Slashdot Mirror
WikiLeaks 'a Clear and Present Danger,' Says WaPo
bedmison writes "In an op-ed in the Washington Post titled 'WikiLeaks must be stopped,' Marc A. Thiessen writes that 'WikiLeaks represents a clear and present danger to the national security of the United States,' and that the US has the authority to arrest its spokesman, Julian Assange, even if it has to contravene international law to do so. Thiessen also suggests that the new USCYBERCOM be unleashed to destroy WikiLeaks as an internet presence."
Reader praps tips an interview with another WikiLeaks spokesman, Daniel Schmitt, who says they have no regrets about releasing the Afghanistan documents, and says WikiLeaks is "changing the game." Several other readers have pointed out that WikiLeaks posted a mysterious, encrypted "insurance" file on Thursday, which sent the media into a speculative frenzy over what it could possibly contain.
So apparently The Washington Post presents a clear and present danger to public freedom and the accountability of government and industry.
They could only publish it if they were getting the acceptable, authorized leaks which told them so.
"Lost time is not found again."
I love that an organization is a danger because it reveals coverups and secrets to ordinary citizens.
"But Pojut, our enemies will use this information against us!"
Well then maybe we shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Doy.
Living With a Nerd
Julian? Sure, he's the face of WL, but that would not stop the signal.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
It comes from the Washington Post. What would Woodward and Bernstein have to say about this?
'The US Government is a Clear and Present Danger' says US Citizens
the cat is out of the bag, even if they killed wikileaks the information they posted is most likely on other people's computers already and it would be a trivial task to setup another server somewhere else with that same info or the very least seed some torrents of it all at various bittorrent sites.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Sounds to me more like the United States is the clear and present danger. Particularly when they claim an authority and yet admit a conflict with international law.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
haven't you seen star wars? if you strike him down, he will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
it's not such a bad thing for the government to *gasp* be held accountable.
frog blast the vent core
please let the insurance file be the result of "dd if=/dev/urandom ..."
----- Documentation is worth it just to be able to answer all your mail with 'RTFM' - Alan Cox.
Hahah, the poetic justice of this whole WikiLeaks vs US situation is so entertaining and euphoric.
This wasn't the Washington Post saying this, it was a columnist who writes a weekly column for the Post. Saying that the Post says this is like attributing George Will's tirades to the Post. The Post publishes opeds from all over the political spectrum that may or may not reflect the editorial stance of the Post. Thiessen is a right-winger from the American Enterprise Institute. If you want to get pissed at someone, get pissed at the AEI, not the Post.
No sig? Sigh...
A "clear a present danger" means we should invade Wikileaks and occupy it for the next decade!
One of the major complaints by the gov't was that some of the Afghan informers that were named will now be Taliban targets. Seems an easy way to flush out more Talibs...just set up surveillance on the informers, and wait for the rats to find their way to the cheese...
...but Marc Thiessen is downright scary. Secret indictments. Grabbing foreign citizens in other countries against local laws and extradition treaties. Are you kidding, Marc? Want to bring back the Alien and Sedition Acts while you're at it?
I'm not sure that a regime where stuff like this happens is really worth protecting in the name of "national security".
Sounds like a job for CIA Analyst Jack Ryan.
... to the mainstream media who are more interested in printing out press releases than going out and finding news.
that the U.S. would actually "arrest" this guy. If we have laws that keep us from assassinating leaders of countries we don't like, such as Fidel Castro, Kim Song Il, and so on, I seriously doubt we would have the legal authority to arrest a non-political person (i.e. private citizen) that has no ties to the U.S. whatsoever. I don't think the U.S. would try to do it, either, even under Bush. If the guy was dumb enough to wander into Iraq or Afghanistan maybe we'd have some ground to classify him as an enemy combatant or something. This op-ed is ridiculous, though. Even if he were brought to the U.S. by some covert operation, how long before a U.S. judge ruled everything they did illegal and make them let him go?
One sentence from the article.
"Its reason for existence is to obtain classified national security information and disseminate it as widely as possible -- including to the United States' enemies."
Not only was a Washington times writer unable to grasp grammar, but also unable to fully research their story. Or maybe they just don't want to honestly present information because they're part of the big 5 media monopoly in the states (Ben Bagdikian; google it).
They make every governments activities known to everyone, in a nutshell. Similar to The Memory Hole back in the day.
US government won't be able to do shit IMO.
The clear and present danger doesn't come from *talking* about the actions of the American government, but from the actions themselves.
Newspapers didn't aid the Northern Vietnamese when they published the Pentagon Papers, but instead the Government and Military hurt the America with their secretive and malicious actions in Southeast Asia.
Just the same, releasing more information about the military actions in Afghanistan (especially after taking all possible precautions to prevent harm before release) does not cause injury to the US. It's the actions the US is ashamed to talk about that cause the harm.
"and that the US has the authority to arrest its spokesman, Julian Assange, even if it has to contravene international law to do so"
Interesting interpretation of "international law" and America's opinion of it. No wonder the world hates the US.
Am I the only one who is getting really nervous about all the gov't secrecy (and the general acceptance of it)?
Best of luck cybering your way through the tubes, Cybercom.
The more information that is available to the public the more good it will cause. Some folks might get hurt in the process but that's a cost of freedom. US Constitution hasn't been violated.
Well then maybe we shouldn't be doing it in the first place. Doy.
As long as bad people exist, you will always need to keep certain information secured. Whether you're a government or a citizen. How would you respond if Wikileaks put up your credit card information, bank account numbers, social security number and all your known residences and acquaintances?
I'm not implying that our current scenario is as cut and dried as World War II but how would you react if Wikileaks had been broadcasting over a magical radio station that blanketed the Earth the location of allied forces in 1942? Would you so callously respond that "maybe the Allies shouldn't be doing that in the first place?"
Yes, as an American, I am concerned about the people fighting for my country abroad. I'm not concerned one bit about the politicians and generals, it's the grunts and people out in the field that could suffer from this. And most of all the people helping those forces by giving them intelligence. War is not a cover-up. It has necessary secrets. It has since Roman times and it will continue to as long as humans exist. You know the names and locations of people informing American forces about where the Taliban are needs to be classified. At this point it's not even using this information against me sitting at home in comfort but about the people in Afghanistan and their safety.
My work here is dung.
Some guy got to rant his opinion on a popular newspaper. So what does that mean... Not much... That is a neat thing about our government people have the rights to express their opinion however there is a process that goes on before action is takes on his opinion if at all.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
If you don't feel revealing your secrets is dangerous ... may I ask you a simple question :
What's the way to log in to your bank account ? Mail account ? Social security number ? Surely revealing secrets can't hurt you, right ?
This just to establish the obvious - that some secrets are secret for a reason. And obviously, interactions with informants on an enemy that kills without regard to human rights, or even basic decency, are secret. You'd have to be fucking desperate to see the "muslim students" (translation into a language nobody here understands : "taliban") as victims. At the very best these people are a maffia shooting from behind children. At worst, they're genocidal maniaks that need to be eradicated before they start again (murdered half Kabul when they left it, in addition to several religious genocides, and that's just in the last 10 years).
Therefore the entire article is suspect. (from a logical view point)
While technically correct that wikileaks disseminates american classified information, it also disseminates any information that governments may want to keep secret. By saying that wikileaks targets the US is a factual misrepresentation, wikileaks doesn't target any country, they are just a clearing house where individuals can anonymously whistle blow.
