was being used as a shield by the government to commit crimes. When the government abuses its power, and the corruption pervades the very lawmakers who have the power to effect change, these are the recourses that are left. You remind me of what Clemenceau (who believed him innocent) said of Dreyfus: "he was the type of man who would have convicted himself."

Re:As they should be.

[Jedi Alec]

"In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. "

Well, it is, isn't it? At least it is when that information harms those we like to back up or typically agree with. When it harms those we dislike it is patriotic and brave...

Re:As they should be.

[Trepidity]

There's no reason to shoot yourself in the foot, though. If you can stop or expose an injustice perpetrated by the government and also avoid getting yourself smooshed by the same government, no reason not to.

Re:As they should be.

[Trepidity]

He did win a strong plurality, though, which in parliamentary systems is usually enough to get you elected Prime Minister (if there's no majority, but one party clearly has a strong plurality, they usually end up forming the government).

Re:As they should be.

[blackraven14250]

Interestingly enough, Jordan has a system where they are a monarchy and have representation both via appointment (their Senate is appointed by the king) and via election (their House of Representatives).

So barring the definitional requirement of "head of state not being a monarch", they do have the other defining characteristics of a republic.

Re:As they should be.

[snowgirl]

When you have an Apache helicopter, everything looks like a rocket launcher.

Watching the full video myself, I'm left with the impression that the pilot and/or gunner failed to adequately assess the situation and jumped to conclusions as to the nature of the object being held. Getting into a "firing-style position" i.e. crouching behind a corner with a large rounded object pointed out at a helicopter is a good way to get that person antsy and trigger-happy.

I'm not condoning the event, I think that military should have a strict liability in civilian casualties. Namely, if a civilian dies as a result of your fire, then you're screwed, it doesn't matter what conditions surround the matter.

Re:As they should be.

[snowgirl]

Somehow I'm sure our country and citizens will manage to survive the release of this information that the government feels it must protect us from.

I rather like the quote (that I cannot attribute, if someone knows, it'd be awesome): "The fastest way to inform your enemy, is to inform your public." Or something to that effect.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

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'.

Not a fair analogy... Unless you and your daughters are 1.) armed, 2.) dropping off combatants and 3.) participating in earlier attacks... I know the wikileaks video doesn't show this clearly, but it's not like Julian doesn't have an ax to grind regarding the Iraq war. Manning's reasons are far less than noble too... just a big F@*# you to the Army and ultimately to the US gov't.

Re:As they should be.

[DavidTC]

Indeed. I hope you get modded all the way up.

The problem is not the behavior of the soldiers in the helicopter. Except the minor incident of shooting people who were clearly attempting to recover wounded, but that's a minor thing all in all.

It is the idea we should fly around in a fucking helicopter and shoot up people who 'look dangerous'. That is the damn problem.

Hell, that's not even sane military behavior.

Militaries have objectives, like 'hold this building' and 'raid the enemy base and blow up the fuel depot' stuff like that. They don't wander around looking for a fight that serves no purpose except for both sides to shoot at each other, and the fact of our overwhelming military superiority results in them winning most fights doesn't make it sane.

Re:As they should be.

[Scrameustache]

What if the Pentagon is telling the truth

BWAHAHAHahahaHHAHAhahahaha! The...bhahaha... the PENTAGON, telling...pfffrt... the TRUTH!?! HAhahahahAHAHAH! Oh, lawd!

Yeah, hey, remember them telling the truth about Pat Tillman? Or when they were telling the truth about Abu Grahib? Or that lil' blonde soldier they violently extracted from an Iraqi hospital? Oh yeah, they just can't help themselves at the pentagon: Everything they say is truthful!

Re:As they should be.

[schon]

In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process

Yes. And war is peace, slavery is freedom, and ignorance is strength.

Got any other claptrap you'd care to share?

Re:As they should be.

[Vellmont]

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?

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

We know who leaked the name, it was Richard Armitage. Libby did get indicted and convicted but it was for obstruction of justice not the leaking of the name. This has been common knowledge for years and to ignore it really suggests you do have a grudge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_%28politician%29

Re:As they should be.

[Omnifarious]

I guess my argument is that with such an incredibly marked lack of transparency in governments the world over, I think the benefits of consequence free leaking outweighs the downside. I would rather trust the editors of wikileaks to decide what should and shouldn't be secret than my own government.

I think secrecy is more harmful to democracy than consequence free leaking is.

Perhaps its true that we've voted for it to be that way over time. But I don't think we can ever get to a place where we don't vote that way without having the leaks. Government control of so much information is really bad for our ability to reliably make decisions about what our government ought to be doing.

Re:As they should be.

[arth1]

In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process.

In a free and democratic society, there is no classified information that's hidden from its citizens. The ruling populace require the access in order to make the decisions they are entitled and obliged to make.

Since the US is neither free nor a democracy, it relies in part on keeping information from their citizens. Partially because the citizens can't be trusted, but also because of the repercussions that would follow if certain things were disclosed to the voting public and its representatives.

The big problem I have with the secrecy laws as they are is that it's the horse controlling the hay feed. There's no independent body that goes through classified documents and says "hey, this is ass covering, and doesn't protect any citizens except the guilty ones".
If Wikileaks were to hand over the documents, congress would not disclose everything not found to be vital to protecting its citizens. It would not read them at all, but hand them over to the military, and at best ask them to go through them and please disclose what shouldn't have been classified. And we know how well that would go.

I think Wikileaks here has a patriotic obligation to go through the documents and disclose everything that can jeopardize the safety of our citizens if kept secret. Like disclosures of how far certain military commanders and diplomats can be trusted, before we put our lives in their hands.
My recommendation: For every document not obviously dangerous to disclose, send the military an encrypted e-mail asking for the rationale that this shouldn't be disclosed. If met with a canned response or gibberish, disclose. If the military can justify it through logic, don't.

Re:As they should be.

[moortak]

Whether or not he deserves to be punished, I don't buy the idea that leaking classified data in a democracy is always bad. Many times data is classified, not to avoid disclosure of legitimate sensitive information, but often to prevent embarrassment or hide criminal actions. There is a need to protect certain information, but there is also the need for an informed citizenry. This is especially true in a democracy.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I hope for intelligent responses to this post"

Get real, this is Slashdot.

Re:As they should be.

[sycodon]

"Loyalties: The World"

Which means no one or just to himself.

Re:As they should be.

[instagib]

Simplification of historic events leads to wrong conclusions. I recommend post http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1683756&cid=32549066 as a quick introduction, along with http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/elect.htm .

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Where do you live cause I live in the USA and I haven't been able to vote anyone I would want into a position in over 10 years. I only get stuck with bottom of the barrel choices where I don't get to vote on who I want, I just get the option of voting against who I don't want the most out of the choices.

Kinda like getting to choose if you get raped in the ass or the mouth, either choice you go for you are still fucked cause the guy who wouldn't screw you at all and would work in your best interest never made it out of the primaries.

Re:As they should be.

[dave420]

Please show us the evidence of the rocket launcher. There most definitely wasn't one in the video. AK-47s are legal for Iraqi civilians to have, and many civilians had to patrol their streets to stop the rampant looting the US forces let happen.

Re:As they should be.

[DarkKnightRadick]

Well, secret documents aren't a natural right so it's a social contract, one which depends on my consent to be governed, a consent which cannot be freely given until at and past the age of reason.

Re:As they should be.

[symbolic]

1. You don't get to make that determination yourself. However...

I'd be willing to buy into this if our government (Congress) wasn't working overtime to hide every detail possible with respect what is really going on. Making information classified has been trivialized to the point of absurdity. It doesn't take much of an IQ to realize that this kind of BS breeds a lack of trust (and rightly so).

Re:As they should be.

[Xaositecte]

and then you'd be shot, and nobody would be surprised.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a firm believer that every law should have sunset provisions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_laws

every few years maybe a bit excessive, however, no I feel no law should go longer than 20 years before having to be re-voted. NO LAW. This gives each generation a new chance to vote.....well in this stupid state, a change for their elected representatives to vote for them.... that is another point of contention i have, for another thread.

Re:As they should be.

[Cwix]

If I see a rocket launcher, im gonna shoot the guy with it. Its called war, you dont call timeout and ask for everyone on the other team to raise their hands. Youve obviously never been to war. Until you have, keep it to yourself.

Re:As they should be.

[theNAM666]

black-clad soldiers going "Oh shit! I think these people were just civilians!" and then digging out their rounds from the bodies, tying them up, artfully arranging them, and discussing their cover story, how do you think that would have gone over? Instead of everyone forgetting in a few weeks, we'd still be watching the congressional hearings on CSPAN.

You're kidding yourself. The US is killing towel-heads. These people deserve to die. No one in the US really cares, as long as they can drive their SUVs, watch their wide-screen TVs and otherwise live comfortable bourgeois lives at other people's expense.

Re:As they should be.

[theNAM666]

To Americans it's the 'warzone' but to people that live there it is 'home'.

Why didn't they get out? C'mon, people are responsible for their actions. If they're there, they must be guilty in some way. If a van stopped for the reporter, surely he was involved with the insurgents in some way.

And I don't know why the US doesn't just nuke the whole area and get this over with...

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing an unarmed, wounded reporter who is trying to crawl to safety is murder. Troll harder AC.

Re:As they should be.

[Cwix]

We had a saying in the army, "I'd rather be tried by 12 then carried by 6." There is no leisurely time to double check, or try to get more info. If you believe that yourself, a fellow soldier, American citizen, allied soldiers, allied citizen, or unallied citizen is in danger (In that order) of loosing life limb or eyesight, then deadly force is allowed. This is war, if you dont pull that trigger they might.

The person who pulled that trigger KNEW (even if he later turned out wrong) that if he didn't pull the trigger, that the enemy might. It is a sorry state of affairs that this could happen, it could have been avoided, by the news crew telling the U.S. military that they were out there. They did NOT tell the U.S. that they would be in the area.

Its dangerous to be pimping a big old camera in iraq anyways, the iraquis love to film ied attacks on Americans. When I was in Iraq, wed get hit by IED's and its prob a good thing the only cameras we ever saw were in our vehicles. It kinda fucks you up when you find videos of YOUR vehicle being attacked and put on propoganda sites. Hint to Newscrews: Tell the exhausted, overworked, and probably not wanting to be there soldiers well tell them your there, it might prevent getting fucking shot.

Ill tell you another thing, the person who pulled the trigger has to live with that, Id bet hes not having an easy time of it. My heart goes out to the innocents who die, but I stand by my fellow soldiers.

Re:As they should be.

[MacDork]

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.

Ahhh, sheepdot. You realize, if this were a thread on global warming, you'd be -1 Troll instead of +5 Insightful right now (^_^)

Re:As they should be.

[theNAM666]

Since when is 35% when the other party has 53% a "strong plurality?" Hitler was appointed Chancellor by President Hindenberg.

Re:As they should be.

[Cwix]

You would hide among women and children, with the hopes of using them for cover to kill Americans. You fucking coward. Youd risk the lives of innocent to kill someone.. to get revenge. your a fucking coward.. a piece of shit coward at that.

Re:As they should be.

[Miseph]

Yeah, sure, there are explosions on boats from time to time. People also get struck by lightning and attacked by sharks. It's actually quite rare, as evidenced by your own search results: the first page has minor stories in obscure publications from 4 and 5 years ago. Furthermore, most of them appear to have resulted in no fatalities, and many not even in serious injuries. It would most certainly get scrutinized if, out of nowhere, this guy went out in a Michael Bay explosion. Consider for a moment just how many boats are actually out there, not exploding or experiencing any kind of misadventure. It's a rarity.

In fact, it would be much less suspicious if his house burned down. That happens all the time, and often doesn't even make it into the local paper above page 5. To be honest though, I think they'd rather he just gave up the cause, faded from the public eye, and was forgotten; which basically leaves intimidation and bribery as the most likely options.

Re:As they should be.

[johanw]

You mean that the "befehl ist befehl" excuse was accepted by the Americans in the neurenberg trials and the other Nazis got away with it?

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Three negatives in one sentence. We're getting into math territory to figure out what you meant.

Re:As they should be.

[sunajanus]

Suicidal Tendencies reference - a great song & band... Well done!

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

No. At one point in time we delegated that power, and ever since then the majority of people have been sufficiently happy with the situation that there hasn't been a push to take that power back. There's no "sock puppets" or silly conspiracy theories involved.

You can try pushing it off as much as you want, but at the end of the day, no matter who you blame for the government, it will always come back to the fact that the citizens let it happen and they aren't doing anything to fix it. Pretending there's some mysterious third party controlling the government from behind the scenes is a ridiculous cop out to avoid responsibility. For better or worse, we're getting the government we've chosen for ourselves.

Re:As they should be.

[jbssm]

Well, we all know in Europe you are very quick to call someone a coward when you have a gun in your hand and the other people doesn't. We do have a different word for that though, bullying.

Seems to me that their are as much risking the innocent lives of other people when they hide amongst them, as the Americans are when they shoot at them. It's their country, you have no business being there with your army, you are not welcome, and you don't have absolutely any moral authority telling people in their own country they cannot carry guns when you are waving them all around. Go fucking home and stop killing innocents for oil!

Re:As they should be.

[starcraftsicko]

It could also expose some egregious right doing intended to confound and defeat those enemies. It might expose the identity (or clues to the identity) of agents in the field. The contents of the messages will not protect him. But even if he beats the treason rap, he was brainwashed by the cult of the whistle-blower and is doomed. It's sad really.

They may try to get him on a treason charge, but if that fails, 30k+ counts of espionage, theft, misuse of a computer system, fraud, etc. will be enough to lock him in a deep hole until his bones decay to dust. If he is lucky he'll get solitary for life - a fate worse than death IMO - but that pales in comparison to life of a genuine traitor in the general population of a PMITA prison.

Re:As they should be.

[snowgirl]

I whole heartedly agree that they don't have time to second guess.

However, the military should owe a strict liability for civil deaths that are caused. They already owe essentially a strict liability for the death of a soldier (owing to the mandatory life insurance, etc), but having a "life insurance policy" or such for civilian casualties is a good idea.

I am of the belief that soldiers can do their duty, and still face the reality in public of their accidents/misdeeds.

This particular apache attack as not a matter of national security, and the tapes should have been willingly handed over by the military to allow for some sort of oversight.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, because they were so worried about shooting the chopper they acted like it wasn't even there the whole time. Shut the fuck you, your just a completely pathetic idiot.
Go back to Iraq and get shot, like you deserve, pig.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Fine.

It's obvious that this serviceman is adhering to the interests of the citizenry of the United States, and that the
servicepersons in the helicopter, firing on the civilians and reporters in the combat zone were giving aid to the
enemy.

Further, it's clear in this instance that the US military personnel in the Pentagon involved in the cover-up, are
giving aid to the enemy in the obstruction of justice.

How's that for treason?

Re:As they should be.

[slashdotisgay2]

Obviously the chopper wasn't in danger considering it just sat in the sky while the people walked around ignoring it you dumb ass. If they were going to shoot the chopper, they would have. They most likely thought the chopper was on their side. I take it you've been to "war." Go back, and get shot. Don't come back home, pig.

Re:As they should be.

[Cwix]

I can agree to that. Im not sure how or why the military handled this the way they did, Im sure they had their reasons, maybe good, but probably bad ones.

They should have admited this right away, Ill agree 100%. It seems that alot of people are jumping to the conclusion that it was the soldiers individual fault. Perhaps the situation the soldier was put in to is at fault here. There are so many things that we dont know, its impossible to lay blame.

I don't know how this situation would work, I do remember one of the drivers in my platoon taking out a cars side mirror on accident. The owner of the car got paid 200 dollars. I know there is som e sort of compensation for damage injury or death, is it the level that an soldier gets? I doubt it, but I believe they do receive something. (It may only happen in certain situations or whatever, Ive noticed the military isnt always forthcoming, or fair)

Re:As they should be.

[Cwix]

Your right, the chopper wasn't in danger, the nearby supply convoy was the one in danger, the chopper was providing overwatch. Get you facts straight.

Re:As they should be.

[Trepidity]

Which other party had 53%? In the last elections before Hitler was appointed Chancellor, the Nazis got 33%, and the second-best showing (by the Social Democrats) was 20%. That's at least a reasonably strong plurality, which in most parliamentary systems would be enough to give the party that got 33% first crack at forming a government--- especially if, as in this election, there was no obvious coalition with more votes.

A particular problem was that the communists (KPD) weren't willing to join an anti-Nazi coalition of bourgeois parties. Of the groups vying to form a coalition government, the NSDAP-DNVP coalition had 41.6%. The pro-democracy "Weimar coalition" that had ruled for much of the 1920s (SDP, DDP, and Centre) got 33% between them. The non-Nazi right (if the DNVP had joined them instead of the Nazis) had about 12-13% between them, or about 25% if they got the Centre Party onboard too. To the extent that anybody could be said to have "won" the Nov. 1932 election, the NSDAP-DNVP coalition comes reasonably close.

Re:As they should be.

[BoberFett]

No mystery about it, the wealthy control government, and control who we the little people are allowed to vote for.

When this country was formed government was small enough that controlling didn't matter. Now that we have a federal government with a multi-trillion dollar yearly budget, there's trillions of reasons to control it.

Re:As they should be.

[johncadengo]

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.

Or he works in a dictatorship, like the rest of America.

Re:As they should be.

[snowgirl]

I know there is som e sort of compensation for damage injury or death, is it the level that an soldier gets? I doubt it, but I believe they do receive something.

No, soldiers have a mandatory life insurance policy, which as of around 2001 was about $200,000-250,000. This was payable to the beneficiary under all conditions except suicide.

I do not really know any information about what compensations one is able to receive for injury or death at the hands of sanctioned military action.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

then engineered the Reichstag fire

That's a conspiracy theory, isn't it? The equivalent of 9/11 being an inside job. I guess it's easier to pin this "false flag" stuff on Hitler because he doesn't exactly have a reputation people are willing to defend.

used that to rig the next election

Smells like a conspiracy theory too. I guess there's just too many people saying the same thing about Bush for me to take it seriously without seeing some real good evidence.

Anyway, technically he was never elected. On the other hand he did take power legally in a democracy.

Re:As they should be.

[OrangeTide]

I vote in local primaries, just because the person I vote for doesn't get elected doesn't change that I am participating in a republic.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, you're pointing the finger in the wrong place.

Take the last presidential election, for example. There were dozens of candidates covering every conceivable political viewpoint, and thanks to the internet, information about them more accessible than ever before.

And what happened? The majority of people were happy enough with the current batch of idiots that they didn't bother.

I don't even necessarily disagree with you that the government is corrupt, but the majority of people are happy with the situation, so that's the way it's going to stay. Sad but true.

Re:As they should be.

[JWSmythe]

    There are all kinds of things that happen, that rarely make the news.

    I heard a house explosion. Like, it shook our building about 1/4 mile away, so we went looking for what caused it. that wasn't very hard. By the time we got outside, there was a column of smoke rising. When we got there, fire rescue was on the scene, and reporters were just starting to show up. I hung around long enough to get the whole story, and then left.

    The story was... A little old lady lived with two room mates in an older house. Her husband had passed away a while before, but she still had two of his oxygen tanks stored in the laundry room. A fire started in the clothes dryer, and when the tanks reached burst pressure, they did. That's what we heard.

    It made one of the local news web sites for a few hours. The other local stations didn't bother to run it.

    Just because something happens doesn't mean it makes it to publication. Houses burn. Boats sink. People go missing. Unless there's something that catches the eye of the mass media (usually celebrity involvement), at most it'll be a blurb buried in a local publication. Blood and guts are sometimes good for the ratings, but that doesn't always do it.

    I'm sure we all remember the accident in California where the girl took her dads car, went speeding down a highway at 90mph+, lost control and had a fatal accident. National news, etc, etc.

    Around the same period, someone I knew was in a fatal accident. He was the passenger in a car that was doing 90mph+ on a highway, lost control, and both of them died. I eventually found out by word of mouth from one of his friends, but they didn't have the details. I finally found a two paragraph story buried on one local news site, which at least gave me a date and location. To anyone else, it was a non-story. If a local news crew happened on the scene first, and got pictures of the blood and guts, it would have probably been national news.

    I like using a boating accident as an example. Well, it reminds me of MST3k quote "This was no boating accident". :) So a boating accident, house fire, random shooting, accidental prescription overdoes, or the victim just disappears, it really doesn't matter.

Re:As they should be.

[Cwix]

Its called SGLI and its a maximum $400,000, depending on what the soldier pays in.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, so true.

You forget to mention Hitler's other greatly underrated achievements. Like, making trains run on time, saving the world from the Jews, the gypsies and the homosexuals and fighting the good fight against communism.

Fucking revisionists.

Re:As they should be.

[rainer_d]

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.

That, and the fact that people did either not care or could just not imagine what happened in these "camps".
Photos and eye-witness reports had been smuggled out of Concentration-camps (the regime was, after all, corrupt from top to bottom, and I presume there was still a lot you could do in there, if you bribed the right people) and the western leaders were more or less fully informed after about 1944. They never even bothered to bomb the train-lines or other vital parts of the infrastructure.
Fast-forward to the 1990s: concentration camps resurface in Europe, again. This time, it's the Serbs. Europe takes notice, we have western film crews on site, there's video-footage in every household. They're just a couple of hundred kilometers away from the Austrian border.
Does anything happen?
Nope, it takes until the late 1990s before Europe takes on Serbia....

So, in historic review, the leaks from the 1940's are now barely footnotes in Wikipedia.
I fear the same will be true for Mr Manning's efforts, as heroic (and possibly self-destructive) his efforts are.

Of course, in the whole affaire, what I can't understand: how the hell could the officers in charge of him actually intrust him with so much access?
Not only did thsi kid siphon-off a giant amount of information - he even _had_ to brag about it to somebody he thought he could trust.
_That_ is the real scandal. If any serious efforts had been made to test his personality, I'm sure this would have come-up in no time.
Don't they have grown-ups for such positions?

Re:As they should be.

[gringofrijolero]

I hope you're not a drone pilot :-)

Re:As they should be.

[Jafafa Hots]

Especially if you consider your public your enemy.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Useless gestures.

If you want your opinion to matter, pay for some campaigns and hire lobbyists.

Re:As they should be.

[anagama]

The point is, we are there on false pretenses doing evil. We need MORE Mannings and more people like the sociopaths on the chopper getting killed.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush was appointed by the Supreme Count. then engineered 9/11, then enacted draconian laws on grounds of security, started two wars, used that to rig the next election...

actually, theres fairly good evidence that Hitler didn't engineer his 9/11, he just used it (a lot more effectively than Bush).

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, but you should mention that his party got the biggest part of the votes for the parliamentary elections, twice in 1932:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_election,_July_1932

That von Hindenburg appointed him as Chancellor was not some undemocratic move on said presidents part. He was the most
logical candidate for it (although I agree that von Hindenburg could have tried harder not to do that, he was well aware of the danger).

My point being, Hitler was given power by the people, the things he did when he finally was powerful enough were just to secure
and consolidate that power.

Re:As they should be.

[Atomic Fro]

I don't know where you live, but I still live in a democracy.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Re:As they should be.

[niteshifter]

So ... your position boils down to: Having even more people die - only thing that distinguishes the second group from the former is you don't like them.

Hard to see a difference between you and what you rail on about, now isn't it?

Re:As they should be.

[DrugCheese]

Not a fair analogy? It wasn't an analogy, it was what happened. Just because you are in the area doesn't mean you have anything to do with what's going on. No matter what you think of any of the players in the current plot, this is fact: The military covered up these killings and labeled them all as enemy combatant kills.

Re:As they should be.

[Master Of Ninja]

And Hitler was elected in democratic elections as well.

No, he wasn't, stop spreading that BS please. Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, then engineered the Reichstag fire, then enacted draconian laws on grounds of security, used that to rig the next election, which still didn't bring him majority. He then forced Hindenburg out, forced the new Reichstag into giving him legislative powers, effectively suspended the constitution, and then proceeded on to murder his opposition in and outside of his party, and, finally, using the "emergency" legislative powers to declare himself a Furher. Or somesuch. But he was never elected at any point of his national political career by a majority.

No actually Hitler was elected by democratic elections. What he did was get initially elected to the German parliament and used the electoral system at the time to grant himself more and more powers. This was helped by infighting and political manoeuvring by his opponents which allowed him to set himself up for a "power grab", allowing himself to become Chancellor (essentially what would be the prime minister) and then eventually merge his job with the office of president. The conditions of post World War 1 German politics essentially set up the conditions for his rise. Hindenberg was a check to him initially but he was limited by constitutional role that he needed to perform to enable the proper formation of a government from the people who had been elected to parliament. See the Wikipedia article on Hitler; it's quite interesting.

Re:As they should be.

[DrugCheese]

Why didn't they get out? C'mon, people are responsible for their actions. If they're there, they must be guilty in some way. If a van stopped for the reporter, surely he was involved with the insurgents in some way.

So the US military doesn't know where the insurgents are, with dozens of eyes in the sky as well as people scouring all over the ground, satellite imaging, probably even using some humvee mounted triangulation to help pinpoint where the fire is coming from .... but the civilians are supposed to know what neighborhoods to stay out of?

And I don't know why the US doesn't just nuke the whole area and get this over with...

You are just plain ignorant.

Re:As they should be.

[DrugCheese]

That's an awfully cavalier attitude to have when your own life isn't on the line.

If it does breach national security, as they claim it does, then it is exactly my life that is being put on the line being a member of this nation is it not?

I think it apt to use the overused quote: They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

This is MY goverment. I am NOT the goverments CIVILIAN.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, then engineered the Reichstag fire, then enacted draconian laws on grounds of security, used that to rig the next election, which still didn't bring him majority. He then forced Hindenburg out, forced the new Reichstag into giving him legislative powers, effectively suspended the constitution, and then proceeded on to murder his opposition in and outside of his party, and, finally, using the "emergency" legislative powers to declare himself a Furher. Or somesuch. But he was never elected at any point of his national political career by a majority.

He was elected by a plurality, at least, with his party garnering (if I recall correctly) about 44% of the votes, ending up as the biggest party in the Reichstag. And of course, in the Weimar republic (not to mention modern Germany), it's highly unusual for any party to ever win a strict (absolute) majority, so using your line of reasoning, you'd also have to argue that no German chancellor since 1949 was ever elected democratically.

Furthermore, it's not clear to which extent the draconian laws you mention actually influenced the election. The worst ones only came after the election, and you shouldn't forget that almost half of all voters DID vote for the nazis - and nobody was standing behind them looking over their shoulder to make sure they were checking the right checkbox on the ballot. Like it or not, the people did like Hitler (in fact, I just checked, and the nazi party already received 37.2 and 33.0 percent of all votes in the two 1932 elections - far, far more than any other party).

And finally, while the whole process quickly led to a dictatorship and while it wasn't actually democratic in any usual sense of the word, the legalistic side of it was not actually at odds with the Weimar republic's constitution. So to portray Hitler as someone who took over in a bloody putsch is an inaccurate oversimplification, and if you do it, you'll rob yourself of your chance to learn from how and why the system failed.

Put another way: if Hitler really had been yet another fascist putschist, then Germany could just have continued to use the Weimar constitution after 1949 (perhaps with some updates and bugfixes - Weimar 1.1, if you will). But they didn't; they created a whole new constitution that is markedly different. Why? It's precisely because the Weimar constitution failed - because it ALLOWED someone like Hitler to pull off everything he pulled off.

Re:As they should be.

[siddesu]

He was elected by a plurality, at least, with his party garnering (if I recall correctly) about 44% of the votes

Nope, he got 44% post-reichstag, with the new, dictatorial laws already in place. go look it up.

or, put it another way, your facts are off.

Re:As they should be.

[siddesu]

Hitler did not become a Chancellor by a proper constitutional process; he and his party never had support even close to the numbers needed. He got himself in power by back-room dealing, subverting the democratic process, not using it.

What he did then is to use the Reichstag fire to get emergency powers (again, distancing himself from the democratic principles of the constitution); to use the state apparatus to win a larger vote; and to use his private army to force the (new) parliament to let him dispense with what was left of the democratic institutions after the Enablement act.

Calling this a "democratic" process is okay if you accept that countries like Nicaragua, Cuba or Chile in the 70s were "democratic".

So, the idea that Hitler was "democratically" elected is not even close to the truth.

Also, I see some above question the role of the nazis in the engineering of the fire, but if one follows the proceedings of the trials, especially the mountain of evidence of the fire, it is quite obvious.

An informative article on the subject of the fire is available here. Unfortunately, my other sources are mostly on paper, and out of reach at the moment.

Re:As they should be.

[warGod3]

Actually, we live in a representative democracy. We choose the idiots that represent us. Whether they do what we want or not, is just part of the deal. You don't like them, either elect someone else next time or run for the position yourself.

Re:As they should be.

[warGod3]

Unfortunately, when you sign up for the military, your decision on whether or not to release information because it "is the moral thing to do" does not apply.

From About.com:
"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

From Wikipedia:
Executive Order 13526 replaces earlier executive orders on the topic and lays out the system of classification, declassification, and handling of national security information generated by the U.S. government and its employees and contractors, as well as information received from other governments.

Since it is an Executive Order, that would make it the "orders of the President of the United States", which means you have violated the oath that you took.

The Uniform Code for Military Justice, TITLE 10, Subtitle A, PART II, CHAPTER 47, SUBCHAPTER X, 906a, Art. 106a. Espionage is pretty clear on the topic:

"(1) Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any entity described in paragraph (2), either directly or indirectly, anything described in paragraph (3) shall be punished as a court-martial may direct, except that if the accused is found guilty of an offense that directly concerns
(A) nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large scale attack, (B) war plans, (C) communications intelligence or cryptographic information, or (D) any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy, the accused shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct."

So releasing confidential information on your personal determination while you are in the military is about the same as anyone just speeding through a red light with a cop watching and then telling the cop, that it was you moral determination...

See how that flies with the judge.

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your daughters are more importing then some "dying people". Any sane person would not get involved.

Re:As they should be.

[Hasai]

What I find amusing is that you assume some little 22-year-old kid is the least bit qualified to make such a decision.

Re:As they should be.

[theNAM666]

-1, Flamebait? It's called *sarcasm*, people...

Re:As they should be.

[theNAM666]

/me suggest the following scoring category: -2, sarcasm-impaired. :P

Re:As they should be.

[logophage]

I ascribe to this principle as well but there's another side to the equation: don't do the crime if you can't do the time. In other words, I am all in favor of people leaking classified information but I am also in favor of them being prosecuted for doing so. Similarly, while I find torture abhorrent, if someone takes it upon themselves to torture another and should the data extracted be valuable (even preventing something terrible from happening), then the torturer should still be prosecuted for the crime.

Re:As they should be.

[caitsith01]

In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process.

That's assuming we live in a free and democratic society. That's far from the case.

While I agree with your underlying sentiment it's worth reflecting on the fact that you are able to type that sentence without fear of personal repercussions.

Re:As they should be.

[lennier]

If you believe that yourself, a fellow soldier, American citizen, allied soldiers, allied citizen, or unallied citizen is in danger (In that order) of loosing life limb or eyesight, then deadly force is allowed.

Isn't there a bit of an ethical conflict with that order of priorities?

Ethically, it would seem that, in order to be and remain 'the good guys' in a conflict, a soldier's order of preservation of life should be almost the exact reverse:
* local civilians (foreign if you're the invading force, national if you're defending) - women and children first, then able adults
* allied citizens
* own citizens
* allied troops
* own country troops
* self

Sure, there's a total conflict between self-preservation and protection of others - but that goes with the territory, doesn't it? If you don't make it an ABSOLUTE priority to FIRST protect the people you're supposed to be serving and protecting (the civilians) - and theoretically in order not to be an illegal brute-force occupation you're there to serve and protect the Iraqis, not the Americans - then it seems like you're just a guy with a gun shooting people who aren't his mates. And that seems like the definition of 'aggressor' or nastier words.

Not getting at you personally, but if self-preservation over all while in a foreign country is US military doctrine then how exactly does it differ from any other country's military doctrine? And if the 'good guys'' military doctrine is indistinguishable from their enemies then why should we, as civilians, support 'our troops' over other troops? Just because they're 'ours'? But Nuremberg established that 'just following orders' is not an acceptable excuse for a soldier, so why should 'just supporting the troops' be an acceptable excuse for a civilian?

Re:As they should be.

[lennier]

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.

The reality is that so-called Western democracy is in fact criss-crossed by an alternate military-industrial hierarchy which is internally a dictatorship, or lots of little dictatorships. We call them 'CEOs' and 'generals' and they do answer to supposedly 'higher' authorities, but the power generally flows down these systems, not up, and they are each generally proud of 'not being a democracy'.

Theoretically the loop closes somewhere between the marketplace and polling booth - but since, due to commercial secrecy and classification laws, information about how each of these organisations function is not generally available to consumers and voters - and even many shareholders and legislators - I find it hard to see how we can say our society is really a democracy at its heart. It's really just a sort of quasi-democratic web of competing top-down tyrannies.

Which is somewhat better than one big united tyranny - but not by much, and not in the big matters where it really counts: strategic armaments and military policy. Those remain mostly self-governing closed shops. How exactly are you going to argue with the CEO of McDonnell-Douglas or the General in charge of the Single Integrated Operating Plan? Supposedly the Joint Chiefs report to the SecDef and President... but even they can only know what they're told, right?

If a Julian Assange stood for office and got voted in as President, promising to declassify everything... do you really think the powers that be would stand for that, even if 51% of the population voted in favour?

Re:As they should be.

[lennier]

Countless atrocities committed in the name of the majority have occurred on the basis of this mode of thinking. The Holocaust comes to mind.

To the contrary: while some anti-Jewish laws were enacted openly, I believe the Final Solution was decided by a very small minority in extremely secret closed meetings. It was certainly not openly discussed and voted on in public or there would not have been such shock and disbelief by the wider world when the camps were liberated after WW2.

So the Holocaust is actually a complete counter-example to your argument. If Wikileaks had existed then, and the secret planning documents had been widely distributed, it might well have been averted entirely.

Re:As they should be.

[lennier]

you can't write everything off as a tragic mistake; it was tragic official policy.

Best one-line summary of this entire issue. Thank you.

Re:As they should be.

[Cwix]

f you don't make it an ABSOLUTE priority to FIRST protect the people you're supposed to be serving and protecting (the civilians)

You must have me mixed up with a police officer. The police use the "to serve and protect" line. I was not there to serve the local citizens, I was there to serve my country. There is a HUGE difference. I was not there to serve the iraqi people. Those rules outlined when I could make MY OWN determination that lethal force was necessary

then it seems like you're just a guy with a gun shooting people who aren't his mates. And that seems like the definition of 'aggressor' or nastier words.