Of course the plethora of American information currently available could simply be an artifact of the mainly English based web, the massive amount of media attention that the broadcasters have put out, or a simple case of individuals with access to classified information feeling ethically obligated to bring injustice into the light.
That being said it wouldn't surprise me terribly if the CIA and mossad came to a quiet agreement about what happens to the staff of wikileaks.
And I want to know whats in the insurance file. Guaranteed the NSA has had that file bumped to the top of their decrypt list.
It is not Wikileaks that is the danger, it is the trigger happy US and allied military and the uncaring and arrogant US government that is jeopardising the safety and image of Americans to the world. To turn the oft repeated slogan on its head; "If you got nothing to hide, you should not fear Wikileaks". I am sick of hearing "political analysts" and politicians saying Wikileaks is endangering American soldiers because they expose atrocities committed by American soldiers, and as the flawed logic goes, emboldens the enemy. Seriously, this is something Goebbles or Stalin might say, not the leaders of the free world. Wikileaks is actually helping the US by creating negative consequences for excesses of its military. Instead of trying to silence Wikileaks by extra-legal, Gestapo/NKVD/Kempetai-like "rendering" of the founder (which will only worsen the US image), maybe the US should rein in their cowboy soldiers and walk the "spreading freedom and democracy" talk.
I firmly believe (and hope), that the current administration has read enough history to avoid dumb blunders.
"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong." (Oscar Wilde)
I thought the NYT, Times UK and Der Speigel got to review the "leak" before it was published.
Planning to be moderated ± 1: Bad Pun.
Several other readers have pointed out that WikiLeaks posted a mysterious, encrypted "insurance" file on Thursday, which sent the media into a speculative frenzy over what it could possibly contain.
Oh man, this is the coolest part of all. Who doesn't love a good conspiracy theory–friendly mystery? From the relevant link:
The 1.4GB file is encrypted with AES-256, so its contents are unknown, but it was quietly posted on the site's Afghan War Diary page on Thursday, days after it controversially disclosed tens of thousands of frontline reports.
The new file has prompted speculation, including from Cryptome's John Young, that Wikileaks would publish the passphrase to decrypt the file if the US took action against spokesman Julian Assange or others involved in the site.
Or perhaps the passphrase is even in someone else's safekeeping, to be published if Assange is arrested or otherwise incapacitated. Of course, the truly badass way to do it would be to have a cron job somewhere that will automatically upload the passphrase to a website unless Assange manually intervenes on a regular basis, like an informational dead-man's-switch. (I'm just idly speculating. That last plan would be overkill, better suited to a movie or something. Come to think of it, has that specific thing been done in fiction? I can think of similar examples but none with a cryptographic key to sensitive information.)
"This algorithm runs in constant time. Come on, 2,147,483,648 is a constant..."
And in other news, Joseph Goebbels has written a scathing denunciation of the Jews, and the threat they pose to German society.
Don't blame the Post (entirely) for this opinion piece; they merely published it. It was written by one of Bush and Rummy's chief apologists, an alarmist advocate of martial law.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel got the documents in advance. Washington Post didn't. I'm going to take a big leap and say that reporters of those newspapers might have a slightly more positive attitude towards WikiLeaks than other reporters, including WaPo (even though in theory they shouldn't).
Too bad our patriotic freedom soldiers of love 'accidentally' made the Afghanis 'leak' some material, clearly and presently endangering their health. Surely that must have been Saddam's fault, not those glorious administrators doing 'god's work' in the pentagram.. er pentagon!
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/03/29/100329crbo_books_mayer?currentPage=all Read this review of Thiessen's Courting Disaster. You'll learn to doubt everything he says.
Isn't "Clear and Present Danger" the terminology used to justify Executive Orders to assassinate someone Without Remorse? The Washington Post is playing Patriot Games. I think we owe Wikileaks a Debt of Honor.
According to The Register, there is a huge encrypted file up on wikileaks now, called 'insurance.' The US goes after wikileaks or Julian Assange, the key to that file goes out to the world. And according to Assange, everything dangerous was redacted out of the Afghanistan documents. Cryptome's John Young speculates that the 'insurance' file contains all the redacted bits.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
This isn't the Washington Post, it's an op-ed they published, by a fellow for an industry shill group that's likely rather scared about corporate secrets (think Big Tobacco-style stuff) being leaked.
Just look who the author is. What do you think an opinion piece on Wikileaks put out by Wolfowitz, Cheney, Frum, blah blah blah would look like? Exactly the same. It is standard boilerplate Neo-Con paranoia/horse shit. If I lost sleep every time Dick Cheney wanted to break international laws, I would never sleep.
From what I can tell the main complaint by the military is that this is risking military lives because it reveals tactics, informants, and plans. Let me assure you that A. The Taliban has long known our tactics for everything. Its pretty easy to figure out after the 500th skirmish where someone got away... B. The informants real names should of NEVER EVER been stored. Christ almighty, did the military learn jack shit from the CIA and there spy masters? We let every jack ass into the military.. this was bound to happen. C. Our plans are extremely transparent. Also they suck, they always have sucked in this kind of situation. They are going to spend a bunch of time/energy trying to find/kill Julian and if(when?) they succeed everyone will know it was the US. Thats when there shit will fly.. you think wikileaks doesn't have some kind of "Fuck you" plan saved up for the military? What do you think is in the encrypted insurance file? Its a fuck you file. They kill/capture Julian the next hour the password will be released and the military will be totally fucked.
So basically, -1 troll/offtopic is really slashdots way of saying "I hate that you thought of something before me."
As others have pointed out, it was not the WaPo saying this, it was right wing hack Marc Theissen. Thiessen is yet another chicken hawk from the Bush/Cheney administration who writes a weekly column that is so utterly predictable and boring in its position (far far to the right) and lack of original thought (Obama is BAD! Democrats are making America weak! Iran is going to attack any day now!! blah blah blah). He basically regurgitates right-wing talking points he gets from the AEI or other conservative "think tanks" (talk about an oxymoron). Him and Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer are basically the same person, each one hates the left wingers with equal passion and yearns longingly for the glory days of secrecy and FUD everyone so enjoyed under the Dick Cheney administration.
If there's a leak, then it might as well be published publicly so they know what was leaked. A scary alternative is a private leak funneling information exclusively to the Bad Guys, and they may never know what was leaked. If the information is concerning current or future strategy and it got on Wikileaks, at least they will be able to change course as needed. If, on the other hand, the information exposes government corruption, then it definitely should be made public.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
I would like to call your attention to the following quote from a WP article from November 24, 2009 speaking to their decision to shutdown all of their national offices: "...Brauchli, a former foreign correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, acknowledged that "unquestionably there are advantages to having someone on the ground at times." But, he said, "We are not a national news organization of record serving a general audience. Nor are we a wire service or cable channel." Maintaining that The Post's strength is to report issues through a "Washington prism," Brauchli cited recent examples of education and economic reporters filing major dispatches from other cities to illustrate national trends..." (Original article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112403014.html ) I believe the telling bit is the "Washington Prism", or mouth piece of the very regimes which are being called out in the leaked information. In that light this comes as no surprise.
I am a fan of Wikileaks. I enjoy that they are exposing many injustices in the world such as in Iran after the elections, and the internet censorship lists from Australia. But, why are they only releasing US war documents? Can't they get ahold of documents from other countries involved in the wars? Why is is SO important to only smear the US and their efforts?