I never fired my weapon once, I was there to remove roadside bombs. If you want to get into whether or not Americans should have ever gone to Iraq, I wont play that game. (Frankly I have my own doubts.. now) I was there to remove bombs, the same bombs that were being used against the civilians by opposing factions. SO before we try to turn this into a American bashing exercise, why dont you talk to someone in YOUR local military, Im sure they have pretty much the same rules. Trust me, they arnt there to serve and protect either.

Re:As they should be.

[Gaygirlie]

I often see fully grown-up men act like 5-year olds or even worse, and then again 12-year olds act completely rationally and responsibly. As such I'd say age does not correlate with rightness or wrongness of one's actions.

Re:As they should be.

[chad.koehler]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

Re:As they should be.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... and federal government is limited to intervening in commerce that occurs across state lines

Re:As they should be.

[Alsee]

Good thing he's not a United States citizen then, or else he might be violating his social contract.

Clause 5(c), going to the bathroom during a TV commercial is theft.

-

Obama

[dayalsoap]

Obama himself has threatened to arrest the wikileaker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM59bbp0Wsw When are people going to realize that the differences between Republicans and Democrats exist only in rhetoric? They don't give a SHIT about civil liberties and freedoms.

Re:Obama

[Ethanol-fueled]

It's really cute that our government "leaks" this FUD campaign because they don't have the balls to admit through diplomacy that they do indeed have a problem with sucking the dicks of the Arabian and Jewish lobbyists.

Re:Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

True believers can watch it here without flash http://tinyogg.com/watch/9c0qF/

I didn't expect Obama would do much but still I'm very disappointed...

Re:Obama

[pitchpipe]

Obama himself has threatened to arrest the wikileaker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM59bbp0Wsw

I watched your video: Obama does NOT threaten to arrest the wikileaker in the video. If that isn't what you meant to imply you should make it more clear.

Just to be clear, I am an Obama supporter, but I also disagree with some of the things that he does. But let's have a debate that is focused on the facts and reasoned opinion, not innuendo.

Re:Obama

[Vellmont]

When are people going to realize that the differences between Republicans and Democrats exist only in rhetoric?

When are people such as yourself going to realize that assuming that if neither party doesn't agree with a certain view, that doesn't mean they're "both the same". Have you REALLY not being paying that much attention?

If the rather large differences between the two parties aren't what you care about, fine. But don't ignore the differences just because you don't care about them.

Re:Obama

[Sabriel]

dayalsoap, are you sure you provided the correct link? Because I just spent the time to watch it, and Obama doesn't make any such threats.

Re:Obama

[darkmeridian]

I looked at the link you posted. It did not show Obama threatening to arrest the wikileaker. In fact, it shows Obama signing a law that is meant to protect journalists' rights. Perhaps you meant another link that actually showed what you said it would.

But in this case, the wikileaker would be Manning, the guy who swore an oath to abide by the Constitution and follow orders. The video of the killings was edited to remove scenes where the gunship did not shoot at confirmed hostile forces that was actively shooting at US forces due to the risk of harming women and children. This edit was meant to portray the gunship crew in a bad light, not to tell the truth. Now it comes out that he's leaking over 200,000 highly confidential diplomatic conversations, whose release would jeopardize diplomatic relations with our friends and foes alike. Releasing these documents without permission is a crime. That's different than a journalist being forced to name his sources, it's about punishing a man who broke the law.

Re:Obama

[Nimey]

It's easier to say they're identical than to expend time thinking.

Frist!

[Anonymous Coward]

Frist post! :)
oh, and this guy is screwed....

They know not what they seek!

[Cylix]

Good luck finding "Julian" as if such a man would have parted ways with his real name. He is a master of 27 languages and knows the local customs as if he recited them as his daily prayers. This is a man who possesses a near chameleon like instinct and can instantly blend into the background anywhere. Only further surpassing his ability to sink into the inky blackness are the hundreds of contacts he has made from here to hoover damn. Hell, even the rocks and streams seem to offer the man comfort if so much as he breathes a heavy sigh.

I can only laugh when the Pentagon says they want to find "Julian." Just considering the sheer number of hells they'll need to climb down to find the darkest demon who might be able to guess what "Julian" had for lunch just makes me chuckle.

Either that or the Pentagon can just send him an email.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[clustro]

Oh come on.

You know he got lost once in his own museum.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Good luck finding "Julian" as if such a man would have parted ways with his real name.

Obviously, he is The Most Interesting Man in the World, and only drinks Dos Equis... Or something.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I could mod the both of you up.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Cylix]

That was the scene I was thinking of too.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Cylix]

Julian says to the Pentagon, "Stay thirsty my friends."

Re:They know not what they seek!

[linzeal]

He reportedly will seek asylum in Kenya or Iceland if he is worried he might need protection. Iceland currently has some of the most liberal laws regarding whistleblowers and offers significant protection to them like many of the other Scandinavian countries. You know how we always portray the Minnesotans as honest nice folk, well this is where they get it from.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Jafafa Hots]

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.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Anonymous Coward]

I beg to differ. The guy looks like Malfoy from Harry Potter. Even if you didn't know who he was, you'd recognize him for having such a douchey looking hair-cut.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[MichaelSmith]

But Iceland is short of money and the US wouldn't miss the cost of bailing them out.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH, an assassination in those countries will go relatively unnoticed by Americans, while in the US would raise truly massive outcry. Amazing the double standard we live in.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Indeed, if he "vanished" in Kenya, not much would ever come of it.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[w00tsauce]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA That's funny on so many levels

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to get CTU involved, Jack Bauer might be able to shed some light on it.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[linzeal]

Iceland needs money but not that bad, they are a small country that is fiercely protective of their way of life. You could invade and take over their country in an afternoon though. Iceland has no standing army, LA county has more police than them and any town in West Virginia over 100 people has more guns. I think the point is that killing someone in Iceland would have grave diplomatic and strategic consequences, we rely pretty heavily on Iceland for their position between Europe and the the US for shipping and flying.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck finding "Julian" as if such a man would have parted ways with his real name. He is a master of 27 languages and knows the local customs as if he recited them as his daily prayers. This is a man who possesses a near chameleon like instinct and can instantly blend into the background anywhere. Only further surpassing his ability to sink into the inky blackness are the hundreds of contacts he has made from here to hoover damn. Hell, even the rocks and streams seem to offer the man comfort if so much as he breathes a heavy sigh.

I can only laugh when the Pentagon says they want to find "Julian." Just considering the sheer number of hells they'll need to climb down to find the darkest demon who might be able to guess what "Julian" had for lunch just makes me chuckle.

Either that or the Pentagon can just send him an email.

True, they still havent found bin laden, which is more high profile.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Anonymous Coward]

Assassinations are everyday business in Iceland?

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Anonymous Coward]

You had me at, "damn".

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Anonymous Coward]

For pity's sake, this is Julian Assange we're talking about, not Chuck Norris!

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Anonymous Coward]

>"He is a master of 27 languages and knows the local customs as if he recited them as his daily prayers. This is a man who possesses a near chameleon like instinct and can instantly blend into the background anywhere."

>"I thought you said he would blend in, and disappear..."

>"Are you kidding me? Marcus got lost in his own museum"

Re:They know not what they seek!

[theNAM666]

Julian Bourne cannot be found by Pentagon. Pentagon is found by Julian Bourne.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Cwix]

LMFAO.. Thx

Re:They know not what they seek!

[barberousse]

You could invade and take over their country in an afternoon though.

In fact, it is part of the plot of this book.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[toastar]

Iceland needs money but not that bad, they are a small country that is fiercely protective of their way of life. You could invade and take over their country in an afternoon though. Iceland has no standing army, LA county has more police than them and any town in West Virginia over 100 people has more guns. I think the point is that killing someone in Iceland would have grave diplomatic and strategic consequences, we rely pretty heavily on Iceland for their position between Europe and the the US for shipping and flying.

Well of course LA has more Police, That's why we call the us a police state.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, he doesn't *always* drink beer.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, that only makes sense...

The Big Boss keeps his two most trusted lieutenants close at hand, and keeps #3 out in the field.

The U.S. finds the current #3, blows him up, then goes to look for the next one... since the previous 3 was turned into a reddish smear on the ground, the former #4 is now Lieutenant #3.

Eventually it gets to the point where they're chasing #2's second cousin's former roommate, just 'cos he's as close as they get to a #3.

Re:They know not what they seek!

[dajalas]

I heard that Julian's codename was actually "Waldo." He's also used the codename "Carmen Sandiego." :)

Cooperation?

[newtown1100]

How does the Pentagon define cooperation again? Oh wait-willingness to be arrested and tortured, never would've thought!

Re:Cooperation?

[AHuxley]

The ability to wash gov issued news packets as objective reporting.

One step at a time

[JustinFreid]

If the Pentagon couldn't prevent the leak of the documents, what makes them think they can track down Assange.

Re:One step at a time

[MichaelSmith]

If the Pentagon couldn't prevent the leak of the documents, what makes them think they can track down Assange.

I bet they know exactly where he is at all times. They get all the data on passenger lists for aircraft now, with passport numbers. Even for flights which have no US connection they likely get a feed as an anti terrorist thing.

If the US charges him then they can have him arrested if he returns to Melbourne. Even if he avoids the US and places with extradition treaties with the US he will be at risk of turning up in one of those places by "accident".

Say for example they can arrest him in the Philippines, so he doesn't go there but he does go somewhere close to there. All it takes is a runway blocked by a vehicle for a flight to be diverted.

Love the guardian

[mevets]

Julian Assange is painted as a real life Jason Bourne; not so much. I hope, if Julian has these papers, he can get them released. The world of secrets is so yesterday, and the Pentagon/NatSecure pretending this is a security issue would be a joke if they hadn't murdered so many people already. Does the Pentagon really think it is a secret that they are woefully foolish, bigoted, and misanthropic? Really, what else do these contain when `all the presidents men' are willing to roll over on active spies for vindictiveness.

Rock on Julian; forcing what these lunatics say and think into the public sphere is a service to all, and will help change the world for the better.

Re:Love the guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

-1 naivety?

Re:Love the guardian

[AHuxley]

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?

Re:Love the guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

Bourne (film) didn't out the CIA with intent. That was more of an accident. A means for securing revenge at the opportune moment.

Zero similarity on any imagined scale.

Re:Love the guardian

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take all of the above plus numerous false flag terror events for $1000 Alex!

Re:Love the guardian

[AHuxley]

Propaganda Due and Operation Gladio version 2.0 :)

Re:Love the guardian

[Aexia]

Or maybe it's covert operatives and contacts around the world who will get a bullet to the back of the head just so some dumbass can see Hillary "shit her pants".

Re:Love the guardian

[AHuxley]

The idea that a list like that is 'floating' around would/should not happen.
The most easy way to understand it would be from the East Germans. After they had their full spy lists exposed early on they ensured no one person would ever get to put operations together real names.
Worked well until they put it all onto computers in bunkers and the CIA walked out with the full list at the end of the cold war.
What would be floating around would be broad details.

In Soviet America

[Required Snark]

In Soviet America, leaks plug you.

Re:In Soviet America

[arielCo]

I'm sure there's a BP joke waiting in there, but it beats me

Re:In Soviet America

[Anonymous Coward]

In Soviet America, leaks plug you.

Let me correct that for you.

In Nazi Amerika leaks plug you.

We are now a fascist nation not socialist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Fascism, , is a radical and authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy. ...

This started over 12 hours ago

[linzeal]

This is amazing that this has taken Slashdot all day to report on the #1 story on most Tech sites and the #2-3 story on most non-tech sites. Is there a reason political stories are never posted by Soulskill on Slashdot? I'm looking over what he has posted and I can't find any. You would of had at least 1000 comments by now, but you are now posting this at 10 pm PST which means that not a lot of people are going to see this. If you want more info look at my signature, that was my 3rd attempt at getting this posted on Slashdot today. It includes 4-5 links unlike the lead.

Re:This started over 12 hours ago

[LoneHighway]

Yes, I submitted this story 8 hours ago and it was ignored.

Re:This started over 12 hours ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a reason political stories are never posted by Soulskill on Slashdot? I'm looking over what he has posted and I can't find any.

I love the guy all the more. Fire all other editors, I say.

Re:This started over 12 hours ago

[TouchAndGo]

12 hours? I'm amazed it was even that quick

Re:This started over 12 hours ago

[dsoltesz]

I am increasingly shocked how long it takes news to make it to Slashdot... sometimes it's days after the event. I've been frustrated to have posts for fresh news rejected, just to have the same story finally show up a couple days later when it's no longer really news. I just don't bother any more.

Slashdot is teetering on the verge of irrelevancy (or perhaps it's already fallen, but the eds haven't posted that article yet). "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters." Slashdot articles aren't "News." The information is old, stale, and discussed to death by the time it hits Slashdot. There is a point where the news is so old, the quality of the article simply no longer matters; Slashdot past that point long ago. The only reason I keep coming back is for the discussion. Digg and their ilk might be fast, but Slashdot article write-ups and commenters are far more interesting, intelligent, insightful (most of the time)... I don't have to put up with pages and pages of repetitive fucking ascii art jokes.

Re:This started over 12 hours ago

[Anonymous Coward]

The information is old, stale, and discussed to death by the time it hits Slashdot.

If 12 hours is a long time for news to you, then you are spending far too much time in idle banter. Don't you do... anything? I work diligently on something, and 12 hours goes by before I can blink. In fact, that describes every day for me.

Do people like you actively read three to ten forums or something? How do you do that and still have a life? Why are you so caught up in discussing things as they happen? Are you retired?

Re:This started over 12 hours ago

[linzeal]

Some of us don't work for 8-10 hour stretches of time without any real break. I'm a grad student and part time CAD monkey who is online about 14 hours a day between school, work and home and I devote maybe 5-15 minutes an hour to browsing forums and posting. How do you not have time to follow forums discussing current events, do you watch TV or something? This is my 2-3 hours a day of TV.

Re:This started over 12 hours ago

[mcvos]

Don't worry. In a few days, someone will post it again.

Re:As they should be. NO RIGHTS ARE INALIENABLE

[eee_eff]

No this is not true, and the attitude is deeply troubling. Because society is FREE and there are certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Please look up the meaning of inalienable if you don't understand it. Some of those are contained in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There's a different point of view

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Wikipedia (and consistent with the media reports):

Manning reportedly said that the diplomatic documents expose "almost criminal political back dealings" and that they explain "how the first world exploits the third, in detail"

Probably this is the same sort of thing that U.S. Marine Major General Smedley Darlington Butler recognized about the military and political black-ops in the early twentieth century. What's new is old.

It's also interesting that Bradley Manning wasn't given an award for pointing out corruption in government, seeing as how congress enacted whistle-blower protection for people who expose corruption in government.

Seems like the military wants to have it's cake and eat it too. Too bad for Manning and the military.

From the article:

Although it is likely that WikiLeaks has broken US laws in de-encrypting the video from Baghdad and publishing secret documents, the tone of an American official who spoke to the Daily Beast sounded more desperate than threatening. "We'd like to know where he is; we'd like his cooperation in this," the official said.

I'm certain that if they get their hands on Lassange, that they would quickly arrest him. There is nothing more threatening to government security than publicity about government corruption.

If in fact the Commander in Chief of the U.S. military (Barrik Obama) is indeed not Right Wing like so many Republicans claim (they say he is a "socialist" and a "liberal") then Obama would make sure that Bradley Manning is given a Presidential Pardon and that any embarrassing and illegal conduct conducted by the military and diplomatic core be brought out into the public (through his proclaimed government "transparency" initiative) and any unethical or illegal acts be punished accordingly.

Somehow I'm thinking that isn't going to happen, because Obama is just a different shade of neoconservative than his predecessor. My two cents anyway. Moderate with moderation!

Re:There's a different point of view

[DeadCatX2]

I don't know if they'd quickly arrest him. What if he had some arrangement by which the cables are released to the public if he is taken into custody? It's quite possible they would arrest him, because once in custody it's still pretty stupid to have your people release something, but it's possible. If they're that concerned about those cables getting out, there's a good chance they would think twice.

Re:There's a different point of view

[Cwix]

If I were him, the arrangement would be to release a few documents every day i was in custody.

the world of spooks and secrets

[circletimessquare]

is incredibly difficult to maintain and always prone to exposure

i'm not arguing against your words on moral grounds, i'm arguing agains them on the grounds of feasibility

if you play the game that is security through secrecy, then you must recognize that part of that game is break-ins. you have declared your allegiance to a world where there are attackers constantly trying to penetrate walls and safeguards. and there are always moles, and double agents, and disenchanted guards looking for a quick buck

so it is a brittle world, one which could pop at any moment, and yet its legitimacy rests on guards and keys. so when, not if, the guards and keys are penetrated, part of your legitimacy is destroyed. its a game you can only lose

if you are eternally vigilant, then maybe this is the world for you. but more likely you are human, and fallible, and secrets will get out, as they are wont to do. its a world that can never be maintained for very long. it is an unstable world

all castles eventually fall. sometimes, they fall merely for being castles, being targets, giving your enemy something to focus its energies on

Give him a Nobel Prize

[chrisale]

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.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

I agree 100%

What are we afraid of? our own actions? Well then we certainly shouldn't be hiding them. We should be rethinking them.. but first we must know the truth.

Release it all.

The government has screwed over our own people for many years now. Time for a little pay back.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

The government's apparent choice to be very public about pursuing this guy suddenly made this information seem much more interesting than it previously had been. Now I actually want to know what was in those diplomatic exchanges, etc.