I think they are a great resource that can and is easily abused for the wrong purpose. Since they are supposedly an "open medium", posting secretive documents given to them not commonly accessible by the general public it is hard to regulate them. I think the regulation should come in the form of not only the US government being transparent about their plans (without affecting future plans), but other countries as well.
Lets "level" the playing field here.
Mumble mumble mum....
If someone were to completely ruin this site using black hat methods with no gov't assistance, I wonder if the US Gov't would consider it illegal or if they would pay a reward. Any takers?
For those of you who've forgotten this fellow, he's a former Bush speechwriter and author of the terribly misleading "Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack".
The New Yorker did a piece on that book, investigating some of the claims made within and revealing many to be clearly false. Basically the book was a defense of "enhanced interrogation". One claim that I recall off the top of my head is that information obtained by the CIA through enhanced interrogation was instrumental in preventing a conspiracy to hijack several planes flying from London in 2006. Yet according to the head of Scotland Yard's anti-terrorism unit, all the intelligence involved was gathered in the uk. Thiessen's version of events is flatly contradicted.
This guy has been one of the primary fonts of misinformation and foolishness in the media since then. He has no credibility, and should be regarded only as a bellwether of neoconservative opinion.
The insurance file's contents could include the 15,000 reports Assange said Wikileaks held back last week to protect human intelligence sources on the ground, Young suggested.
If true, that would be a dangerously provocative escalation.
In response to news that names and even GPS coordinates of some informants were nevertheless included, [Assange] blamed the US military. "This material was available to every soldier and contractor in Afghanistan," he claimed, stretching the truth. However, the material was classified only as Secret, so would be relatively widely available to security-cleared individuals. As far as we know none of them published it, though.
Challenged that he had put lives at risk Assange responded: "Well, anything might happen, but nothing has happened."
When something does happen, expect all hell to break loose.
...."WikiLeaks posted a mysterious, encrypted "insurance" file "...
Obama fapping on ChatRoulette?
I kid, I kid.
WikiLeaks is in its essence just a Wiki site. A web site. It's clear that publishing text is in no way unique to that site, you can do it on any site. Hopefully the government isn't saying that free communication is the real threat to national security.
WikiLeaks didn't commit any of the acts in the leaked documents, it wasn't their job or responsibility for keeping those documents secret, and they didn't leak the documents from their origin: some unknown source did on their own will, and sent them to WikiLeaks.
All WikiLeaks did was take those documents, make a cursory check of authenticity, and publish them.
Of course, by doing so, they become an easy target for people who are willing to turn heads away from the actual problems that lead to projects like WikiLeaks, and instead blame the messenger.
The real problem (for certain people) is that WikiLeaks is now a vivid symbol nurturing an environment where people may not simply do something because it was ordered from above, and especially if it's in conflict with basic human rights and morals.
But by loudly blaming WikiLeaks for the created situation, they only serve to further strengthen the very symbol they want to destroy. Somewhat ironic. As long as WikiLeaks is on everyone's target, and not their anonymous sources, more and more whistle-blowers will choose to trust them with their data.
Thiessen didn't just work for Bush, Helms and Rumsfeld. He was spokesman for and senior policy advisor to Helms, when the ancient and decrepit Helms was in charge of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 1995-2001. He moved with Rumsfeld to the top of the Pentagon as his chief speechwriter 2001-2004, then to Bush's speechwriting team, becoming its chief in 2008.
He's "a well regarded pundit and speechwriter in Conservative circles" in that he was among the people most responsible for starting the Iraq War (as they'd planned through the 1990s), for ignoring the threats from the Qaeda in Afghanistan (because they cared only about invading Iraq), for running both wars as epic catastrophes while attacking everyone questioning them as a "clear and present danger" to America's security.
The Washington Post publishes columns by Thiessen because his radical rightwing warmonger faction is the Post's board's favorite tiny sliver of Americans. Who always get whatever they want, especially wars.
--
make install -not war
Lets assume something completely crazy for a moment: that there really is information that ought to be kept secret. for example, launch codes for nukes. let's continue with the mental exercise so far as to say other facts may similarly be in the legitimate national interest to conceal. I'll even give you that in some rare cases, THE TRUTH may be so shocking / valuable / topical / money making that that PUBLIC INTEREST demands disclosure. so, bobby, wtf is the one new thing you learnt from this leak? seriously? whats the one new piece of public interest type of info that you got from this? I sure as hell havent seen anything new. and why on earth couldnt someone have just REDACTED THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES of the informers?
Contemplate the marvel that is existence, and rejoice that you are able to do so.
I would like to call your attention to the following quote from a WP article from November 24, 2009 speaking to their decision to shutdown all of their national offices: "...Brauchli, a former foreign correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, acknowledged that "unquestionably there are advantages to having someone on the ground at times." But, he said, "We are not a national news organization of record serving a general audience. Nor are we a wire service or cable channel." Maintaining that The Post's strength is to report issues through a "Washington prism," Brauchli cited recent examples of education and economic reporters filing major dispatches from other cities to illustrate national trends..." (Original article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/24/AR2009112403014.html ) I believe the telling bit is the "Washington Prism", or mouth piece of the very regimes which are being called out in the leaked information. In that light this comes as no surprise. Also the author is a "fellow" of AEI. To quote wikipedia "Some AEI scholars are considered to be some of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy."
The documents contain identities of Afghans who are providing information to us about the Taliban. The Taliban have issued a press release promising to extract the names from the documents and kill our sources.
There can be no question that WikiLeaks has done evil here - and not against American or NATO forces, but against Afghan civilians who merely wish to remain free of Taliban dictatorship.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I'm sure this has nothing to do with Wikileaks passing documents onto the New York Times, the Guardian, and der Spiegel, and not the Washington Post, whose only claims to fame have been insiders leaking them information.
Of course, the NSA Times wouldn't have published, either, hadn't reputable foreign media also gotten the documents.
WikiLeaks is in a great place for the press in that it allows WikiLeaks to be the source of scandalous documents; rather than actually being responsible for the leak itself.
What this means is that they have a huge overarching story they can flog for quite awhile and not have to worry about retribution for running any given story. WikiLeaks is a total win-win for an ever more lazy media.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
They should have thought of this before Al Gore funded the internet. Now the cat is out of the bag. Wikileaks isn't a person, but a principle.
I'm ok with WikiLeaks posting documents that shine a light on places it needs to be shown. They haven't surfaced any documents from dictatorships, (actual) terrorist organisations, human traffickers or non-western groups. WikiLeaks may be game changers but not in the way they expect, providing detailed information in only one direction. It may make it impossible for democracies to get cooperation in dangerous areas because identities will end up being public.
Every organisation has internal documents that show the chaos of decision making processes with competing priorities. They also have documents that describe who they work with. Organisations need free flowing discussions to make sure they understand the ramifications of their actions. Publicising intermediate documents makes that impossible.
WikiLeaks has an insurance policy that will get people killed. Their (self preservation) moral code isn't any different than any other self-interested organisation.
Let's keep it straight just who has blood on their hands.
Doctors Without Borders was in Afghanistan for 30 years, running rural health clinics and supporting and teaching Afghani doctors and nurses. They treated everyone without regard to who they were affiliated with or which side they were on. Their medical clinics were one of the few neutral areas in Afghanistan, respected by everyone, where guns were not permitted.
After the U.S. invasion, Colin Powell moved in a lot of U.S. medical charity workers, and referred to medical workers as "force extenders." The U.S. passed out fliers telling villagers that if they joined the American side and turned in the Taliban, they would get all kinds of benefits, including medical services.
That politicized medical services in Afghanistan. Doctors Without Borders was no longer safe, and had to leave the country. I read an account in which a German obstetrician was crying and refused to leave her patients -- Afghanistan has one of the highest infant and maternal death rates in the world -- and her supervisor had to order her to leave. It was too dangerous.
The other problems like checkpoints manned by soldiers who didn't speak the local language, and killed civilian families who didin't understand their orders, is too much to get into here.
The Bush Administration has blood on its hands. Thiessen was George W. Bush's speechwriter. Thiessen has blood on his hands.
Thiessen is arguing that we should ignore international law. He's using the logic of terrorists.
So if China sent a covert operation into India and seized the Dalai Lama, or a covert operation to the US to seize Li Hongzhi (the leader of the Falun Gong) or Rebiya Kadeer (the leader of the terrorist East Turkestan Liberation Movement), how would Americans react? It would be a total shitstorm. I don't even have to say that, it's so obvious.
Clearly there is no morality here behind American actions, it's all about what's good for American interests. It's kind of like rooting for your sports team, they can do no wrong. Double standards and hypocrisy are the norm. It would be good for people to remember that the next time a China article pops up and the China-hating crowd here gets all sanctimonious. We have a team too, and we're looking out for our interests, just like you're looking out for yours.
Wikileaks only posts leaks. The leaks have already happened. Someone, somewhere in the organisation has decided that it's worth risking their job and their liberty over to get this information out, and since they have access to classified information, they must realise that by providing it to wikileaks, everyone will have access to it.
So what would happen if wikileaks didn't exist? Would the leakers simply not leak, or would they leak to the media? Or to the countries that the US is at war with? Do they leak because they get a thrill of being the whistleblower, oblivious to the dangers? I think it's much more important to understand the motives than to try to close down a website.
You know, you come at this with one overriding point of view - US Military is Bad. Well I got news for you. These guys are out there risking their butts for folks like you who don't have the first clue about what those people are going through, how limited they are in how they can respond to the enemy who hides behind women and children and in Mosques and shoot at the good guys from those positions. Those folks are cowardly civilian bombing animals and all you got to say is that there is something wrong with our guys. Ours guys who are us, our kids, our brothers, our sisters and our fathers and mothers. They should arrest this clown if they can catch him and every American who helped put other Americans in danger should be sent to prison for a long long time.
Enjoy your Karma, after all you earned it. Feel your Karma Joe, feel it burn.
Excuse me America, but WTF are you doing ? Are you hunting people that tell you the truth about your own government ? These days it's all about Wikileaks and that soldier that released secret war documents. They are not your heroes, but criminals ? You should go to streets and demand even more information ! More information from the government that YOU pay for. More days your wait, more days some sick people are living on your bill. If you stop them, you may get some free insurance or even optimistic future. Haha, doesn't it sound funny ? 'Optimistic future' .. No it doesn't ! This is what are we here to experience as human beings, not as citizens with no rights !
But only CORRECTLY classified works. 99% of the classified works are incorrectly marked classified to hide malfeasance or just plain incompetency.
See, for example, ACTA.
even if it has to contravene international law to do so.
It's this sort of attitude that makes the US "loved" the whole world over. Because I am sure (and recent past history supports me) that there are quite a few people in the US government who also believe that the US is above the law.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
...for repeating the "nothing new here" line.
Then there's known facts vs what the media bothers to report vs what's common knowledge.
Examples:
None of this things would be "new" news, but it would be news if the media started talking about them.
The only opinion that counts is if Obama thinks WikiLeaks is a clear and present danger.
Given that the encrypted "insurance" file published by WikiLeaks could possibly contain Obama's original birth certificate showing his true nationality, I doubt very much the administration will dare mess with WikiLeaks.
What is with all the people here taking the time to point out that this is an OPed piece and therefore not directly washington posts' opinion? Great, we get it, now get some perspective. They published it. They therefore take some responsibility for it. Or ... wait... hold on... Or we could say they have no responsibility because it's not their opinion, they just put it out there... like, what was the name of that site... they did something like that... oh yeah, wikileaks.
I don't really care what your opinion of WaPo is, nor for that matter wikileaks. But please try and have at least some semblance of rational thought. Just this once.
You mean "mod down" for the content? After all, the content was about how a US journalist and a US paper but the STATEMENT this was a "clarification" to was this: ....and that the US has the authority to arrest its spokesman, Julian Assange, even if it has to contravene international law to do so.
I.e. EVEN IF IT WERE NOT THE US, THE US has a belief it should do this. If not, why are you not complaining about WoPo inciting international war crimes?
I also support criminals calling law enforcement clear and present danger.
How about just straightening up your act?
Oh I'm sorry, I forgot you're fucked up from the inside out.
They released the names of people informing on the Taliban. These people will be murdered. This will piss off some very serious people, and for good reason. I hope his life insurance is up to date.
exactly. the insurance file can contain all the information that wikileaks has said they haven't released yet as part of a harm minimization process demanded by their sources. Citing "http://wardiary.wikileaks.org/":
And the government knows that wikileaks has that information, so if they do something bad against wikileaks (i.e. killing Assange) it will be released. That's using their tools against them. Others will call it cynically "extortion" or even "negotiating with terrorists", but it's just a way to preserve wikileaks, which is not the one killing people, but the one revealing information the government doesn't want us to know. They are the heroes of the new age.
RG! You're back! Good to see you again
I can't believe this Thiessen moron is justifying himself with a homemade law to authorize the FBI to override international law as a logic alternative to use.
What if China voted such a law in order to legalize espionnage in the USA for chinese immigrants?
That's some real BS and flawed logic.
Like all weapons, both offensive and defensive, they must be tested to be "battle proven". The usual first targets are "soft targets" that can't fight back. So The US Cybercommand released what the administration says are not critical secret information to Wikileaks via a covert channel. The people responsible for the actual leaks will be not-guilty on some technicality or be found to not be the ones who actually leaked the information. Meanwhile the US CyberCommand will release the wrath and fury of its might on Wikileaks. And have said they will contravene International Law to do so.
The solution is to not go after Wikileaks you government idiot reactionary stooges. Stop the leaks from happening in the first place.
Your tax dollars at work. If you don't like what they are doing vote out every incumbent in the fall. Send a clear message that you are unhappy with the current administrations handling of YOUR country to BOTH sides of the aisle!
- Tjp
I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!
Whether you agree or not with the US conducting "wars" in Iraq, Afghanistan, and potentially Iran or N.Korea in future, one thing is becoming absolutely clear.
The US simply cannot behave in an honest manner. Just yesterday there's a new storm brewing over the Iraq mortality figures, with the Iraqis quoting 500+ and the US quoting 200+.
Secrecy is to protect things that might endanger security, NOT to hide stats that look bad and might show a nation in a bad light.
And now, they want to tread all over every international law and agreement, and even their own goddamn first amendment about freedom of speech, and "detain" Julian at the first opportunity. Or possibly he'll just mysteriously "disappear".
US, YOU DO NOT OWN THE FUCKING WORLD. You fought the Communists for 30 years. What makes you ANY better than China if this is the direction you will take ?
This is princeton's somewhat muddled definition
Liberal:broad: *showing or characterized by broad-mindedness; "a broad political stance"; "generous and broad sympathies"; "a liberal newspaper"; "tolerant of his opponent's opinions" having political or social views favoring reform and progress tolerant of change; not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or tradition a person who favors a political philosophy of progress and reform and the protection of civil liberties*
Wikipedia is more specific and defines two (three counting economic liberalism, but no one is referring to the third one when they say liberal bias) types of liberal:
"Classical liberalism is a political ideology that developed in the nineteenth century in Western Europe, and the Americas. It is committed to the ideal of limited government and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets."