The only reason I can think (besides abject incompetence) for the government to be going about this this way is to use it as an excuse for a more restrictive law to keep the people from seeing the information of its government in the future.

Secrecy is not a good thing for the people of a country. The people cannot act as a check on what the government is doing (by voting or otherwise) without this knowledge.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

True. And unlike Obama, he actually did something to deserve the prize beforehand.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuckin' A

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

One day, this man should be nominated, and win, a Nobel Peace Prize.

What, you think he's more deserving than the president of a country which has been involved in more wars than any other ?

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to miss the obvious here - the Nobel prizes are also part of "the system". Smoke & mirrors, my friend.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[physicsphairy]

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.

And you sir should please promptly provide your name, SSN, birthday, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, place of residence, and any PINs or passwords you may use.

It could be that you will not reply with this information as requested, because your purported reverence for "truth" does not extend to disclosing information which would enable others to do you harm.

Well, welcome to the world of classified information, where if operatives get outed, they get a bullet in the back of the head. I'm not sure what's contained in the yet-to-be-released documents, and maybe indeed some or all of it is information that should be brought before the public eye. But I have a feeling (as will be evidenced by your lack of compliance with my request) that your gungho damn-the-consequences attitude to disclosure is based strictly on the supposition that you aren't going to be one of the direct sufferers if things turn out poorly.

I would like everything our government does to have oversight, but in many cases (witness protection, undercover investigation, battleplans, etc.) the correct mechanism for oversight is to create overseers (judges, internal investigators, et al.) who can answer to the public without compromising their safety and well-being by letting any hostile person have the same information. If that system fails then intentional leaks may be a justifiable recourse.

God help us if there was anything, that, say, put crazy little Kim Jong Il in a missile firing mood.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Rogerborg]

I agree that the documents should be published, but let's be clear that the "pay back" (in retaliation from Excitable Types) will be against US citizens, not against any member of the ruling cabal. They, and their creatures in the Legacy Media, will lay the blame for the consequences against the leakers, not the speakers.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[BoberFett]

That may be the only way to wake Americans up. If the world gets pissed at us because abused our privilege as one of the worlds most prosperous countries, and abdicated our authority to corrupt politicians as we drank Starbucks and watched American Idol, we will simply be getting what we deserve. The citizens of the US needs a wake up call before those assholes in Washington destroy this country.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[BoberFett]

Who exactly is going to create overseers? The people who are currently trying to keep everything a secret? Hell, there's currently a push by some in government to make it illegal to take video of police officers while on duty.

This country is going downhill fast, a leak of some seriously embarrassing documents might be just the thing we need, even if it costs a few lives. God only knows how many lives it will cost in the future if we keep heading down the totalitarian path we seem to be on.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[whisper_jeff]

I understand Slashdot's desire for "information wants to be free" mixed with a healthy dose of "don't trust the government" lead you to make that comment and lead others to mod you up but that was the dumbest shit I've ever read on Slashdot in about ... eight(?) years of reading this site.

Releasing this classified information could result in people being embarrassed. Big deal, right? It could result in international relations degrading or outright collapsing. Big deal, right? It could result in operatives being uncovered. Big deal, right? It could result in operatives being killed. Big deal, right? It could result in soldiers and civilians being killed. Big deal, right?

Right. It is a big deal. Just because this one person with a cavalier attitude towards security and classified information thought his "information wants to be free" attitude was more important than the military's "this information needs to be kept from outside eyes because it's important" does NOT mean it's is right to release the information to the public. I'm going to trust the brain trust of those behind the documents a HELL of a lot more than I'm going to trust the judgment of one man who broke laws to steal information.

I know I'll get modded down hard for this. I really don't give a fuck. If this information does get posted to wikileaks, there will be bad consequences and, if those bad consequences include 1 person being killed than it is a big deal that the information has been leaked.

Wikileaks serves a valuable purpose and I hope it is able to continue for many years to come but it has to be balanced with good judgment and it is incredibly bad judgment to release this volume of classified information because you _know_ that revealing something in there will lead to something decidedly bad - something beyond someone just being embarrassed.

You may think he deserves a Nobel Prize - I think he deserves to be tried for treason.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[dummondwhu]

The more comments I read, the more clear it is to me that the vast majority of people here are not entrusted with classified data of any kind.

Look, I understand your concern, I really do. But information is classified for a reason. I read a lot of comments here where people seem to think that this is simply a huge pile of embarrassing information so let's release it and give some people red faces. And some of it might be. But that's irrelevant.

Those of us who are entrusted with classified information are trusted to safeguard that information. We are required to safeguard that information under penalty of law. I'm not saying that bad things can't or don't get covered up, but as I said, information is classified for a reason and in 250,000 pages of documents, you're not going to be able to convince me that we're just talking about a pile of embarrassing memos.

I think part of the problem is that people assume that most classified documents are flashy, interesting things like nuclear secrets or stuff about Area 51. Unfortunately, the reality is that while that kind of thing exists, foreign operatives work tirelessly to reconstruct capabilities, situations, policies, and other, less sexy, things by piecing together little bits of information (not that they don't want the big stuff too). A confidential document might seem innocuous, when, in reality, it contains pieces to a larger puzzle.

You might think that exposing the puzzle to the world is the right thing to do, but I implore you to believe me when I say it's not. There are ways to combat wrong-doing and I know it stings to know that there are people in high places getting away with bad stuff here and there. There are checks and balances in place and there will always be whistle blowers keeping people honest. But releasing confidential documents to the outside world is just plain wrong. The soldier that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because not only did he promise to protect the classified data that he leaked, but he also knows as well as I do that releasing it can do harm to all of us, not just the people that he wants to expose.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but I can't resist this one....

A favored quote by many who are "interested" in maintaining state security: "Why keep it secret if you have nothing to hide?"

I saw the video online awhile back, I've seen the laws being passed "presumably" in our collective best interests, and can only conclude that Ben Franklin was absolutely right. Anyone who would trade freedom for security deserves neither. I know the world is imperfect, and releasing some secrets can get people killed, yeah, I get that. I also get, however, that a free and democratic society as ours is SUPPOSED to have been has on it the onus of doing things that obviate the need for such actions IN THE FIRST PLACE. If your policies and actions, if made public, are such that they could bring about universal armageddon, then maybe you damn well better reevaluate the validity of those policies and actions from the word "go", hmm?

Geez, I wish some of these folks could understand that if you sacrifice the very thing your fighting to protect for the sake of convenience or expediency, then you have become as bad as, if not worse than, the enemy you're fighting. A shocking number of folks just don't freaking get this very basic point, and an increasing number of them tend to vote along conservative lines. "Liberals" don't get a pass on this either, though. Far too many of them are just as willing to sit back and just watch madness like this happen while doing nothing about it.

People, selfish, greedy, fearful, vindictive, spoiled, people, as a general rule.........suck. HARD.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[linzeal]

There are over 500 million documents waiting to be declassified from the past 25 years alone. There is simply no way that much information would ever need to be classified unless the practice of classifying information in certain agencies and by some individuals had grossly abused the system for either financial, political or personal gain. Your words ring hollow friend, I have low-level clearance and find this case interesting for the fact that I've seen systematic abuses of using secrecy even at the lowest rungs of government bureaucracy. I cannot even imagine how perversely they abuse classifying information in the higher echelons of government where billions are routinely expended for projects that are run in absolute secrecy even from most of congress.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Frenchman113]

Well, welcome to the world of classified information, where if operatives get outed, they get a bullet in the back of the head.

Maybe they should stop doing things that make them deserve getting shot in the head?

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, welcome to the world of classified information, where if operatives get outed, they get a bullet in the back of the head.

Good. Let the bullets fly. After a bunch of people get killed perhaps the powers of the world will start dealing honestly with each other.

Well, it's a nice dream at least.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[http]

The system has failed utterly. One million dead Iraqis would cry out for justice, were they alive to do so. They've already got a bullet to the back of the head (or the heart, or the femoral artery, or to the clean water supply) , for no good reason. The war itself is illegal, so it's no surprise that the military combatants don't feel that any law applies to them. Oh, right, the diplomats pushed for providing them with immunity. Sweet!
Your snarky comment about releasing SS#, CC#, passwords, etc is false. Most people haven't committed war crimes on a systematic basis. The US government and military have.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[BoberFett]

Even as enlisted grunt almost 20 years ago, I had Secret level clearance. It doesn't really take much to get a security clearance to be "entrusted with classified data" that you seem to think is vital to the nation.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be all well and good if the people who we put in charge to oversee things actually bothered to answer to the public.

Unless you like your wiretaps without warrants.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

> Release it all.

That would be stupid, and counter-productive, for now.
The procedure they should follow, if they have the documents are:

1. Put a lot of juicy documents not leaked from this source under a dead man switch (in case wikileaks is attacked).
2. Put everything (maybe just related to Pentagon/USA) under a second dead man switch in case wikileaks is terminally closed.
3. Do not release anything from the source in question until after it have been a final decision of the fate of the whistleblower and deny any relations or contact with him.

This should give the most protection of the whistleblower as the defence can deny everything during the trials and if he is finally convicted they might help by releasing certain parts of the material that could rally the opinion for him but for now wikileaks should just sit tight and wait to see what the outcome of these immediate events are.

If wikileaks would reveal any of these documents too early it might give fuel to the conviction against this person and that would scare of other whistleblowers from trusting wikileaks for a long time.
If they play this out right it could gain quite a lot of trust and probably do more good in the long run.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[dummondwhu]

Ah, yes, because wars are fought and won by grunts with rifles. I suppose there's nothing vital about keeping radar tracking capabilities classified. And why on earth should we care if bad guys know what's in our missile uplinks and downlinks? Why don't we just fill everyone in on how we combat jamming? While we're at it, let's tell them all the capabilities of our ships, land-based weapons platforms, and so on. There's nothing there that could come back to bite us.

You know, to be honest with you, politically, I have serious libertarian leanings and I'm not sure we should even have a standing army, and I'm definitely sure we shouldn't have troops stationed in a hundred and some odd countries around the world. But to sit here and act like we should just think military capability isn't something that should be safeguarded is simply asinine.

There are an awful lot of people in this world that would kill us tomorrow if they had our capability instead of their own. That's not terror fear-mongering, it's a fact. Some would argue that it would be us reaping what we've sown. Maybe that's true, but if you think I'm going to help you find out, you're nuts.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[CptNerd]

Well, welcome to the world of classified information, where if operatives get outed, they get a bullet in the back of the head.

Maybe they should stop doing things that make them deserve getting shot in the head?

Like existing?

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[AK Marc]

Look, I understand your concern, I really do. But information is classified for a reason. I read a lot of comments here where people seem to think that this is simply a huge pile of embarrassing information so let's release it and give some people red faces. And some of it might be. But that's irrelevant.

For one, it is not irrelevant. Any abuses mean that the system is broken, especially when non-damaging release of abuses results in the same penalties as releasing damaging information.

Also, information is classified for a reason. But what's that reason? In many cases, it's because it is protecting private companies who participate in the military industrial complex. The number of documents classified because an actual American would be in jeopardy of loss of life seems much smaller than those that protect the profits of private companies. But then, no one gets to browse through them to check, and you speak like you get to see a number of classified documents, and if that's the case, you'd see a subset of them. So to take a guess of the rest based on your viewing of them may be wrong because you may have been looking at more operational documents and less of the housekeeping ones.

And because we can't know, is another reason they need more scrutiny, not less.

There are checks and balances in place and there will always be whistle blowers keeping people honest. But releasing confidential documents to the outside world is just plain wrong.

If all the documents are classified, how can you blow the whistle?

The soldier that did that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law because not only did he promise to protect the classified data that he leaked, but he also knows as well as I do that releasing it can do harm to all of us, not just the people that he wants to expose.

I'm not harmed by the release so far. I'm curious what harm you think will come to me if the rest were released. Will North Korea invade? Will my job fire me? With the military come and shoot me? Really, what harm would come to me if every classified document the government has, including the ones worth keeping classified, were to be released today? You raised this from just harm to the military or those listed there, but to actual, personal, me. And I see nothing that could have ever brought harm to me in any way in any document ever declassified (or released while still classified). So I'm very curious what twist of logic you go through to indicate some imminent harm to my person from release of this, or even the sum of all classified documents held by the USA.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like everything our government does to have oversight, but in many cases (witness protection, undercover investigation, battleplans, etc.) the correct mechanism for oversight is to create overseers (judges, internal investigators, et al.) who can answer to the public without compromising their safety and well-being by letting any hostile person have the same information. If that system fails then intentional leaks may be a justifiable recourse.

If? If? IF!? Why was collateral murder classified in the first place? Why couldn't Reuters get a copy of the video showing the US military gunning down their reporters via FOIA? I'll tell you why: The US military was covering up murder. IF? Seriously, you are one fucked up individual. The system is broken. The overseers have demonstrated repeatedly that they can no longer be trusted. Manning is a true hero.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[AK Marc]

I think he meant being a lying spy operating on hostile soil committing treason (of them, not us). Just putting "Bob Jones" in a document somewhere won't result in every Bob Jones getting killed. It takes some statement of them committing some crime in the location they are for political reasons or working to subvert some violent organization for them to be in any danger at all. It's not existing that puts them in danger, it's actively working to subvert violent organizations as a part of their job.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[BoberFett]

You think everything kept secret from Americans is all about our technical military specs?

The problem with allowing secrecy is that government officials can claim anything is secret, and once that happens you have no way of knowing whether it really should be or not. You have to trust the person making the decision. And if you're a libertarian, I know you don't trust politicians.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[FiloEleven]

If this information does get posted to wikileaks, there will be bad consequences and, if those bad consequences include 1 person being killed than it is a big deal that the information has been leaked.

Eh, I dunno about all that. I'm sure a lot of this stuff consists of military secrets and whatnot that gives the US military the advantage--which it uses to kill people. Not always bad people, and not always for good reasons. It seems a little lopsided to say that one person's death due to release of information is a big deal when the status quo results in thousands of deaths. I don't think you intended to make it "us versus them" but that's what it looks like.

I think there is a responsible way to release some of that classified information, and that is to release only things that Wikileaks thinks civilians should be aware of. Yes, there will exist the possibility of some bad stuff that you mentioned, but I'll bet it's only in the embarrassment and international relations categories. The US government has been powered for decades by its own momentum; for the most part it takes no account of the citizens it was created to serve. Since this stuff is military data, there might not be a whole lot in there, but even bringing to light the awful practices like those found in Gitmo would do a lot to show that the people in charge aren't who they say they are, don't follow their own rules, and have purposes other than "exporting freedom" in mind.

It's not an all-or-none proposition, and I hope that Wikileaks is responsible enough to leak only information that the US gov't is hiding from its own people. Lord knows nobody in Washington has the stones to clean things up.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[dummondwhu]

Obviously not. But you can't have it both ways. Either there is secret information or there isn't. Once we agree there is a single piece of information that should be kept secret, then we're forced to give someone the power to make that decision.

My only point in bringing up technical specs is to show that most clear thinking individuals will agree that there is some information that should be secret. Therefore, we have to work within the system to protect that information. I'm not comfortable with the probability that 260,000 pages of diplomatic cables and the like contain nothing but political embarrassment and scandal.

And no, I don't trust politicians one bit. But I also know that if I released the classified information that I have access to, politicians wouldn't likely be the ones to pay the price either. Everone is in such a hurry to expose politicians for what we already know they are and they don't even stop to think what the unintended consequnces of releasing that much classified information could be.

Upsetting the apple cart isn't going to stop the problem. There needs to be classified information and if people don't like the gatekeepers of that information, then they had damn well better start electing some better ones. The big government people out there are reaping what they've sown for the last hundred years.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

God help us if there was anything, that, say, put crazy little Kim Jong Il in a missile firing mood.

Wow, I gotta remember that - it can be used to justify anything whatsoever.

Don't like doing your homework? "I can't! It might put Kim Jong Il in a missile firing mood!"

Don't want to wait in line with everyone else at the cash register? "I gotta go first! Otherwise, Kim Jong Il might get into a missile firing mood!"

Your wife has got a headache tonight? "But honey! If we don't do it, Kim Jong Il will surely end up in a missile firing mood!"

Sheer brilliance.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[thogard]

Some times things are secret for very stupid reasons. If you look back to the early space suits, you will see the stated reasons was to help heat the astronaut in the cold vacuum of space even though basic physics says they will quickly over heat as they are generating heat and in a very well insulated environment. A whole slew of related things were considered top secret because the Russians hadn't started using Pelter effect cooling. The odd thing is that the reason the Russians didn't use the Peltier devices is they had decided compressors worked better and many parts of the US space suit remained top secret. Years later the next generation space suits would carry on the secret status because while the Gemini units had a secret charging connector (to not give away the power requirements of the suit), that was copied to Apollo and then to the Shuttle suits. So half a century after some engineer thought "this might be secret because the Russians hadn't figured it out", there will still be documents classified as secret even though the history of the stuff has been widely published.

A better story is told by Dr Richard Feynman about getting some of the most secret documents declassified from Los Alamos where they sat in a vault for decades and no one had ever changed the combination on the master safe that held the most secret of secret details of the bomb project.

Re:Give him a Nobel Prize

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the population of the US did NOT support the gov?
And they did not vote George W. Bush and his war criminals for a 2nd term?
And that by 'supporting the troops' and not wanting their 'sacrifice to be in vain' they supporting the War?

The populace in the US have, at least, turned a blind eye to what it's government has been doing for the last 100 years.
Ignorance does not protect you from guilt.

Hey, it was ok for Germany, Japan, Iraq and Libya, just to name a few.
Don't cry foul when your own actions come back to haunt you.

Wikileaks doesn't possess these documents

[mentil]

according to WikiLeaks' twitter feed: "Allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified US embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect."
Would Wikileaks have a reason to lie and withhold these messages, if the US govt. has the capability to find out if Manning sent them to Wikileaks? Maybe he leaked them, but to someone else, and it was simply assumed to have been to Wikileaks?

Re:Wikileaks doesn't possess these documents

[linzeal]

They are defending themselves with not reveling the exact nominal figure of the documents they have. They may not have 260,000 documents but they might have 200,000 or 20,000, really any are sufficient so far as they show the arrogance going on behind closed doors at the US State Department. The way the US runs roughshod over any foreign policy decision if it conflicts with our own, well except Israel.

Re:Wikileaks doesn't possess these documents

[TexasTroy]

Herein lies a credibility problem. If wikileaks does have the documents, why are they not publishing them? For extortion? If they are what they say they are, they should be publishing them en masse, not trickling them out for sensationalism.

Re:Wikileaks doesn't possess these documents

[Protoslo]

Wikileaks hasn't posted anything except the Apache guncam video since March. Who knows what Assange is holding on to? The website wasn't even back up until a few weeks ago, supposedly because they needed $750,000 to pay their bandwidth bill and other expenses. Does most of that money go to support Assange's pointless paranoid nomadic lifestyle? I would think that frequently crossing national borders would make him more of a target. If I had something to leak, I wouldn't send it to Wikileaks, because I would have no confidence that it would ever be "leaked," just like these alleged embassy cables. They also have an awful, inaccessible web design.

That said, if Wikileaks does have the cables and was still "evaluating" them or something when the Manning story broke, lying about it now protects Manning from further (260,000 more) criminal charges. He can argue that the video should have been FOIAed in the first place, was shown to Reuters journalists, etc., but those arguments wouldn't get him very far with the diplomatic cables. Even if he can't dodge the charge for the video, there was only one video. Perhaps Wikileaks is merely trying to protect their source, and avoid foreclosing his legal defense that "I was just bragging and exaggerating to compensate for my deep sense of personal inadequacy; there were no cables."

Re:Wikileaks doesn't possess these documents

[linzeal]

Who says the documents aren't encrypted? Most people have no idea what wikileaks does but it is likely to involve cracking crypto. Did you think all that money went to hosting?

Re:Wikileaks doesn't possess these documents

[Anonymous Coward]

or their just trying to see what the pentagon will do, as they may or may not have the documents.
i think wikileaks is provoking some kind of a flinch response from the pentagon, if they do have them, what will they do? if they don't have them, what will they do?

Re:Wikileaks doesn't possess these documents

[RichiH]

The key phrase is "as far as we can tell". They probably have a ton of stuff they still need to go through/try to decrypt (though that always had a strange ring to it. You would assume scret agencies would use strong crypto).

Re:Wikileaks doesn't possess these documents

[klui]

Maybe it's a psyop trail balloon so the US government would have public support going after WikiLeaks. Kinda like WMDs against Iraq.

This guy Manning

[MichaelSmith]

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).

Re:This guy Manning

[Anonymous Coward]

I fail to see how a 22 year old guy can be an "Intelligence specialist".

Chances are that "specialist" is really just fancy talk for "grunt who doesn't have any actual title yet". Like the army rank.

Re:This guy Manning

[corbettw]

Don't confuse specialist (someone with specialized training) with expert (someone with extensive experience).

Re:This guy Manning

[Anonymous Coward]

Specialist is a rank not a title.

Re:This guy Manning

[Nimey]

If you score high enough on the ASVAB test (IIRC 90th percentile & above), recruiters are apt to push you into Intelligence. That's what the recruiter who reviewed my test scores in high school said.

Assuming he enlisted right out of high school, he could have been assigned to an intelligence unit (or assigned intelligence duties in a line unit) for approx. four years, which is plenty of time to get enough experience to be a "specialist".

Re:This guy Manning

[Anonymous Coward]

His age is expressed in hexadecimal, making him actually 34, and a badass.

Re:This guy Manning

[arielCo]

Much in the same way that teens and twentysomethings in call centers are "executives".

Re:This guy Manning

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not in the military, only acquainted with one person who is, pretty much guessing about all this, and mostly writing this for those who scored this "Insigtful" instead of "Funny"...

"Specialist" is a class of ranks above private -- it means you've had some kind of "special" training (i.e. took a class on how radio frequencies bounce around inside a cave, or something) on a particular track beyond the Basic Training, which everyone gets. In this case, the guy had some "special" training on how to grab 260k documents he wasn't supposed to, and hand them over to the public. :-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialist_(rank)

Re:This guy Manning

[Anonymous Coward]

In America, my pet rock could be considered an intelligence specialist.

Re:This guy Manning

[Hasai]

Think "file clerk," except with a security clearance.

An Intelligence Operations Specialist, which I suspect is what you're thinking about, is something else entirely.

Re:This guy Manning

[tibman]

I'm pretty sure his rank was Specialist. You are right, there is no such MOS called Intelligence Specialist.

http://www.us-army-info.com/pages/mos/intelligence/intelligence-mos.html

Re:This guy Manning

[MichaelSmith]

Well I was more thinking about the usage of specialist outside the military. I expect it to imply a large amount of domain experience.

Re:This guy Manning

[Mana Mana]

>>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".

"In theeee Army. Be! All that you can be! In the ARMY!" Join the Army out of High School, get a secure job, great advancement possibilities, the chance to get killed too (but we're young, we'll live forever), AND GET HIGH RESPONSIBILITIES WITH EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT AT A YOUNG AGE---TO SHOW A CIVILIAN BOSS AFTER DISCHARGE---in exchange for low wages. Its a bargain that fares exceedingly well for the motivated in peace time; the calculus of course is skewed during war time. boom!chugggaluggga! boooom!chuggggaaalugggaaa!

Re:This guy Manning

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you've never worked for the U.S. Government.

Soulskill should work at Gizmodo not Slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

He posts crap about MMORPGs and trivial tech baubles on Gizmodo all the time and than randomly posts science stories from arXiv that are so over his head and most of Slashdot they only receive 50-60 posts, mostly humorous. If I wanted to read about fanboy crap I would visit those sites and if I want to read arXiv I will go back to grad school. Slashdot which is supposed to be a bit above the bleating fray, has joined it. Soulskill is riding the shark this site is jumping.

Obama has manhunting squads

[linzeal]

He also signed an order for an extra-judicial killing of an American citizen, ignored when an American citizen was killed and is making the greatest changes to arresting, prosecuting and punishing government whistleblowers since the cold war. Obama has also kept the manhunting squads (warning PDF) created by Vice Pres Cheney running at full steam. These are the same sort of people who pulled off that assassination in Dubai, but will likely be far more competent.

MOD PARENT WRONG

[Vellmont]

I watched the whole video. It doesn't mention wikileaks, the wikileaks founder, or anything surrounding this case at all. The video is about an entirely different leak (of which almost no details are given), and Obama doesn't even threaten to arrest that guy.

I guess he is now...

[Anonymous Coward]

Americas Most Wanted.

Yeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaahhhhh.....

Here comes the court case Judges please be fair

[tg123]

Here comes the court case- I just knew it

Why else would Australian customs cancel his Julian's passport ?

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/australian-wikileak-founders-passport-confiscated-20100516-v6dw.html

First Julian is not an citizen of the usa.

I just hope that the Judge/ Judges who handles this case asks themselves :

Why did you enter the legal profession?

Do you believe in the principle of a fair trial?

Do you believe in free speech?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice

Re:Here comes the court case Judges please be fair

[Cimexus]

Er, this was thoroughly explained at the time of the original article - his passport was 'confiscated' because it was old and damaged and wouldn't pass through the bloody readers. It was returned 15 minutes later, and he was informed THAT passport would need to be cancelled. That is, he'd have to go to the post office at some point and request a new one. NOT that his right to a passport had been removed altogether.

No conspiracy there, just customs informing him his old and tattered passport needed replacing. Happens all the time to regular travelers.

Mod Parent Up!

[mosb1000]

He is right on the money in saying that:

if . . . you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, and you're going to unilaterally decide to do release it because of your own personal beliefs or convictions, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it.

His comment is not a troll, and this level of moderation is clearly and abuse of the moderator system. Ironically, it seems to have been perpetrated by people who believe information should not be obstructed! Hey, assholes, if you really believe in it, how about you prove it by not shouting down or drowning out opposing viewpoints! If you modded this down, and you're reading this post, please comment in this thread to undo it. If isn't fair to mod him down just because you disagree with him.

That said, what does it say about the government of the US that they failed to release the Collateral Murder video on their own? How many other incidents like this have happened in Iraq that the government has covered up? Don't the people of the US have a need to know how their tax dollars are being spent? How would these videos hurt our military effort? Don't the people of Iraq know they've been given the shaft? And don't the other nations in the region assume the same anyway? Anyway, food for thought. It does bother me that he wasn't willing to come out in the first place, but I don't know all the details either.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[linzeal]

Should "society's consequences" include being hunted down by a CIA death squad? That is the crux of this because we have no idea what level of force is going to be used in administrating the wishes of the government on silencing this gentleman. In fact we don't have any idea because they refuse to release documents that show the US is acting illegally according to its own laws and international agreements including the seminal Fourth Genevea Convention on the rights of non-combatants in CIA drone attacks, black ops in Iran and domestic spying at home.

Once secrecy begins to be used an excuse to act according to a decision-making apparatus that has separated itself from the democratically elected one than such a society is on the path to totalitarianism as it rejects transparency it loses legitimacy and eventually will only be able to rule through institutions that use propaganda, intimidation and other actions that cohere to its true nature.

Re:Mod Parent Up!

[mosb1000]

I will not defend the State, it's big enough to take care of itself. But what I mean is, if someone releases this kind of information, but refuses to be held accountable for it, it is all too easy for supporters of the State to say "he's just a coward and a hater" and ignore everything he says. On the other hand, if he were to come forward with the information, the CIA would likely kill him, but no thinking person would be able to deny the truth.

Is it really that hard?

[MacGyver2210]

From the top of the WikiLeaks main page:

"# Fri, 11 Jun 2010 14:37:12 wikileaks: Super panel tonight in Vegas with Julian Assange, Valerie Plame & Scott Risen | IRE10 bit.ly/dwcjxI"

Wow, is it really that hard to find him? He tweets his location pretty regularly...

I hope he gets a gun and exercises his 2nd amendment right. If there was ever something I think it applied to, I would imagine this is it.

Re:Is it really that hard?

[Pedro II]

yes, it is.

If you read here: http://trueslant.com/colinhorgan/2010/06/11/wikileaks-julian-assange-and-how-wikileaks-protects-itself/

It says: "Assange was scheduled to speak at an event in Las Vegas this week, but has since dropped out. Obviously. His whereabouts are currently unknown."

Even if they find him, the documents are everywhere, even behind the control of Julian Assange.

Re:Is it really that hard?

[Larryish]

Isn't the 2nd amendment the "right to remain silent"?

That's what Hannity told me.

UCMJ Article 106

[codepunk]

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.

Re:UCMJ Article 106

[Anonymous Coward]

I vote DEATH!

Re:UCMJ Article 106

[MrCanard]

What makes you so sure they aren't generating a world of fud or this is not some sort of black flag operation?

Re:UCMJ Article 106

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's not enough for you guys to practice barbarism in the for of eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, but now you actually have the *death penalty* for revealing government coverups. What is the difference between the US and China (for instance) again?

Treason is lying to the american public about WMDs

[microbox]

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.

you're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

obama clearly threatens the wikileaker, no if ands or buts about it.

he also authorized the assassination of US citizens without due process, somthing bush couldnt do in his wildest dreams

wake up and smell his nigger hole

Re:you're wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

what the hell are you talking about? His EXACT words in that video are: "What this act does is it sends a strong message from the united states government and from the state department, that we are paying attention to how other governments are operating when it comes to the press." now obviously you refuse to take a different approach to that statement, but to me it clearly states the EXACT OPPOSITE to what you're saying, making it known that the USA want's other governments to PROMOTE whistle blowers to point out government corruption instead of silencing them.

Unarmed civilians?

[Anonymous Coward]

How did Wikileaks know that the people killed by the helicopters in the video were "unarmed civilians"? Did the other "unarmed civilians" who were carrying AK47's tell them?

Concerning the Reuters journalists, if an AP or UPI reporter had been in Dresden during the WW2 British air raid and had died in the firestorm, would someone have filed charges against the bomber pilots? Or Churchill?

War is war. When you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you die. It comes with the territory.

Re:Unarmed civilians?

[Bobakitoo]

All good, except they claim to use "surgical strike", they claim to do "humane warfare", they claim to save these peoples. So war is war and collaterals die. But then they did lie about the truth of war to the public. They deserve to be punished for that or do you value so little democracy?

Everyone know that peoples will die in war. That is not what is the matter here. These leaks are proofs of what really happening. The public need to be informed of what is been done, in their names, for there is no democracy without a informed public.

Re:Unarmed civilians?

[gencha]

Have you even seen the video? Cause you sure sound like you didn't. I guess I could believe that they mistook a guys camera for an RPG. And I guess I understand that you have to kill such a threat. What I don't get is why they killed the people who came to help the wounded. And why they shot a car with children inside. And I have only seen this stuff on a video with suboptimal resolution. Those guys were right there and surely had the ability to analyze the scene better than me. So, don't give me that "war is war" bullshit. And comparing this war with WW2 is almost an insult.

Re:Unarmed civilians?

[je ne sais quoi]

War is war.

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.

Re:Unarmed civilians?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it seems to me that the difference is that in the Dresden bombings, the pilots weren't looking right at people and able to identify them. Also, in the beginning of the video, it sounds very much like the American voice identifies a specific target. Coincidentally, the little camera cross hairs were pointing straight at a journalist. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I might find that a bit suspicious.

Re:Unarmed civilians?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is the wrong question. According to the Geneva Convention, the question is, "How did those helicopter pilots know that none of those people were civilians?"

Re:Unarmed civilians?

[Anonymous Coward]

To be honest I dont blame the chopper pilots for the deaths of the initial group. They had rocket weaponry and there was a US armoured convoy nearby.

However the subsequent firing upon of a van with absolutely no idea what its purpose or motive was and no confirmed hostile intent or weapons visible is murder in my eyes.

Any good samaritan in Iraq, upon seeing people gunned down from the skies should not help in case they are targeted as well.

Re:Unarmed civilians?

[kindbud]

War is war. When you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you die. It comes with the territory.

The problem with that view of this "war" is that anywhere can be the wrong place, and any time can be the wrong time. So you are talking about a world where summary execution is always acceptable, so long as it is done by a US soldier.

Re:Unarmed civilians?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about if the war was in YOUR backyard? Would you be so smug?

Re:Unarmed civilians?

[Anonymous Coward]

War is war.

And war is wrong.

Re:Unarmed civilians?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you operate under the illusion that the public somehow believes war is not nasty; and even more so because the government tells them that? Perhaps the general public simply aren't as outraged about this as you are. Go park your tempest in a tea pot next to the AK47s and RPGs that were recovered from the insurgents those journalists were embedded with.

Re:Unarmed civilians?

[lrm242]

Being a few hundred yards away from a known US military operation, with insurgents carrying weapons, is not defined simply as the 'wrong' place. Its defined as being with the enemy. These journalists knew the risks they were taking by being so close to the action with people that were armed and operating as insurgents. Why is this outrageous? Because it somehow offends your fragile sensibilities that groups of humans on the wrong team got blown up by automatic cannons.

Re:Unarmed civilians?

[Mana Mana]

>>War is war.

>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 o

*jajaja* Reminds me of the old saw: Were you in the Vietnam War? `There was no war, it was a police action!'

Intelligent Response

[neoshroom]

Aside from the fact that the Army had no reason whatever to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed", and the fact that he skipped out on a planned appearance at a panel today in Las Vegas, NV...

Isn't it supposed to go the other way around? You shoot at people who you know are armed and actively dangerous. You often don't have perfect information in war and going on unfounded hunches and "innocent" assumptions can cost innocent lives.

In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. 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. When an individual, on his or her own, decides that some secret information should be leaked -- no matter the reason -- they subvert that process. It is nowhere near akin to leaking sensitive information from totalitarian or repressive regimes, or even from corporate entities. Some might assert that information is overclassified, or classified such as to hide wrongdoing or illegal or questionably behavior. Fine, but: 1. You don't get to make that determination yourself. However...

Correct, the people who may have "classified it such as to hide [possible] wrongdoing or illegal or questionably [sic] behavior" make that determination. You are simply saying that is how it is, but is is not ought. Is that how it ought to be?

2. ...if you do, this kind of decision is a moral/ethical one which must necessarily be tempered with consequences. I.e., if, in a free and democratic society, you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, and you're going to unilaterally decide to do release it because of your own personal beliefs or convictions, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it. People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences (unless they stupidly out themselves, as Manning did). This creates an unhealthy environment for any kind of legitimately protected or sensitive information -- indeed, the rule of law -- in a democratic society. 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. Just about the only thing WikiLeaks believes should be protected from leaking is negative information about WikiLeaks itself. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I hope for intelligent responses to this post that actually acknowledge the need for some information to be protected, and for processes to protect that information, of which the government is the steward. Or, for any reasonable alternative other than any and all information should always be able to be indiscriminately leaked without fear of reprisal.