"Social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice. It differs from classical liberalism in that it recognizes a legitimate role for government in addressing economic and social issues such as unemployment, health care, and education while simultaneously expanding civil rights."
So just remember that when someone says a newspaper has a liberal bias what they are saying is that the newspaper has a bias towards being broad minded, tolerant, favouring reform and progress and supporting civil liberty. This is actually what newspapers are supposed to do, it is in some cases written into their founding documents and is basically what newspapers have a mandate to be.
The file is only ~224 MB and the sha1sum does not match the one on the web page.
I have been following the story, though not as closely as some here I'm sure. It is clear to me that there is a danger to US troops, NATO troops, and mostly Afghan informants (who are trying to improve their own country and fight off radical extremists who are indeed against freedom) in releasing the classified information without redacting certain information. However, I haven't heard yet whether or not such information has actually been released. The WikiLeaks site says, "We have delayed the release of some 15,000 reports from the total archive as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source. After further review, these reports will be released, with occasional redactions, and eventually in full, as the security situation in Afghanistan permits." Does anyone here know of information that has been released containing names or identifying information of informants or other highly sensitive information that would put people at risk? If not then the op-ed is moot, and worse, ill-informed. If so, then IMHO the US government and military should go after WikiLeaks (in an international law-abiding way).
I really need to write a check to Wikileaks. And EFF. And ACLU. This liberty thing could get expensive, what with us having to fund the fight against the people who we elected to uphold it, who are also using our money.
[Wikileaks] If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide and this information won't hurt anyone, all information should be public information, except my personal information which shouldn't be because its mine and I'm special. You only don't want anyone to know because you're big and EVERYTHING you do is pure evil. You never have any valid reason to keep secrets, theres no reason what so ever, and secrets mean you are doing things that are evil!!!!@$!@$!@%@#^@#$^#$%&#$%&@#%! Its not like I spin it to make it worse than it actually worse, nor do I EVER lie about anything or change my story after getting caught.
[Goverment] No, its bad because not all information we have is about the evil things we never do, some of it is secret to protect people, like you, which is why we don't leak your personal information ourselves (except today, where will make an exception just to fuck you over Mr Assange since you're claiming we're going to do that anyway, lets get it out of the way). And we never do anything bad, so theres no reason you need to see the information anyway. We never lie or cheat or screw the people over either.
Translation: ITS NOT FUCKING BLACK AND WHITE. THERE IS ROOM FOR A PROPER, INTELLIGENT MIDDLE GROUND. BOTH ORGANIZATIONS RAN BY SELFISH MONEY GRABBING ATTENTION WHORING CUNTS WHO HAVE NO INTEREST IN ANYONE BUT YOURSELVES. YOU ARE BOTH CLEARLY BAD LIARS.
My Personal Opinion as if it wasn't obvious: Julian Assange is not anywhere near the right man for the job. Two polar opposites don't equal out to one middle ground. I'm going to side with the government because I DO have SOME control over it, where as I have none over a particular individual and when its this important, I'm going to want some control of some sort over it.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
US forces give the nod
It's a setback for your country
Bombs and trenches all in rows
Bombs and threats still ask for more
Divided world the CIA
Who controls the issue
You leave us with no time to talk
You can write your own assessment
Sing me songs of no denying
Seems to me too many trying
Waiting for the next big thing
Will you know it when you see it
High risk children dogs of war
Now market movements call the shots
Business deals in parking lots
Waiting for the meat of tomorrow
Everyone is too stoned to start emission
People too scared to go to prison
We're unable to make decisions
Political party line don't cross that floor
L. Ron Hubbard can't save your life
Superboy takes a plutonium wife
In the shadows of Ban the Bomb we live
Sing me songs of no denying
Seems to me too many trying
Waiting for the next big thing
Midnight Oil US forces.
You'd think that there would be massive caveats around an op-ed like this from a paper that did a series on the Pentagon Papers. While the NYT did most of the main work, the Post had their own series too.
Then again, conservatives have shown a sever aversion to both history and consistency.
I feel that wikileaks is a Good Thing; but I also acknowledge that there are some things that serve no purpose being released, and that put individuals in danger for no benefit.
If you read the reports you'll find that some data has been redacted, particularly names. According to Wikileaks additional reports are awaiting further vetting before release. As for danger: the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) reports that 2118 civilians were killed in 2008 (1523 in 2007). According to various opinions the released reports might put some people in danger, but the UNAMA says the US occupation of Afghanistan is putting people in danger.
Who benefits? Learning about the My Lai Massacre helped inform the American public, and contributed to ending the Vietnam war. Learning about the many events in Afghanistan helps the public form an informed opinion.
Cry me a river, Thiessen. You're a company man, through and through. Your comments about national security are about as neutral and even-handed as a BP exec's comments on the Spill. You had your chance, you blew it, and you want to keep a wrap on it.
That is all.
I am not a crackpot.
I'm sick to death about the US pushing their heads around, do they really think they are kings of the world and can just close anything down ignoring international law just because they dont like it?
who the f do they think they are??
I don't say that about many people, and I think the term gets thrown about far too lightly, but in the case of one Marc A. Thiessen, the man is a full-throated goose-stepping full bore *fascist*. Full stop. Everything about him screams "power to the powerful" -- whomever wields force is entitled to use it, whomever has the money is entitled to take more. There is no level of torture he won't endorse and no war waged for his theories that is illegal.
Woodward and Bernstein were an anomaly. The Washington Post gives voice to fascists.
Depraved Indifference: "to bring defendant's conduct within the murder statute, that the defendant's act was imminently dangerous and presented a very high risk of death to others and that it was committed under circumstances which evidenced a wanton indifference to human life or a depravity of mind. . . . . The crime differs from intentional murder in that it results not from a specific, conscious intent to cause death, but from an indifference to or disregard of the risks attending defendant's conduct."
I hope for Julian Assange's sake that no Afghani or Iraqi informants are killed because someone figured out from the unredacted information who the informants are. His releasing of this information directly led to these informant's death.
Was the Washington Post a clear and present danger during the Watergate scandal? Perhaps the Government should have arrested Bob Woodward and prevent them from publishing papers anymore? Sounds equivalent to me.
Given all the bitching over this, you think some one would of done something with this leak already. So far the people who are against this seem to have a upper hand.
I am a bummed by how no one has made any decent use of it yet. I think a reason for this is because no one has yet published a easily readable version of it.
To this end I've actually written the Perl module DBI::Wikileaks::AfWD.
http://search.cpan.org/~vvelox/DBI-Wikileaks-AfWD/
I had no idea Bush W went to work as editor in chief of the WaPo after he left office...
1) Something relatively harmless poses a grave threat to the US. Check.
2) International Law doesn't apply to us. Check.
3) We'll invade another country to apprehend him. Check.
Yup.. that's it.
I guess Dick Cheney should be in prison for treason then.
An arrest that contravenes the law is not an arrest; it's kidnapping.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
This was written by Marc Thiessen, the guy who was charged with justifying torture for W. He then went on and wrote a book about how torture is good. Jon Stewart dismantled this guy a few months ago when he was a guest on the Daily Show. Do not confuse what this guy writes with what the WaPo believes (of course the paper believes more and more along these lines in recent years).