Clearly our nuclear launch codes should not be leaked. However, revealing truth about human rights abuses ultimately leads to our being a healthier nation. Imagine if the abuses at Abu Garib were classified and still continued to this day without the public knowing any better. Sure, revealing those abuses hurt our propaganda efforts in the Middle East somewhat, but I don't think an America that routinely abuses human rights is one worth living in or dying for.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? [Latin for: "Who watches the watchers?" or "Who polices the police?"]. Whistleblowers do. Watchdog journalists do. We the people in order to perfect a union do.

This is a piss poor submission

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at the Firehose on purple, there are over 6 better submissions for this story including one that mentions the Pentagon Papers and provides a link. Whoever the hell Soulskill is should be fired, he was the editor when all of these submissions were rejected and this lame excuse for one accepted. I applaud Timothy for making the choice to run with this story but seriously this is the worse submission out of the 6 I could find that been posted since 7 AM PST. Why is Slashdot posting stories that are only getting 30 or 40 comments when they could of posted this 15 hours ago and ran it up the flag pole all day. I heard this first on MSNBC for fuck's sake.

So they can....

[Anonymous Coward]

Send in the DRONES!

Ho80

[Anonymous Coward]

Or chair, return OFy AMERICA) today,

What a Hero

[linzeal]

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?

Re:What a Hero

[drinkypoo]

You seem almost gleeful he has less rights during a court martial, any reason for that?

I've noticed that a lot of ex-military will speak with "glee" about how the UCMJ specifies punishment by death for all kinds of things... truth is if we exercised it we'd have to kill a lot more soldiers, for instance one of those things is rape ("penetration, no matter how slight".) How about the military invoke the UCMJ against every soldier known to have committed rape, for example in Viet Nam? It's never too late, I say we do it RIGHT NOW.

Or, in simpler terms, those who support the death penalty are accessories to murder, and some people like to murder.

Re:What a Hero

[Issarlk]

Obviously because he threatens the good reputation of the US. USA! USA! USA!

Re:What a Hero

[whisper_jeff]

Or, in simpler terms, those who support the death penalty are accessories to murder, and some people like to murder.

And some people think that those who commit certain heinous crimes no longer have a right to enjoy their lives any more. But, hey, let's make a broad generalization that paints the other side of this philosophical debate as happy murderers.

Or, in simpler terms, your comment amounted to nothing more than a "think of the children" argument designed to make anyone arguing the other side of the topic look like they don't care about the children and thus they're bad people, even if they have intelligent, well-thought-out reasons for their opinion. But, hey, I'm sure you won't see the similarity and I'm also willing to bet you get outraged when you hear a politician drop a "think of the children" when they're pushing their agenda.

Re:What a Hero

[drinkypoo]

And some people think that those who commit certain heinous crimes no longer have a right to enjoy their lives any more. But, hey, let's make a broad generalization that paints the other side of this philosophical debate as happy murderers.

Yes, let's.

Or, in simpler terms, your comment amounted to nothing more than a "think of the children" argument designed to make anyone arguing the other side of the topic look like they don't care about the children and thus they're bad people, even if they have intelligent, well-thought-out reasons for their opinion.

No, not really. See, I want to stop people from committing murder. The "think of the children" group wants to force people to take certain actions. Thus, my stance is diametrically opposed from what you claim it to be.

But, hey, I'm sure you won't see the similarity and I'm also willing to bet you get outraged when you hear a politician drop a "think of the children" when they're pushing their agenda.

There is no similarity, and you surely knew this, which is why you are a hypocrite, which is just a special kind of liar. That, or you're an idiot who can't recognize a logical fallacy when he makes one. The GP gleefully suggested death. I suggest that killing people when it accomplishes nothing is murder. You are welcome to your differing opinion, but it doesn't make my statement fallacious. To the contrary: your statement is both incorrect (as I point out above) and hypocritical for attempting to paint me as something I am not, while claiming I am doing the same thing.

Try harder next time, troll.

Re:What a Hero

[dbIII]

Depending on what he leaked he may be considered a hero by civil libertarians

He may even be considered a hero by the military.

Remember that while the military is accountable we've got all of these unaccountable spooks from other places going around the chain of command and compromising other peoples operations. The most obvious example was the military being pulled out when they had Bin Laden pinned down so that the CIA could go in and get the credit for the capture. We all know how well that one turned out.
The last thing we want is people with a string of secret failures continually being given responsibility far beyond their level of competence. We certainly don't want people that have "gone native" and picked up a few tricks from Saddam's torturers carrying out the same tricks at home - that's the lesson the French learnt the hard way from Algeria.

Re:What a Hero

[whisper_jeff]

I suggest that killing people when it accomplishes nothing is murder.

You suggested no such thing. You suggested, and I quote: "those who support the death penalty are accessories to murder, and some people like to murder." In your second post, you provide a reasoned argument against the death penalty ("killing people when it accomplishes nothing is murder") which is an opinion that can be discussed and debated. Your first point, however, was a personal attack on the character of anyone who disagrees with you ("some people like to murder").

If you don't see the similarity to a "think of the children" tactic to debate than you are not as smart as you believe you are. It is a tactic that doesn't challenge the _topic_ of a discussion - it is a tactic that challenges the _character_ of those on the other side of the topic. It has nothing to do with whether the topic is to stop one action or force another action - it is about it being a tactic of failing to discuss whatever the topic is and choosing to instead attack those arguing against you.

The fact that you so quickly end your reply with "Try harder next time, troll" shows that you aren't willing to discuss a topic and would instead dismiss and insult those who have differing opinions than you. Rather than discuss my points you attempt to paint me as a troll who likes to murder.

Re:What a Hero

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed that a lot of ex-military will speak with "glee" about how the UCMJ specifies punishment by death for all kinds of things...

Yes Martin, you're about to be trolled. I think you're a cunt.

I served in the military, and like many I had access. It was made crystal clear as to what would happen if we divulged classified information, and we all signed the supporting documents.

truth is if we exercised it we'd have to kill a lot more soldiers, for instance one of those things is rape ("penetration, no matter how slight".) How about the military invoke the UCMJ against every soldier known to have committed rape, for example in Viet Nam? It's never too late, I say we do it RIGHT NOW.

Yes, because we know that under the UCMJ, just like with the civilian court system, there is absolutely no leeway for the context in which something occurred. *rolls eyes*

Or, in simpler terms, those who support the death penalty are accessories to murder, and some people like to murder.

That's a pretty broad brush there. Oh wait, those who support letting child molesters live are accessories to the crime when the criminal completes their prison sentence (or escapes) and go on to do it again! We can play this game all day.. hell, let's just start playing six degrees of separation.

To the point: if this guy blew the whistle on a few isolated incidents that were blatantly illegal I *might* be able to understand it, but with the volume of data he's grabbed, there's no way in hell he knows what he's really got, how sensitive it is to real national security, or how damaging it would be to international relations... etc etc etc.

They're probably not going to fry him, but I'm pretty damned sure somebody just got a lifetime membership to Leavenworth.

Re:What a Hero

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll speak for him.

Yes it's because stupid things like laws and human morality get in the way of reality. You know the one where even in nature the weak die and the strong survive by just about any means possible. We all live in a safe little fabricated world...don't forget that the next time you believe everyone in the world should have honest and true actions just to have good and positive results.

There is also a reason why even all your libertarian rights can be revoked in a time of war on our nations soil.

Re:What a Hero

[arielCo]

It depends strongly on the nature of *all* the documents. As posted above, what if there's info that compromises undercover operatives, recruiters, etc? IF that were the case, I'd *hate* to have that bomb on my hands and try to decide what to release and what to shred and deny knowledge of.

Re:What a Hero

[FiloEleven]

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.

What are some of the rumors? I posted earlier that I think it's only responsible to release certain kinds of information, namely anything that the government is hiding from the people it was created to serve. This would include abuses, falsified reasons for going to war, etc. but not things like how our fancy new radar systems work.

Re:What a Hero

[linzeal]

The US State Department's frank opinions of Middle Eastern leaders, militaries and intelligence agencies.

Re:What a Hero

[Hasai]

....I know I consider him [a hero]....

Probably because you'll be able to go on your blissful, ignorant civilian way, never bothering to worry about how many people are going to die when those cables are released.

Re:What a Hero

[linzeal]

I'm betting a lot more people will be kept alive by the truth than could ever be saved by deceit, secrecy and lies. Why worship chaos?

how do you figure?

[Anonymous Coward]

how do you figure he might be violating his social contract?
An illegal law is null and void on its face.

Whistleblowers are protected

[SideshowBob]

First of all I would say that any sworn official of the government has a duty to uphold and defend the Constitution, and if that person is aware of laws that are being broken and nothing is being done, they absolutely must leak that information to the press.

Secondly, the Whistleblower Protection Act (1989) specifically prevents the punishment of individuals who leak information about a crime, fraud, abuse, or misconduct. So you're not even right that they should be punished.

There is *nothing* democratic about concealing the workings or inner details of our government. It is the very essence of anti-democratic behavior on the part of a government against its people. The fact that we were willing to hold our noses and allow this stench to grow during the cold war was bad enough, but there isn't even that justification anymore.

What do they mean by "seeking out"?

[crazyhorse44]

Is "seeking out" a nice way of saying that his photograph and last known locations were distributed to predator drone pilots at Ellis AFB?

How about Bush, then?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about Bush, then? Outing an agent in cover for political reasons. Why isn't he being taken to task? Because that would embarrass the US. That's why they have all these confidential/classified documents: not because of safety of their people or their operations, but because they would be embarrassed if they got read.

Re:How about Bush, then?

[dajalas]

To eliminate future confusion, you might consider telling us your definition of "agent in cover."

By any reasonable definition she wasn't a covert operative at the time partisans allege misconduct occurred by the Bush #2 administration.

Mod parent up...informative!

[rts008]

A court martial is not handled like your everyday court case, no amount of money is going to save his skin.

SPC Bradley Manning[1] has done stomped on his dick with golf shoes with this event.Court_martial#In_the_United_States>

Much more interesting to me is what will happen with the dummy that leaked the info.

I would say the very best he can hope for is the rest of his life spent chopping wood with a dull axe, under the anxious and eager scrutiny of the trigger happy guards at Ft. Leavenworth.
I saw one of these work details in action while I was on guard duty during Basic Training at Ft. Leonard Wood, circa 1977.[Ft. Lost in the Woods, A.K.A. Little Korea(due to the harsh winters)]

More than likely, he'll spend a lengthy vacation at that infamous D.O.D. vacation hotspot, Gitmo. Surf's up, dude! He'll get to go waterboarding everyday...no matter how many times he confesses!

Article 106 of the UCMJ defines this offense as punishable by death.

As a nation, and a society here in the U.S.A., we've lost the spine to carry through with that nowdays.[2]
The government would have to provide more info than they want to; to sentence him to 'Death'.

[1]You would think that an Intelligence Analyst would be smarter than to let the leak lead back to him.

[2]Purely my observations from a limited perspective. I hope I'm wrong...

*Disclaimer:*
I'm not debating the 'right-ness', or the 'wrong-ness' of Bradley Manning's reasons or motives.
The truth of the matter is, he's FSCKED!. Literally, figuratively, and truly...fscked.
   

Re:Mod parent up...informative!

[moonbender]

You people are disgusting. The ways in which you seem to revel in another humans suffering... Very disconcerting.

Re:Mod parent up...informative!

[Arimus]

Always assuming its not a false flag operation and Manning gets a sentance then once he's dropped out of public eye is returned to whichever TLA he belongs to.

Would be good way to destroy credibility in wikileaks if Manning supplied information that can later on be proved to either have cost American/NATO lives, damaging to other nations or just outright false.

Does highlight one other thing if Manning is guilty- the DoD vetting procedures for people in sensitive positions is somewhat lacking.

Re:Mod parent up...informative!

[linzeal]

This guy was reportedly paid under 50k a year to handle Top Secret documents, care to apply for a job that invades your privacy and pays you less than a second year programmer makes on the street? You are not going to be recruiting from the brainy bunch with that sort of package.

Damn those leaking soliders!

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn those leaking soliders!

Damage Embarrassment

[Anonymous Coward]

Damage Embarrassment

Sorry, the age of this information, now stale, probably reveals nothing they do not already know. We know corruption is one of the causes, and we know the willing colalition was the duped coalition.

Embarrassment is an emotional state experienced upon having a socially or professionally unacceptable act or condition witnessed by or revealed to others. ...

Sorry Mr. Moron...

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the fact that the Army had no reason whatever to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed"

Geneva convention et al are quite clear in this regard. They are to be treated as unarmed civilians.

You appear to have attracted your desired 'intelligent responses' to your post, but they don't seem to back up your position.

govts can screw themselves

[cheekyboy]

97% of all politicians are scum sucking overlords.
All secrets deserve to be outed, especially the hidden aliens/ufo stuff, i dont care how many people/corporates will cry, stuff em, they are not above the common person.

Seriously, most secrets are known between all secret agencies and politicians, so they just live in a 'above the norm' world, while us common folk are like slaves that have no idea.

So screw em, burn their mansions down, make em run naked, sack em all, replace em with new brighter brains that are corrupt or working for the club of rome or collective 300.

I wonder...

[Anonymous Coward]

What if he screwed up and "leaked" his Lady Gaga CD instead of the disk full of classified data?

BULLSHIT!

[Anonymous Coward]

Only lives that are "on the line" should the information be leaked are those of the guilty parties.

Military has complete knowledge of the contents of those papers. They should, cause they wrote them.
Ergo, not a single troopers or civilians life (on any side of the conflict) should be lost due to the leaking of the information - as the military already knows how to prevent that.
Move the assets, change the codes and call-signs, plug the holes and reinforce the barriers.
And please don't start how that costs money, as that is the one thing military obviously has no problem with at the moment.

Only "lives on the line" IRL are the ones that military and intelligence heads will "silence" in order to cover their asses.

I'm absolutely certain the shit goes so deep...

[3seas]

... that for all the shit that goes on in the world to be revealed to the world public that the mass majority of the shit is so totally uncalled for and only exist because of other shit being covered up and kept from other cover up efforts...

The shit needs to be coming out and we can start with Haliburtion blowing the deep water horizon oil rig in tneir pathetic little fucking oil war.

We did not need the oil brought up at this time, we have plenty (this is a fact) and the best holding tank is the earth.
It was tapped as a matter of securing right to the oil vein, which is large. It was tapped sooner than it was supposed to be.
The rig was supposed to be blown before it was tapped..... oops!

This fucking the world shit has to stop! Fuck the Pentagon we don't need it, they are one major supporter of cover ups.

Excuse me but I live here too and I'm tired of the fucking smell of covered up shit!

People, you need to start looking at the information that is available and god damn't start thinking it out!!!!

Try this on for starters. What the World Wants and ask your self why in hell is this not being done? Want to stop terrorist then remove their reasons for existing, instead war monger feed it...... What the fuck?

What lead up to 911? A Trillion dollar bet!!! justy follow the god damn money people. You can even see who the loosers were if you do that. Hint One company name starts with a "W" and another starts with an "E" and there were more too... follow the money god damn't and all the way to 9/11.

Maybe I'm wrong? Maybe I'm not but one thing is for certain, you are not going to know the truth if you don't use your brain and your common sense enough to realize there are coverups and far to many but more than enough to know you can figure things out for yourself. And the general media is not going to fucking spell it out for you. They are afraid of anthrax threats, just ask Ted Turner about that or look it up on the internet.

Right to know when government acts in your name

[linzeal]

Our life, liberty and livelihoods are on the line when the three-letter agencies and the White House go around the shadows skulking about looking for loopholes, creating them or running roughshod over the Constitution. When executive power is illegally used to justify futile efforts to demoralize terrorist networks or destabilize pesky anti-US regimes that than backfire and are used as the rallying cry to recruit ever more desperate and hateful individuals to proclaim that the US and its peoples are their blood enemies, we have more than an interest in the documentation of such activity we have the right to know.

Good old fascism.

[unity100]

coming to a theater near you. wait, it never stopped running.

This is called "journalism"

[David Gerard]

How to know you're doing real journalism: when the powers that be are this pissed off.

The shiny-assed poltroons of the New York Times and the Murdoch press can just fuck off. Really. Whining shits that people aren't giving them free money for rewritten press releases any more. Useless fucks.

Boycott the shitty, shitty press. Tell them why. Give money to Wikileaks.

Re:This is called "journalism"

[nickmalthus]

As the great journalist Bill Moyers always quotes: News is what people want to keep hidden and everything else is publicity.

Re:This is called "journalism"

[Anonymous Coward]

Like releasing atomic bomb plans and the identity of US spies. "real journalism"

Re:This is called "journalism"

[David Gerard]

Like releasing Pentagon plans regarding the Vietnam war and what happened regarding the Watergate breakin: "real journalism"

Obvious solution...

[Anonymous Coward]

The video of the killings was edited to remove scenes where the gunship did not shoot at confirmed hostile forces that was actively shooting at US forces due to the risk of harming women and children. This edit was meant to portray the gunship crew in a bad light, not to tell the truth.

Military should then publish the entire video to show us that "edited out" footage.

Not that it would make a lick of difference - cause they have still murdered a bunch of unarmed civilians later that same day.
If anything, that "edited out" part shows that they were well aware of the fact that they should not shoot at unarmed civilians.
Which makes them appear even more bloodthirsty, as they are later ready to disregard their earlier ability to spot unarmed civilians in a group of armed attackers cause they didn't get to shoot at anything earlier.