Mods: The parent post is not flamebait.
the moment wikileaks is put down, another 100 websites will offer the same service and will keep the torch alive forever
Yeah, 'cause the unedited video had much more of a sitcom feeling.
What with the laughing and the good times edited out, it almost seemed like bloody murder.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
The less edited video allows the viewer a better chance of figuring out what really went on. If you bought the whole 17-minute piece of propaganda hook, line, and sinker, congratulations. You were fooled. Someone with an axe to grind convinced you that an unfortunate accident was murder. Murder implies knowledge of the actual nature of their target, and intent to kill them anyway. None of that was in the film.
No one claimed it was an easy thing to watch. It's war, pal. War against people who dress like civilians, live among civilians, and hide behind civilians. Collateral damage (or whatever euphemism you want to put on civilian casualties) is going to happen. The thought of my kids in that van makes my stomach roll. But it doesn't change the situation in the cockpit, or create intent where there was none.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
Once upon a time they used to be on our side, ferreting out the government secrets that needed to see the light of day.
A pity when the editorial board sells out its journalists in the name of "national security".
When did Congress declare it, and against whom?
Oh wait, it's not really legally a war is it?
Ian Ameline
I can think of few worse things for our shiny new CYCOM to tackle in its first public operation than a game of whack-a-mole with a well-financed international cadre of all-grown-up professional cypherpunks. Oh, they have friends in high places in European governments that don't take kindly to US hegemonism? Even better. I'm sure Chinese intelligence and the Russian mobs will quake in their boots after watching the US waste thousands of man-hours trying to un-ravel whatever preparations wikileaks have undoubtedly made for such an assault.
Cyber-warfare against a non-state actor is even more asymmetric than a guerrilla conflict.
Do any of you young folk remember a man by the name of Daniel Ellsberg? If not, please take a little bit of your time and look up a movie called "The Most Dangerous Man in America". For more information please visit the Internet Movie Database at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1319726/.
Daniel Ellisberg was the man who leaked what has become known as "The Pentagon Papers". He was the first man to be charged under the Espionage Act, with results that the administration did not intend. He never spent a minute in jail. The documentary of his actions came out last year (2009).
Here is a little breakdown of the story:
"The Most Dangerous Man in America" is the story of what happens when a former Pentagon insider, armed only with his conscience, steadfast determination, and a file cabinet full of classified documents, decides to challenge an "Imperial" Presidency-answerable to neither Congress, the press, nor the people-in order to help end the Vietnam War. In 1971, Daniel Ellsberg shook America to its foundations when he smuggled a top-secret Pentagon study to the New York Times that showed how five Presidents consistently lied to the American people about the Vietnam War that was killing millions and tearing America apart. President Nixon's National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger called Ellsberg "the most dangerous man in America," who "had to be stopped at all costs." But Ellsberg wasn't stopped. Facing 115 years in prison on espionage and conspiracy charges, he fought back. Ensuing events surrounding the so-called Pentagon Papers led directly to Watergate and the downfall of President Nixon, and hastened the end of the Vietnam War. Ellsberg's relentless telling of truth to power, which exposed the secret deeds of an "Imperial Presidency," inspired Americans of all walks of life to forever question the previously-unchallenged pronouncements of its leaders. "The Most Dangerous Man in America" tells the inside story, for the first time on film, of this pivotal event that changed history and transformed our nation's political discourse. It is told largely by the players of that dramatic episode-Ellsberg, his colleagues, family and critics; Pentagon Papers authors and government officials; Vietnam veterans and anti-war activists; Watergate principals, attorneys and the journalists who both covered the story and were an integral part of it; and finally-through White House audiotapes-President Nixon and his inner circle of advisors.
Documentary is available at Megavideo: http://www.megavideo.com/?d=6VI4M5CC
I work in the security field. I perform the type of work that the CyberCom was created for. While I would fight to my core to protect this country there are lines. I don't think the cybercom should be invoked frivilously as they are fighting on the forefront of our generations impending battlefield. In my opinion however, wikileaks has crossed the line in the field reports of the war. Sure, our gov't is not embellishing the truth about the war effort. It never has and never will. It is a part of war, that if there is negative aspects you try and dissuade it from coming to popular opinion and knowledge. War is a battle not only of the soldiers with guns but also to win the peoples popular opinion on the war.
Wikileaks crossed the line where it was not professional in its stated goal. It comes down to journalistic responsibility. The difference between the reporters of old and our new internet age "report staff" are journalistic integrity is not there. If there was any chance for loss of life for a report, it would be weighed and finally decided to post ONLY if the risk to life was justified by the magnitude of the problem. Wikileaks could have safeguarded themselves and kept public opinion on their side by properly scrubbing the data of names and obscuring some locations to prevent retaliatory action. But didn't. It is almost as if they simply grabbed the docs and posted it. The videos of the helo pilots that killed the civilians was a proper release. Sure, it was not popular and i don't like it making our armed forces (im american) look bad, but honestly those things happen in war and it is the duty of our great nation to hold those responsible for these negative actions when they could have been avoided. Currently we do not do a good job of that, so justified. No one died as a result of that leak.
My opinion is wikileaks has the potential to be one of the greatest things to allow whistleblowers the ability to get truly obscured negative things to light. Sadly, they blew their load by being too quick to get attention with a big leak. Our government lied to us about WMDs, insurgency (al qaeda was a BS small operation until WE drove people to it in droves), etc. But you know what, as americans we have done what we can to change those in power. It will not change shortly but we will fight every day to ensure those types dont continue business as usual.
In my opinion wikileaks better (no threat) watch their next US military post as it will bring down the hammer for no reason. They focus in on others (plenty of evil bastards hiding shit, cough *corporations, big business, etc*) and they could be a great force for the world and its people who believe in right. Protected by lawyers from the EFF and other actionable orgs. If not, cybercom ninjas will slice through their site again and again. Those guys rock.
While we're talking about the Washington Post:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/a-hidden-world-growing-beyond-control/
Remember the saying 'two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead'?
How about 854 000? I'm sure they are all completely trustworthy huh.
Interesting.
Several articles I read today reference the Sunday Times' article based on 'secret' Wikileaks information regarding British special operations forces. It takes much more than the usual bit of googling to find out that the article was entitled "Secrets of the Killing Squad." I click on the article link, when I eventually find it, which again, takes a bit more time than usual.
Oh, I see why it was an inordinate hassle to get to. Paywall!
Oh, the irony of the an article about secret undertakings kept from the eye of the dirty unwashed masses of the general public being... kept from the dirty unwashed eyes of the (unpaying) general public. Sorry, no, not registering.
target for elimination from the Internet, since Wikileaks serves a useful purpose and WaPo's apparent purpose is to spread political propaganda for whoever is in political power just like the rest of the legacy media.
Of course, there isn't a need for government action in this area, all WaPo has to do is annoy the wrong bunch of h4xx0rs.
The "journalist" should be careful what he asks for. If Wikileaks disappears, there's always a chance that he's in the "insurance" file with the rest of the rats. I don't take it for granted that the Manning Afghanistan expose is the only or even the primary content of that 1.4G file, which I would guess to be a compendium of the most embarrassing material they have been able to collect... the kind of stuff that gets politicians kicked out of office or indicted.
Tech Public Policy stuff
If the United States has the "Authority" to break international law, then I suppose I have the "authority" to break US law too :) (Well, actually I do, since I am not in the US...)
Anyway, I guess we don't need lawyers for complex international legal situations anymore, we can just ask the newspaper columnists what they think.