None of the people they've murdered were shooting at them or anyone else and none of them were armed.

!= torture

[geirlk]

They could ask him nicely, by not torturing him. Eg. by waterboarding. According to Pentagon it's just a "rough interrogation technique", isn't it?

Freedom isn't Free

[linzeal]

Why do you think we are the most prosperous? Freedom isn't free, it is often enough paid for by another's slavery.

The United States has begun trading away 'actual rights' like the right not to be spied upon, murdered extrajudicially by your own country or prosecuted for leaking documents that reveal criminal activity for 'personal rights' like the right to shop at Walmart, the right to own 2 cars or watch the latest reality show. The Patriot Act sailed through both the congress and the media as if it were incontestable on any grounds but he last time they tried to propose an increase in regulation for Tobacco to fall under the FDA millions of people organized in protest. People would rather be free to smoke in an Orwellian nightmare than wake up in a country where they would be required to actually participate in the day to day protection of our civil liberties.

Re:Freedom isn't Free

[dajalas]

The most appalling part of the USA's headlong rush to trade away actual rights for illusory safety is the highly partisan and divided nature of the opposition. Far too many seem to think that ignoring citizens' rights is okay as long as it's done by their favorite political party. It's not.

But to your final point, citizens shouldn't *have* to defend their civil liberties every day. Their leaders and government employees should automatically protect the citizens rights. If not, they should be brought up on charges for violating their oaths of office. Or at least they should be afraid they'll lose their next election or their pensions.

Re:Freedom isn't Free

[linzeal]

Protecting rights is simple with an engaged 4th estate and should be even easier with a burgeoning 5th estate online; but, alas people would rather work on becoming Mayor of Dunkin Donuts on foursquare than use social media to keep the flame of liberty safe from those who would try to extinguish it.

Re:Freedom isn't Free

[Rogerborg]

As opposed to leading the revolution by whining on Slashdot? Physician, heal thyself.

Re:Freedom isn't Free

[dajalas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_(logic)

Re:Freedom isn't Free

[Rogerborg]

Ah, Latin, as they have a lot of revolutions in Latin America. Your logic is impeccable. After the uprising, you shall be God Emperor. Start choosing your concubines now.

Re:Freedom isn't Free

[dajalas]

I'll defer to your "deep understanding" of my earlier comments.

God Emperor? If nominated, I will not run. If elected, I will not serve. :)

Die Wikileaks, Die!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks lost me when they released the BNP membership list; I don't see how that was at all justified. Simply because we disagree (to put it mildly) with someones privately held political views and affiliations; that is no reason to persecute them. Wikileaks: McCarthyism for the 21st century?

Given the choice between making educated guesses at the truth and having some witless, faux-moral crusader like Julian Asshat deliver us to a world of global, censorous internet regulation; I'll gladly take the former. I'm not proposing ignorance, most of us here can well deduce what's really happening behind the scenes in international politics.

Again wikileaks needs to be totally decentralized

[rAiNsT0rm]

Fully and completely. I say it in every wikileaks article here or anywhere. I always draw responses of either "it already it" or "it's fine as it is" and that is bullshit. Wikileaks is one of the most important outlets the world has, to not do everything possible to keep it that way is sheer stupidity.

Re:Treason is lying to the american public about W

[Anonymous Coward]

You had better look up the definition of "lie" before you start making claims like that. I remember nearly every Democrat saying EXACTLY the same thing as Bush was saying before the start of the war. Are you going to say they were lying, or do your rabid anti-Republican feelings prevent you from doing that?

The U.S. administration went by the best intelligence it could get. Congress believed it, too. Iraq had already used WMDs in a previous war. Only a fool would have thought they didn't still have them.

I see where you're coming from. Now go back there.

The U.S. government is extremely corrupt.

[Anonymous Coward]

My opinion: The U.S. government is extremely corrupt, and secrecy is one of the ways in which corruption is accomplished.

Ya, but then again who gives a shit?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to rain on your parade, but who cares? Why not open an investigation on Nixon again? Or how about Jimmy Carter? He admitted lusting in his heart, maybe it was about an under-aged person of either sex? Maybe we can dig up Reagan and ask him about Iran-Contra? Or check with Clinton again, and see what else he lied about, after all, he is a liar right? And while we are at it, let;s check his wife also. Hillary did not even perceive her own husband was banging an intern in their house, but now she is out there negotiating with world leaders on our behalf? Who was the idiot that picked that moron to represent us and our interests? What's that you say? Barak Obama? Let's investigate him also. In fact, I want to know what you know about all of this, you seem a little too interested...

Everyone knows camera's come with rocket launchers

[SmallFurryCreature]

Afterall, why wouldn't you add a rocket launcher to a camera? You know you would if you could.

And the 8 million civilians killed in Vietnam alone were all legitimate targets because you liberate a country by doing a holocaust.

The US does not do introspection. They are right they must be because else they would be wrong and that does not fit with the American way of thinking.

Did YOU watch the video?

[the_raptor]

Well did you? Or did you watch wikileaks carefully edited short version?

The US troops who were being shot at and who arrived on the scene moments after the Apache attack found AK's and RPG's and photographed them in situ.

And they shot the van because according to the rules of engagement giving aid to an insurgent made you a target. War isn't a video game, they didn't have a hit box pop up showing there were children in the van. It was a bad call but understandable in the context.

And yes comparing this to WWII is an insult because the allied powers in WWII did not give a shit about civilian casualties* and continued bombing cities knowing full well it had no significant impact on enemy morale. The Nazis were bad guys but the Soviets were worse and the Western allies handed all of Eastern Europe over to them.

* In fact they deliberately targeted the areas to which civilians were fleeing.

Re:Did YOU watch the video?

[Fatalis]

A lot of bad decisions are "understandable" in the sense that the people who made them weren't simply crazy, but that doesn't justify them. All the gunners on the helicopter saw was somebody with a van trying to help someone else who's lying on the ground in a pool of blood. This is a thing that good people do, not just enemies, and a policy that doesn't take this possibility into account should be described as inhumane.

Censorship in times of war

[cpghost]

I may be a little bit old fashioned, but wasn't censorship by the military in times of war the norm not so long ago... everywhere in the world? I'm all for freedom of speech, and I support Wikileaks with a passion, but if some of those documents can potentially jeopardize operations who are currently in-progress (including military personnel), shouldn't the DoD at least have a chance to talk with journalists beforehand? You know, this kind of cooperation isn't new; it's always been that way. Remember: loose lips sink ships.

Re:Censorship in times of war

[Trepidity]

It used to be common to engage in pretty wide-ranging censorship of the media for fixed, relatively short periods, while a war was being conducted, such as during World War I. But to do that requires that wars actually end within a few years. If we institute similar censorship for the "War on Terror", when will we conclude that the war ended and censorship can be lifted? My guess is never.

Re:Censorship in times of war

[Hairy1]

No no, it's over when your Government tells you it's over. There is no reason to worry because your Government will return your right to free speech just as soon as world peace breaks out. Don't want to wait that long? Thats terrorist talk, whats your address again?

Re:Censorship in times of war

[aslate]

I think the other important difference was that during WWI and WWII we were in "total war" with quite literally all resources being devoted to winning the war (or at least Europe was). In times like that, with daily bombardments by the enemy, censorship and the associated positive propaganda is quite important.

However this "War on Terror" hardly affects anyone back home, it's not a vital war by any definition for those that are fighting it now and we should be questioning whether it's valid to be there. In which case, censorship really isn't a good place to be.

Re:Everyone knows camera's come with rocket launch

[silas_moeckel]

Like many things we keep trying to wrap laws and rules around things, it's war your on the wining side or your dead. Even if your on the winning side you may be dead. I've watched that video from the footage it looked suspicious. From the audio it sounds like they thought they were the enemy thats enough. We don't fight wars anymore we fight pr campaigns. The sooner we realize that war is the last resort to inflict our will upon another sovereign nation the better.

Re:Treason is lying to the american public about W

[anagama]

Because the Democratic half of the single party that runs the country ALSO lied, does not relive the Republican half of that same party from their lies.

And best evidence? Are you as stupid as our government thinks you are?
Well cited summary: http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/11/everyone-knew-that-iraq-didnt-have-wmds.html

Re:Treason is lying to the american public about W

[tmosley]

Indeed. 99% of politicians should leave office at the end of a rope. Only a very few are not pathological liars and/or sociopaths.

This guy is a danger to himself

[Bruha]

I would not put it past our Government or any other to have this guy killed. It's one thing to leak ACTA documents it's quite another to leak embassy communications. He's taken it a bit too far.

Blame technology

[fictionpuss]

Why is it a unchallenged premise, that operatives simply must be dealing in information which will risk their lives? Whose social contract states that we all must subscribe to that ideology?

Leaking, if it does nothing else, demonstrates that the ability of any organisation to keep deadly secrets, secret, continues to diminish. I don't think I'd like to live in a society where leaks were harder to accomplish. I can't help thinking that institutionalised secrecy is a dead-end strategy, which could be (somewhat, if not completely) mitigated by just being better at what you do.

That said, I don't see how we get from here to there - if leaking those documents will endanger lives and do nothing to alter policy with regards the trade in secrets - then isn't wikileaks just using this as a shameless publicity stunt?

Re:Blame technology

[calmofthestorm]

Well I don't claim he'd be violating the US contract if he were a citizen, I simply avoid arguing the issue because he is not. OP's comment would be a more valid argument if he were a US citizen. I believe in a well-run democracy the government tries to keep some secrets and the press tries to expose the embaressing ones and everything is in equilibrium.

Tor/Freenet

[Anonymous Coward]

Much of wikileaks information comes from Tor exit nodes they run and then post interesting intercepts via anonymously (Freenet, etc).

freenetproject.org
torproject.org

Wikileaks Justification Destroyed

[sycodon]

While a tenuous, but vaguely plausible argument could be made to support the deliberate leaking of classified documents (which I would strenuously argue against) for some supposed greater good, any and all justification is rendered inoperative with the news that Mr. Assange has over 250,000 documents.

These documents were not gathered in an effort to expose some supposed wrong doing, indeed, Mr. Assange is probably clueless as to what is in these stolen documents. There is only one possible reason to release these documents and that is to produce chaos and discord among the diplomatic corps of many nations. It would serve no purpose except to satisfy the perverted sense of satisfaction for anarchists and others who, while living under the protection of and benefiting from the order and structure of governments, nonetheless have an irrational hatred of them.

Mr. Assange has now set himself up as a one man version of the Committee on Government Oversight and Reform and The Public Interest Declassification Board and numerous other organizations who decide what should be release and what should remain classified.

No good can come from this and the only people who would want it are the Molotov Cocktail throwing, window smashing, car burning lunatics and thugs we see at G7 conferences and other international gatherings.

Re:Wikileaks Justification Destroyed

[timeOday]

I agree, I had previously imagined a soldier seeing something disturbing and speaking out about it. But what I think I see in that story is more like a plain old spy.

Re:Wikileaks Justification Destroyed

[gringofrijolero]

The mafia can bring order and structure also..

...Molotov Cocktail throwing, window smashing, car burning lunatics...

are all okay if the state is doing it...

Producing a little chaos and discord among the diplomatic corps of many nations is only giving a little taste of what they do to us on an everyday basis

All these leaks might make a little more difficult to start a war on false pretenses.. And it could prevent corrupt financiers/future government employees from trashing the economy on every election cycle.

Re:Wikileaks Justification Destroyed

[sycodon]

So what secrets do you think the State should be able to keep?

Never mind, it doesn't matter what you think because someone else will disagree with you and leak them anyway.

See, that's the problem. When everyone considers themselves the ultimate arbiter of what should be secret and not secret, there are no secrets. And only an idiot would say the Government should not have anything that is kept secret.

Re:Wikileaks Justification Destroyed

[gringofrijolero]

And only an idiot would say the Government should not have anything that is kept secret.

The government's authority comes from the consent of the people. Those people have every right to investigate every single aspect of that government. No secrets are allowed when abuse is suspected and needs to be uncovered and corrected. This whole "Big Brother is watching" thing can work both ways. That pleases me. Feel free to call me an idiot if that's the only way you can defend your point.

Re:Wikileaks Justification Destroyed

[sycodon]

So I should be able to see your tax returns eh? How about any sealed court records you may have.

The people do have a right to investigate every single aspect of the government. Using representatives they elect. Not by just deciding to release information.

But then you just stepped around my point and got all pissed about being called an idiot. You are saying that the government should have absolutely no secrets of any kind? Because unless you are saying that, then you are just wasting bandwidth.

Re:Wikileaks Justification Destroyed

[gringofrijolero]

But then you just stepped around my point and got all pissed about being called an idiot.

No, I merely see it as attempt to dismiss the thought without giving it any and that your assertion is the final authority. Basically a cop out..

If you want a specific, fine. Only military strategies and tactics during actual wartime should be kept secret. No closed door meetings on any domestic or economic issues. It shouldn't take an FOIA request to get answers. "No comment" is unacceptable.. Failure to comply will only produce more wikileaks sites.

Re:Wikileaks Justification Destroyed

[sycodon]

"Only military strategies and tactics during actual wartime should be kept secret."

Ok...so now this little puke who is in the military and who already stole these documents disagrees and leaks military strategies and tactics to wikileaks, who then publishes it.

But that's OK, since wikileaks is a fine and outstanding idea and it's this guy's duty to leak information he feels is in violation of the law.

Re:Wikileaks Justification Destroyed

[gringofrijolero]

Call it collateral damage in the fight against corruption.. Perfectly acceptable using the same standards as the government does... Regardless what the law says, uncovering a corruption is a duty. Exactly the same as any citizen who witnesses a crime. He is expected to come forward. And please save the "through proper channels" crap... That will usually get the honest guy punished. Since the US entered these wars under false pretenses, I'm for whatever it takes to get them out now. Any and all moral high ground is long gone.

The Next HOPE

[Junior J. Junior III]

Julian was/is suppose to be keynoting The Next HOPE conference in NYC... I wonder if this means that he will need to bow out. Maybe he can videoconference in? Can tor handle video streaming?

Re:The Next HOPE

[multisync]

It will sure spice things up at HOPE if the feds take him down - ala Steve Rambam.

META Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[jagapen]

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."

Re:META Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Runaway1956]

And, your translation is probably on target. You don't win hearts and minds in an occupied territory. A nation that is only ~200 years old, is certainly not going to do much "nation building" in a region whose history goes back ~5000 years. We've shot ourselves in the foot on this one. No matter when, or how, we finally pull our last troops out of Iraq, within two decades (at the outside) Iraq will probably have a theocracy in place, AND be aligned with Iran. (Keep in mind that the US toppled a perfectly legitimate democratic government in Iran - Iraq will identify with them once they tire of our puppets!)

But, again, we are discussing two different things here, one being the politics of the war, and two being the actions of the troops. Based on what I can see in the video, I can probably justify some Extra Military Duty for some of the troops, to be used for an ass chewing for getting it wrong, and for training, and review of the rules of engagement. I certainly don't see anyone doing anything "WRONG", in regards to the rules of war.

Re:META Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

You all realize "hearts and minds" was from a grossly failed war, right? History suggests another approach..

Re:META Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[mcvos]

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.

Exactly. If you really want to win hearts and minds, taking the risk that you might be shooting unarmed civilians is absolutely the worst thing you can do. If you want to win hearts and minds, you need to trust people, and in return show that you can be trusted. Paranoia does not win you any hearts and minds. It just breeds more hostility, more violence, and more enemies.

Re:META Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Anonymous Coward]

But we will reinforce the image of being the Great Satan - at immense expense.

Re:META Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[Tycus]

"This war cannot be won." I couldn't agree more.In a movie called "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" theres a fantastic scene where the leader of the invading army, the Turks, is meeting with the "governor" of the besieged city (forget it's name) and discussing who's turn it is to surrender (they have been at war for years, repeatedly surrendering then reengaging in combat to turn a profit on arms and fear mongering). While it is a fantastic piece of satire by Terry Gilliam, it also poses some very accurate parodies of what the politics behind wars are like. Wars are profitable for the Govt's involved, they get to sell arms and acquire natural resources (in the case of Iraq and Afghanistan; fossil fuels). They can then set up a puppet Govt which is "democratic" and continue to abuse the country in questions natural resources while claiming to have been "patriotic" (or as i like to call it, loyalty to the point of stupidity) by "liberating" these "savages" from "insurgent" threats (i.e the people's who's home you invaded who want you to GTFO). How many of you would be pissed if your country was invaded and it's people abused and murdered all for the sake of natural resources, or any other reason for that matter? (im looking at you America). I know i would be, enough so that i would likely become part of any "insurgent" movements. Western nations should GTFO of countries they have no governance over and instead focus their energies on reducing CO2 emissions (western nations are by far and away the biggest culprits and all because banks, Govt's and the worlds elite business people are greedy bastards who aren't willing to sacrifice anything for their own creature comforts). It disgusts me that i am classified as a human along with these people. A misanthrope now and always, Tycus.

Re:META Re:We promise we won't hurt you.

[lennier]

I certainly don't see anyone doing anything "WRONG", in regards to the rules of war.

And that to me is the most heartbreaking thing of all. That the "best practice" of warfare is to shrug and say, yeah, a few civilians get slaughtered even now and then, it happens. This is why many of us who opposed the invasion did so: because we could see that even "good guys" do awful things in a war zone, especially in an urban environment, double especially in an urban counterinsurgency, and if there isn't a world-shaking reason to be there, there's several hundred thousand now-dead reasons not to be there.