I understand that the piece is an Op-Ed piece by the WP. I understand that they publish ultra-right wing articles in order to allow all voices to be heard. My point is that in allowing all voices to be heard, this voice is denouncing other voices. Allowing everyone to be heard means allowing everyone to be heard. If something is green with yellow polka-dots, then its green with yellow polka-dots. It isn't beige. Wiki leaks publishes sensitive information. Its the nature of the website. The WP published events about 50 unbridled agents, some of which involved a burglary at the Watergate Hotel in Washington DC in 1974. It brought down a president (tarnishing his reputation forever). Some would have blamed the newspaper for bringing down the presidency....why did they publish that... But the truth is, that president brought himself down. His actions did not bring esteem to his title. Wikileaks is now acting like the WP did then; they are taking information which is considered important, and are allowing wide publication on the internet. In a way, it puts governments on notice: their actions are being put up for world wide scrutiny. Its one of many reasons why the internet is censored by many countries around the world. The article is more aimed at shooting the messenger, rather than dealing with the message, and half an attempt at shutting it down would bring up dozens of mirrors worldwide. Runs at mirrors would bring up dozens of mirrors per mirror. Its not a fight any coalition of governments can win.
During an interview with 'Democracy Now!' Julian talked about why The Washington Post wasn't included with the other big three newspapers which launched this Afghan Diaries story (NY Times, Guardian, Spiegel).
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/28/wikileaks_founder_julian_assange_transparent_government
The tape is a perfect example of the banality of evil. Just a couple of tough guys in a helicopter wanting to kill someone.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The wikileak founder did more to expore American arrogance and ignorance of the world than all the terrorists in the world ever did
It doesnt take a sage to know that history will be onthe side of Wikileaks whatever happens in the end, and the America is wrong here
What is the legality of downloading all these files and posting them on my own website?
That security clearance does not mean access. Even if someone has security clearance, they still need a reason to access something. Intelligence information is kept on a strictly need-to-know basis and your line of reasoning is completely bogus.
I want to know whats in the insurance file, surely enough of us could get together and paypal up a hitman or something right? I haven't been on IRC for a while but I'm sure theres a channel on EFNet for hiring a hitman, hell probably even some bots that take credit cards by now.
Do you think he had a thought before announcing this or this sort of thing just comes naturally?
I wonder if he'll be able to leak the documents that tell us who hired the hitman before he gets knocked off?
Is there a pool for how long his life expectancy is now? I got 100 USD on 3 months.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
1) Deems dangerous someone who denounces questionable/condemnable practices and
2) Threatens said someone with clear understanding of violating laws and principles,
well, that pretty much makes any further discussion unnecessary.
There's a lesson here for me: I must avoid being in a situation like that if I am to preserve my reputation.
(*) BTW, this is double dirty... announce you're going to get someone and just wait until one of your enemies do the dirty job for you, because your enemies WANT you to look bad, and so that you can say you're not guilty.
As more and more of government has become secret and "commercial in confidence", I would argue it is the citizen's duty to reinform the populace. Secrecy and censorship does not protect us anywhere near the amount that honesty, consideration and social equity can. One cannot have a democracy without the populace having the means to critique the government's decisions, including in the military. Well done wikileaks for being at the pointy edge of this process. There will be ethical challenges in this opening up of information but the reason that the authorities are talking so heavy about this is that it represents a fundamental challenge to the comfortable social control agenda they have been pursuing. Freedom from oppression is based upon knowing you are being lied to!
Someone has compiled all formats of the published Afghan War Diary 2004-2010 as a multi-tracker torrent. The torrent file itself is currently hosted on TPB but works independently of course.
Contents:
README.txt 3.07 KiB
afg-war-diary-nato.7z 208.08 KiB
afg-war-diary.csv.7z 15.33 MiB
afg-war-diary.html.7z 74.55 MiB
afg-war-diary.sql.7z 15.81 MiB
afg-war-diary_by-month.7 16.11 MiB
afg-war-diary_scale1dot5.7z 980.54 KiB
insurance.aes256 1.39 GiB
Please seed it. Better safe than sorry.
For the lives and money lost due to its actions. Does anyone remember where the phrase "Loose lips sink ships" comes from? Similar thoughtless actions cost lives in a time of war.
http://www.ww2pacific.com/congmay.html
Thank God we didn't have wikileaks around during WWII or we might all be speaking German and Japaneses.
...it's Intuit. I'd say: jail the lobbyists for treason!
I find it interesting that Mr Thiessen:
a) Believes wikileaks ONLY exists to uncover US national security information
b) Has completely missed the irony of Assanges "collateral damage" response
"Trust and you will be trusted", said the liar to the fool.
This is the result of all the secrecy. Truth is where? The fallacy of tyrannical governments lies in the hidden truths. How does one discern the truth from fiction. Some would say to wipe the slate clean, from top to bottom, with clean water each and every rinse. Others would say to change the system, you must work from within, within a snake-pit of vipers.
I, on the other hand, believe that the solution lies at a higher level than which the problem was created. This is the sentiment of A. Einstein.
The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
Every effort to empower common man will be resisted because, Administration will not allow their clout to be diluted and they want you to be subservient forever.
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
I look at all these relics of the Nixon administration that got us into this, and can't help but think . . . as much as I have to believe that Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon in good faith, so much of their actions seems to me to indicate that they took that pardon as a validation of the kind of imperial presidency Nixon sought to create. "If he had been *wrong*, then why would Ford have pardoned him?" goes the rationalization in my mind.
And I have to wonder, are we going to be dealing with these fools again in another 30 years. McCarthy begat Nixon, Nixon begat Cheney, Cheney begat . . . Yoo, Thiesen, Gonzales, Bush himself . . . another cabal of contemporaries determined to rewrite history after the fact, to show the world "No . . . we were *right* and we will prove it to you" again in thirty years.
We can't keep having this "Well, politics is politics" attitude that pardons and covers for the crimes of an administration as Obama and the Media has done here. We need to make sure that the historical record is clear that these people are war criminals.
Or we're going to go through this again in a generation.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Is do not ever give a government official any information.
They are not a capable to keep it a secret.
Don't kill the messenger.
US troops are some of the best men and women in the world. They have my support.
Can't load all comments. Posting so I can get to the bottom. :|
On the other hand, torturers are coming home and nobody apart from a few anonymous spooks knowing who they are means that somebody in your home town could pay with torture and their life when a disgraced spook applies for a job as a cop. That's what the French learnt from Algeria, let's hope we don't have to learn it the hard way.
Is the professional military really the problem or is it as it was in Abu Ghraib where unaccountable spooks were disrupting the chain of command?
Most of the nastiest fuckups lately seem to be spooks playing soldiers or deliberately bringing in mercenaries that are not restricted by rules of engagement.
This stuff is not classified secret to protect anyone in danger of being shot - it's classifed to keep people in cosy offices at home or fly-in fly-out spooks from losing their jobs for incompetance or outright evil.