War: Even when you do it "right", you're doing it wrong.

Hacker Ethic

[0101000001001010]

The Hacker Ethic, as maintained by the CCC.

Access to computers - and anything which might teach you something about the way the world really works - should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative!
All information should be free.
Mistrust authority - promote decentralization.
Hackers should be judged by their acting, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or position.
You can create art and beauty on a computer.
Computers can change your life for the better.
Don't litter other people's data.
Make public data available, protect private data.

Re:Hacker Ethic

[xiang shui]

In your opinion, what's the difference between public data and private data?

This brings to mind a classic quote...

[knightsirius]

This brings to mind a classic quote from the 1980s BBC series 'Yes Minister': "The Government Official Secrets Act is not there to protect Government Secrets, but Government Officials"

Fact vs. Myth: Hitler &Weimar Republic Democr

[theNAM666]

Thanks. Background materials:

Myth: Democracy elected Hitler to power.

Fact: Hitler used backroom deals, not votes, to come to power.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitlerdemo.htm

German presidential election, 1932
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_presidential_election,_1932

Now, if we could get THIS THREAD back ON TOPIC :)

"cooperation"?

[v1]

really? no, they're looking to make him go away , by any means necessary and possible.

When an entire government wants your "cooperation" because you're doing something they really don't like, it can't be called "seeking your cooperation". They are, quite simply said, out to get you, and your "cooperation" will be under extreme duress. Hope he has a good hiding place. And simply being out out of country isn't going to cut it, they're not going to mind in the slightest tossing a hooded unconscious body into a black SUV at 2am in Switzerland.

And no surprise that the soldier got caught, after bragging about it. That has to be one of the stupidest moves a whistleblower can make, bragging to anybody. Real whisteblowers don't need to brag or get credit, they're satisfied that the whistle got blown and will remain where they are, quietly gathering more dirt. In that respect, it's a shame this guy ran his mouth. He could have shed sunlight on more dark corners if he'd have held his cover.

Democracy isn't meant to please the minority

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the thing about Democracy. The idea is that the majority of people will be happy with the decision. You might not be happy with that decision but most people will be.

The examples you give, are phony. Nobody knew the outcome before the events. Democracy isn't to blame. Democracy is just a mechanism to make it less likely that a minority can impose their will on the majority. It doesn't guarantee an outcome which you would favour.

If there are ten atrocities committed in the name of the majority, then, given a system which allowed the minority to rule, there would be as many atrocities committed in their name too. Look back at history if you doubt that.

I have heard it said by some foolish people, that democracy isn't so great because if there were a bunch of wolves and a lamb, they would vote to eat the lamb. Therefore democracy is wrong... right? What the people fail to see with that absurd argument is the wolves would eat the lamb whether there was a democracy or not. The wolves could have been the minority in a state made up of lambs, and the lamb would still get eaten. Making either the lamb or the wolf the king, wouldn't have altered anything either. The outcome in that scenario has nothing to do with the efficacy of democratic decision making. It only has to do with what wolves would like to do to lambs.

Democracy is just a mechanism to maximise the likelihood that the majority will favour the decision. It isn't a justification of the outcome of the vote. Learn to distinguish between the mechanism, and the outcome, and you will feel far more comfortable living in a democratic society and you might give up hope of establishing your own dictatorship - to the benefit of the rest of us.

Killing him is well within their right

[Anonymous Coward]

A country has it's rights. If this guy posts confidential U.S. data on the Internet they BETTER kill or arrest him and everyone who helped him.

It is no different that another country, or a terrorist, attacking the U.S.

Why bother with websites when you have p2p?

[johanw]

Why bother with websites when you have p2p? Protecting websites against a determined adversary is hard, as Pirate Bay shows us. Put it on a completely decentralized network with included search functions like eMule and Gnutella and noone, not even the US governmant, can stop it.

Lies in the summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the summary not include armed insurgents in the group of people fired upon by the Apache? They were firing on the group because they and/or the land units were taking small arms fire - easy to tell is you simply listen to and watch the video. Of course the "impartial" group who edited the video and put all the callouts in didn't mention or highlight this, but it is easy to see and hear for yourself if you watch the video. You can see people in that group with AK's or similar rifles and the soldiers speaking of taking small arms fire.

Sat. Morning Cartoons...

[sycodon]

Seems the Sat. Morning cartoons are over and all the kiddos are out using their mod points.

Re:Again wikileaks needs to be totally decentraliz

[smaddox]

Yes, but at the same time, it is probably a good thing that Julian is now an international celebrity. If he were to mysteriously disappear now, there would be an outcry, whereas before no one would have flinched. Even if wikileaks eventually goes down, 3 will pop up in its place. There are too many people who see the importance of it for it to die.

We're talking about the US Gov't

[Anonymous Coward]

The less time you spend in the US Government, the more likely you are to have retained some intelligence...

It can be drained when you take sanity damage, you know.

What will happen?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are parallels to the Pentagon Papers. When those were released, the NY Times came out with a cherry-picked compilation for biased consumption. The 4100 pages of originals contain a more accurate description of how government officials communicate and act, are more interesting to independent individuals, and more embarrassing for government and military officials and contractors than dangerous to spies.

Re:Treason is lying to the american public about W

[rainer_d]

Indeed. 99% of politicians should leave office at the end of a rope. Only a very few are not pathological liars and/or sociopaths.

I like to say that there are no honest car salesmen anymore: they went bankrupt a long time ago.
I think, the same is true for politicians: they either died or were elected out of office (in favor of a liar/sociopath) a long time ago.

And you know what? People want to be lied to. They don't want to hear the truth.

Re:As they should be. NO RIGHTS ARE INALIENABLE

[Anonymous Coward]

No this is not true, and the attitude is deeply troubling. Because society is FREE and there are certain INALIENABLE RIGHTS. Please look up the meaning of inalienable if you don't understand it. Some of those are contained in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

From that same document:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Your inalienable rights CAN BE FORFEITED (by your own actions) through the due process of law. Prisoners "frequently" give up their right to free speech (they can speak when they are allowed to and only through proscribed channels, which are likely recorded, their mail is read and searched, etc), their right to pamphleteer, their right to assemble, their right to own firearms, their right to have their home (cell) searched, even their right to life in a capital offense.

Further, if you voluntarily join the military (and there hasn't been a conscription in decades), you forgo virtually all of your rights and become government property until such time that your commitment is over. On top of that, if you seek special clearances, you also agree to further restrictions on your rights in exchange for that clearance.

These guys, both the leaker and the publisher, chose to commit their actions. They may believe their actions to be noble, but ultimately, that isn't up for them to decide. Very few people think their own actions are ignoble, but society at large often says otherwise (the rapist that says "she had it coming to her" or the murderer that killed someone "because they reminded them of their evil mommy" or whatever, right up through Godwin territory). The government, the people we've freely delegated the charge of administering the law, has suspicion that the've committed a crime. Let them face trial, let them be judged by their peers. That is the standard of just society, a society ruled by law... a society with no rules, where anyone can do anything they want any time they want, a society ruled by man, will afford them far fewer protections. The leakers seemed to have appointed themselves judge and jury at a minimum, in fact, they edited their video with the purpose to convict, not to free information. If they're so quick to convict others without a jury, they should have no problem facing a jury themselves. After all, they're as guilty of selective leaking as they accuse the governments of being and if the diplomatic cables are published, may be just as guilty of getting people killed, destroying diplomatic missions, even causing war. They're self appointed "one man governments" whom view themselves above the law.

It gets worse

[Bysshe]

After that the full video shows a few people fleeing into a nearby building which they declared abandoned, then launch 3 hellfires at it completely demolishing the place. Later it turns out there were two families living in that building - all murdered.

Re:It gets worse

[GNUALMAFUERTE]

That isn't the worst part. Putting all of our attention on a few wrongly lost lives is dignifying what they are doing. This is not about who, why or how they killed, and if it was a reasonable mistake or not. The problem is the whole system. The US stages wars all over the world. That keeps up the supply of crappy nations with destroyed economies. That provides them with cheap labor and safe places to conduct their wars. They need those wars to keep the people behind companies like Lockheed Martin very wealthy and powerful. The US keeps shaping the world the way they need it. First, their allies at the UK kept Africa in poverty so that they could get their supplies of slaves to build a big powerful empire on the cheap. Then they changed tactics, and found that having cheap labor overseas was better. When they needed resources, they just got them from their puppet dictators on Latin America. They imposed the dollar as the strong currency of the world mostly through their proxy dictators all over the world, then used that to get the whole world to buy their debt. The US derives their power and wealth from the very existence of the third world. They are just making sure that there are enough impoverished and destroyed economies around to sustain their game. That is the real problem. That machinery is causing all this murders. Hunger, war, disease ... all just different tools they use. Remember, this is the country that made Communism illegal, and convinced all of its population that Communism was "evil". Their intentions are crystal clear. So, it's the whole system that we need to question, not just a few wrongful deaths on the news.

in a free and democratic society....

[vaporland]

In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process.

How about, In free and democratic societies, a corrupt individual or group who decide to classify information in order to cover their crimes is a subversion of that very democratic process.

From my observation, the latter occurs much more often than the former. Given government crimes of late, how does a free and democratic society overcome corruption when evidence of same is declared classified information?

Here's something to think about:

What goes around comes around, as they say in America. One of the greatest bailouts for a company in history came in 1953, when the Eisenhower administration authorised a CIA-backed coup in Iran. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, owned by the British government, had been expropriated and nationalised in 1951 by the unanimous vote of Iran's parliament. The '53 coup evicted prime minister Mohammed Mossadeq and installed Shah Reza Pahlevi, the creature of the West's oil companies, with full dictatorial powers. The AIOC got back 40 per cent of its old concession and became an internationally owned consortium, renamed... British Petroleum.

In short, those in power shouldn't do anything they might not want to later read about on the front page of the news. And, indeed, those who don't remember the past are condemned to repeat it - and it's hard to even remember the past if its classified.

I say release the emails and let the chips fall where they may.

And

[mahadiga]

To Julian Assange:
Never talk to police. Let a criminal lawyer or some competent authority do the talking for you.
Cheers,
Mahadiga

Please don't be an idiot.

[Anonymous Coward]

When one of the troops says "It's their own damn fault for carrying kids to a war zone", then I stop respecting him.

And you respect the use of children as human shields?

When the opposite side stops playing by the rules, there is no reason why our soldiers should still follow them. These muslim barbarians can't be reasoned with - their war is an ideological one. They will do anything to promote their ideas, and we should do everything to stop them. This includes killing human shields. Let the population whose kids were used as the shields turn on the sick muslim fucks.

The penta-gone?

[dogzdik]

Ohhhhh "Thaynks to Gawd and Arseholes Anonymous, I have been cured of my ability to tell the truth, to stand up for what is right and to go along with whatever I have been told to go along with".

Keeping the basteads honest...

[akayani]

I'm not Jewish or Arab or Muslim, I'm just an geek who likes to believe we will change the world via social networks of real people. But I am an Australian!

So when 9 people are shot I hit the social networks to see what is going down. And bingo on Facebook up comes "We are for Gaza".

I have never seen a site where people are being so manipulated. Not by people from Gaza but people from Mossad. Most likely the reason the site has no administrator is because it's run by Mossad. If only I was 'just paranoid'.

Facebook -- "We are for Gaza" -- after 7 days as an embedded ethnographer

1. Not one Israeli has entered and apologised for the horror acts of their government.
2. No normal Israeli could stay on the page as the hate projections are extreme, I believe those people to be Mossad agents making it impossible for rational Israelis to be involved.
3. If a topic is listed that is current and of interest 15 'I love Israel messages' will drive it off the front page of the site within 30 seconds.
4. While there is a party line taken by those in Gaza and it has a clear message, the only party line from the Israelis is "GOD GAVE US THIS LAND" which is clearly an insult to a thinking person.

They (the machine) can't answer questions like "don't you think after 50 years the international community should do a QA audit on your nuclear activities?
Based on... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sfIh3poEDc

I bet if you looked at posts in this thread you would be able to pick out the stooges. "No we can't possibly have a world without secrets!" framed with "because the terrorists will end humanity".

The Israelis favourite framing is "blar blar blar and it's because Humas is Evil"

Here I'll pick out some of the framing for you...

blar blar blar "and Obama doesn't even threaten to arrest that guy." [Therefore Obama is weak we need a strong warlord]

blar blar blar "murdered by an [apparent] Islamic terrorist [how they frame it] than if he went out in a blaze of improbability [yes an improbable truth, thank god you see it bro!]

blar blar blar "Of course, your opinion on everything is irrelevant, [now the framing] since you live in a dictatorship. [Oh course there is no relationship between where someone lives and there ability to be rational]

You watch on every political discussion on the net there are people in those discussions that are there only to effect the framing of the discussion and when pressed they have nothing much to say as those answers are in the blue book of macros to prevent peace in the world.

Anyway keep up the good work you guys. They wouldn't need secrets if they weren't doing the wrong thing. Pure and simple.

"moments" == 10+ minutes????

[Anonymous Coward]

"moments" == 10+ minutes???? Nah. And texans are armed civilians. Can the army just shoot into a crowd of texans walking the streets of houston???

shit happens

[shnull]

and it will happen again, as far as i can see it is some kind of accidental collateral damage, which is inevitable in any war ... but to prevent this from becoming common, i think people like mister Wikileaks are doing a great job of kicking the conscience or at least the p.r. - nightmare back to the military of the 'civilized' (mind the ''-s) world. Can't break cake without baking eggs, there will always be innocent victims. Question is, how many victims would there be if some of the middle-east nations were allowed to go at it just like that? I'm not one for interfering with any culture, but when, for example, armageddon-man from Iran starts herding Uranium for peaceful purposes i'm a bit wary, and i'm happy the spacemarines (yes, thank god for cold fusion) are buffering between him and me. If this costs an innocent reporters life, that's a sad fact but i still want them to keep an eye on Mordor while i sleep. So, good thing we have wikileaks so the space-marines do not succumb to the teachings of the dark lord :p As long as theres homo sapiens there will be war and it doesn't look like we'll be evolving anytime soon...next-gen is being held back everywhere, in the name of public safety...so, again, thank your gods for shit like wikileaks before i raise Orwell from the grave to haunt you all.

Did he hurt national security????

[Anonymous Coward]

There are many laws covering possession and distribution of sensitive information that belongs to other people, business or government. Also laws that cover how the info was obtained, including circumvention of computers and security measures.

No-one would show up....

[Hasai]

....They'd all be too busy watching American Idol.

Re:Treason is lying to the american public about W

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude - /they are politicians/. And the republican political machine /in particular/ played the patriotism card so well that anybody speaking against the war was attacked.

What the democrats did was spineless, but what the republicans did was *evil* in a god-fearing kind-of way.

There is plenty of evidence that the bush administration knowingly cooked the books and tried to keep congress in the dark so that, in the words of one Pentagon official, "they could have their little war".

Go read a book about it - or protect yourself with ignorance if you're too cowardly.

Re:Treason is lying to the american public about W

[microbox]

And you know what? People want to be lied to. They don't want to hear the truth

If only it were not true. I just saw an interview with Darren Brown, and he was saying how upset people get with him when he points out a charlatan psyhic. I mean, wtf?.

It seems that the bush administration correctly gauged that they could break the law, and with sufficient media manipulation, hard-core republicans would keep justice at bay. Those hard-core republicans have their head so suck up their ass, that they cannot even digest what happened. And, apparently, having a head suck there is a comfortable place, so long as you only watch Fox.

Re:Treason is lying to the american public about W

[rainer_d]

And you know what? People want to be lied to. They don't want to hear the truth

If only it were not true. I just saw an interview with Darren Brown, and he was saying how upset people get with him when he points out a charlatan psyhic. I mean, wtf?.

It's true in the sense that people want to hear "Good News".
Silly example: the infamous "Darling, does that dress make me look fat?"-question.
Few women want an honest answer to that question.
Same with questions about war, peace, financial situation, environment.
(Adding to that is the fact that the people in charge often have very little practical power to make short-time changes for the better - they can only create stop-gap solutions etc).

In the US, the "spin-it-positively" attitude is most obvious - that doesn't mean that we don't have it at all in Europe.
Just take at look at the fucked-up €-situation....

Re:Everyone knows camera's come with rocket launch

[lennier]

And the 8 million civilians killed in Vietnam alone were all legitimate targets because you liberate a country by doing a holocaust.

I'd love to have confirmation of that 8 million figure. Wikipedia suggests that's an order of magnitude too high to be credible but admits the true civilian body count is unknown.

If the Vietnam civilian toll were in the millions then the US would have to face truly Godwinian comparisons. These were common in the activist culture of the 1960s-70s but it seems to have become unfashionable now.

But even if the US bombings only caused the deaths of several hundred thousand Vietnamese? That's still something I don't really hear much complaint over. Lots of talk about 'the troops' - and as conscripts they faced a horrible ethical choice between breaking the law of their country or serving in a bad war they were told was necessary (but obviously wasn't since the free world survived the Fall of Saigon) - but what about the deaths of foreign innocents? Shouldn't they count more than national troops in all our moral calculations, or how can we consider ourselves 'good guys'?

Yes, I do get frustrated when people complain the 'the troops came home from Vietnam and were told that the war they served in was neither honorable nor necessary. How dare mere civilians who've never faced bullets say such a horrible thing!'. Well, truth hurts maybe, but that's the case. Vietnam WAS a bad war and 'serving your country' isn't automatically a good thing if your country is acting dishonourably - is it?