It had to be said. You can try to control information, but it will slip through your fingers. That is in the very nature of information. It is a property inherent to it. If you want to keep something secret you have to take extreme precautions. Especially if a leak will cost lives. The US military is responsible for this leak for not keeping that information secure. And that's the bottom line. Maybe they shouldn't have even stored it in written form if it was so sensitive. They were relying on security through obscurity. Of course, if the military had brought those murderers to justice themselves and even released honest information on the massacre themselves maybe Bradley Manning wouldn't have felt it necessary to release that video. But the military chose to ignore the heinous murders and not every soldier is without a conscience. In the end one safety against military massacres is the consciences of the soldiers themselves. I do think that soldiers usually are of a higher moral fabric than police for instance. On certain slashdot threads in the past about a hypothetical scenario of the US military being ordered to attack US civilians several soldiers posted that they wouldn't do it. Or even that they would switch sides in any such battle. That's what happens in a revolution. That's how the vastly outnumbered and outgunned Fidel Castro managed to overthrow Batista. He won over the government soldiers themselves.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
"You forced us to kill those hostages by not complying with our demands"
That is exactly what Mr Thiessen is spewing out here.
It is not the responsibility of Mr Assange if anyone gets killed.
It is the responsibility of the solider who joins the army of his own free will and pulls the trigger
It is the responsibility of the taliban who decided to join some holy war and plants a roadside bomb or beheads a civilian.
Pieces like the one in the WP are nothing else but FUD that are meant to deflect responsibilities from those who act. You do not have to be a soldier, you do not have to be a terrorist. All those who kill have a choice. Its the old, the young, the women who dont, and nothing Mr Thiessen writes or does or says is with their well-being in mind. It is sad that the WP posts such a propaganda piece.
Regards
Invita Invidia
"In an op-ed in the Al Jazeer National Newspaper for all good Muslim people titled 'America must be stopped,' someone Muslim writes that 'America represents a clear and present danger to the national security of the Muslim people,' and that the Muslim people have the authority to arrest its spokesman, (President of the moment, be it Bush from the past or others at present or future), even if it has to contravene international law to do so. Muslim person also suggests that the new Boeing airplanes be unleashed to destroy U.S. stock markets and other economic assests as an economic presence."
Is the U.S. above international law, but other nations below U.S. law? Can the U.S. attack other nations in the name of 'National Security' but other nations cannot attack the U.S. in the name of their own national security?
Can the U.S. do whatever it wants in the name of 'National Security'?
Can the U.S. be any scarier, and shouldn't the U.S. citizens be afraid in their OWN homes?
Just sayin'.
soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
Some common sense. The US should use every tool in it's inventory to kill, capture and destroy this rouge, private espionage service.
Not only the US. Every nation has a stake in it.
The sooner the better IMO.
Hurricane Island Outward Bound
OB
Thank you, AC
The reason I read the Washington Post is because they are willing to post articles like the one mentioned. While I do not agree with what most of the article says, I think that is the responsibility of any good citizen to take in arguments from both sides of a story. The Washington Post allows me to do this by posting articles from both sides of the spectrum on any given issue. Unlike some other news organizations they will also post the more "liberal" side of the story:
In regards to the wikileaks article, the wapo also has an interview with Assange himself. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkpoint-washington/2010/07/who_is_julian_assange_of_wikil.html
That being said, I think that Thiessen's article does make one good point about WikiLeaks endangering the lives of informants in Iraq. There is no good reason that Assange did not redact the documents to remove any names or other personally identifiable information. Doing so would have minimized the risk of lives, and accomplished his goal of disseminating information.
During the Vietnam War, the pentagon papers were then leaked and that helped end that war sooner.
The military and the government were similarly outraged by the pentagon papers. President Nixon argued that the leakers were guilty of treason. The public turned against the war, partly because of what they learned about the war and the reasons we were fighting it. This helped bring the war to an end.
Over 58,000 US soldiers were killed in Vietnam. How many more soldiers’ lives would have been lost had the war not ended when it did? The pentagon papers contributed to the change in American attitudes that forced the politicians to end the war.
Likewise, if because of the wikileaks, we get out of Afghanistan sooner then more American soldiers lives will be saved than lost due to the leaks. It is very likely that wikileaks will actually save lives.
What do you make of the scene when they call off an attack because of known civilian presence in the area? The facts as shown on the 31 minute video disagree with your "tough guy" assumption.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
They broke the story of the secret network of CIA prisons in other nations.
The same reporter, Dana Priest, also wrote a series of stories that exposed the management problems at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.
Just two of their most well-known investigations recently.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
If the government cannot have absolute control over what the public does and does not know, then the public itself is being threatened. It's not just the Bush/Obama administrations making these claims. You will find similar claims made by nearly every authoritarian government in existence from China to the old Soviet Union to fascist Germany. It's always "national security" or "protecting the children from obscenity", but in the end, it's all just excuses to make government opaque and less accountable.
Was this before or after they shot into the building full of an unknown number of civilians?
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
Actually, I take that back ... that part was edited out. It was part of the original military investigation, however, and is referenced in the transcripts from that investigation.
The building was not known to have any civilians. Do you have any proof that your "unknown number" was greater than zero?
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
... Sounds to me as if WikiLeaks is doing exactly what I've been paying them to do.
Well done WikiLeaks, have another £25. Cheaper entertainment than going to the cinema, and it makes me feel good too.
{off to PayPal, donation number 6_X_2_2______9_2_)
And I hope that the rednecked idiots have an apoplectic fit and drop dead. Preferably soiling themselves in the process.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
If only I had mod points.
If only reporters actually hewed to this ideal.
Cheers,
"What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
"A four-foot prune."
Seems like it's that holiday everyday...
You do believe the wikileaks documents, don't you?
I haven't shuffled through all of them, or seen a believable analysis of the whole enchilada. But according to one Guardian article, your simple assertion is probably bullshit. (Gotta love the patriotic mods. Any slop of bile will pass as fact if it's in favor of the home team...)
Remember, this is the same military that said, "We don't do body counts." There's a reason for that. Of course the military is going to claim there weren't any civilians, and the Taliban will claim only civilians died, but nonetheless, we apparently killed the same guy twice and then arrested him a few months later. And during the first assassination attempt, the US military stated that no civilians died, while villagers told Reuters that 300 civilians as well as Taliban fighters had died.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/26/afghanistan-war-logs-helmand-bombing
The special forces command claimed that Ikhlas was "conducting a major Shura" – a conference of top Taliban. After dropping six 2,000lb GBU-31 guided bombs on the meeting from a B1 jet, the coalition reported "effectively destroying the primary target location" and killing 50 "Taliban senior commanders, security and fighters". Lt Gen John Mulholland, of the special operations command, later claimed "over 150 Taliban fighters" had been killed.
It was later realised that despite "multiple forms of positive identification" Ikhlas had in fact probably never been there at all. The US was to claim to have killed him again in another air strike on 2 December 2007, and subsequently arrested a Mullah Ikhlas many months later, on 7 May 2008, in Garmsir, further south in Helmand.
A statement released from Bagram air base on the day of Operation Jang Baz said the bombs had been dropped "after ensuring there were no innocent Afghans in the surrounding area".
Within 24 hours, however, villagers were telling a very different story from the one presented in the war logs. Locals told Reuters that up to 300 civilians – as well as a number of Taliban – were killed in the air strike after they had been rounded up to watch a Taliban-organised public hanging of two suspected spies. No mention of such a "Taliban court" appears in the official war logs , where it might have flagged up the prospect of civilian deaths.
join the party
I agree wholeheartedly, it is a danger. it kills! truth and free information kills ignorance and corrupt secrets. we NEED more honesty, even if it has to come from a website like this one. it will be shut down in the end.. that's the way things always go, but that doesn't mean truth and honesty can be fraught forever. stand up and demand to not be an ignorant pawn in the herd. you'll be stunned when you learn what's been hidden from you, you just have to look. you have fear because you have something to hide!