Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Demands Return of Leaked Afghanistan Documents
Multiple news agencies are reporting that the Pentagon has demanded the return of WikiLeaks' collection of secret documents relating to the war in Afghanistan. Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell said, "The only acceptable course is for WikiLeaks to take steps immediately to return all versions of all of these documents to the US government and permanently delete them from its website, computers and records." According to the BBC, Morrell also "acknowledged the already-leaked documents' viral spread across the internet made it unlikely they could ever be quashed," but hopes to prevent the dissemination of a further 15,000 documents WikiLeaks is reportedly in the process of redacting. "We're looking to have a conversation about how to get these perilous documents off the website as soon as possible, return them to their rightful owners and expunge them from their records." WikiLeaks, predictably, shows no sign of cooperating.
It doesn't matter if Wikileaks complies, Pentagon has made it very clear they will make them comply:
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said that not embarrassing the US military was "doing the right thing" and he hoped Wikileaks would "honour our demands".
However, asked what the Pentagon would do next, Morrell told the AP that it was up to the FBI and Justice Department to decide how to proceed.
"If doing the right thing is not good enough for them [Wikileaks], then we will figure out what other alternatives we have to compel them to do the right thing," he added.
Of course the right thing to the US government is always whatever the US military says is the right thing, and as the Wikileaks documents that have recently been released show in brutal detail, the US military has an unusual interpretation of what is 'right'.
Couldn't they just download it?
to decrypt the insurance file!
It seems like pushing them while they're redacting would just force them to release the documents without all the redactions. That's not what they want, is it?
It is already out in the open. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Or "Things that have been seen can not be unseen."
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Government is the only business which holds the special right to employ coercion (meaning physical force or threat thereof) against you in order to achieve its goals. Secrets have absolutely no place in such a relationship.
Am I saying I wouldn't put an ounce of trust in such an entity no matter how loud they scream "we need secrets"? You're damn right I am.
OMG DELETE THE INTERNET!
"We're looking to have a conversation about how to get these perilous documents off the website as soon as possible, return them to their rightful owners and expunge them from their records." WikiLeaks, predictably, shows no sign of cooperating.
Good.
Smivs on the intertubes!
Here we go again with people thinking that the paper paradigm applies to the digital world.
How on Earth do you return digital documents? Do you scrape the oxide layer off the hard drives, put it in a little vial, mark it with volume mount point(s) and put it into an envelope addressed to Pentagon? Oh, yes, I know, you first print out the directory listing (like we used to do with the floppies), tape it to the vial, then scrape, fill the vial and ship.
As for the further documents -- they better watch out, because WikiLeaks may just give up and publish all of the unredacted stuff just to preserve it.
As for WikiLeaks somehow "embarrassing" the U.S. military: waitaminuzel here. Did WikiLeaks compel the military to do all the embarrassing stuff? No? Then well, maybe it was better the taxpayers knew what their money is spent on, huh?
A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
They should be sure to ask for the digital negatives. Without those, I'm sure nobody will be able to disseminate these documents any further!
Didn't we hear this before during the Vietnam war? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers
Quick Julian! Get a copy of those files over to The Hague ASAP. Then you can hand back the originals to avoid the full force of the US government coming at you. Don't worry - the statute of limitations for war crimes never expires. If there is justice in this world, everyone who's touched the US's dirty wars - from Colin Powell to Barack Obama, will be imprisoned for life (or worse - I'm looking at you Herr Cheney!).
----
Not to be confused with Col.
".. we've got to be careful, Amy. Mullen actually was quite crafty in his words. He said "might already have" blood on my hands .. it's really quite fantastic that Gates and Mullen, Gates being the former head of the CIA during Iran-Contra and the overseer of Iraq and Afghanistan, and Mullen being the military commander for Iraq and Afghanistan -- I'm not sure what his further background is -- who have ordered assassinations every day, are trying to bring people on board to look at a speculative understanding of whether we might have blood on our hand"
link
Considering how adamant they've been that these are 'low level secrets' and how they 'show nothing new', they sure seem eager to supress them.
If these documents are so damaging and endanger so many people, why the fuck has the media talked about it at least a couple of times every single day since the documents were released? Wouldn't ignoring it decrease the chances of people hearing about them and going to read them? Literally millions more people are aware of these documents being leaked thanks to news sources talking about how bad it is that they were leaked.
Stay classy.
Living With a Nerd
Good luck with that.
They will just mistakenly bomb them...
Go download it like the rest of the world has already?
Honestly, what kind of statement is that. It's already been leaked. What is there to gain from getting it back? I doubt Wikileaks got a stack of paper from PFC Manning anyway.
Fame whore? Without googling, off of the top of your head, what's the full name and correct spelling of the guy behind WikiLeaks? And what does he look like?
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
But I bet they would.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
The best thing about this information is it reveals how governments lie and lie and lie to the populace. Thats the only reason they only want the information back.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I guess if the Pentagon had guns or something perhaps they could have leverage.
But just having 5 sides and 5 angles? What do they expect to to the wikileaks? Poke it to death?
The documents leaked so far illustrate the frustration of U.S. forces in fighting the protracted Afghan conflict and revived debate over the war's uncertain progress.
These documents are showing that the US' operation aren't doing too well. WikiLeaks is holding back stuff that may endanger people's lives.
This is all about the Pentagon and the Government trying hide their incompetence and stupidity. It's also to trying to keep information out of our hands to keep the support for the wars from it's continual slide down.
We're in another Viet Nam type era.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Spelling may be off: Julian Asange, thin, unkempt short gray hair with an "I'm better than you" smirk.
Julian Assange, pale hair, mid 40s. I don't think he's a fame whore though, I respect the guy. He has cahones.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
They'll be soon available as a free download.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
You need to download the internet before you can delete it.
Reply to That ||
[Rolls eyes] Can't they just file a DMCA takedown notice like everyone else?
return them to their rightful owners
Rightful owners? They must mean the American people who paid for all of this, right?
Reply to That ||
Will they accept a fax?
Just an off note, But is he an albino?
If knowledge full legal name with proper spelling is necessary by everyone in order for someone to be a fame whore I suppose I take back everything I said and thought about Ocho Cinco.
Losing a war? Here's the plan!
1. Leak documents that show boring day to day operational details, including civilian casualties on the internet
2. Blame the people who distribute, download and read said documents for the deaths of those people and the deaths of everyone else from now on in the war due to "security risks"
3. ???
4. Profit
5. (STILL lose the war)
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Last time i looked up US law, it was only illegal to distribute or help facilitate distribution of classified documents (not to possess or read).
Even if Wikileaks was US based, i don't know if the Pentagon would be within it's rights to force anything but a takedown....
Though, they may be in their rights to disconnect Internet connections owned by US companies or on US soil that wikileaks can travel over (facilitate distribution).
Though there may be a clause that says if you distribute classified documents to unauthorized destinations we get to take all your copies (so make sure to have lots of lube on hand as par for the course with a DOJ investigation)
Also, I think the bulk of the classified document policy falls under and executive order not a federal law. So I doubt the bulk of the nuances federal employees/contractors are under do not apply to US citizens, much less the foreign nationals
In any case, they cant touch anyone who downloaded the documents and didn't 1.) redistribute it or 2.) fund wikileaks so how do they really expect to clean up the mess. Everyone who wants the documents already has them
anything the DOJ/Pentagon tries to do now will just be an international PR nightmare
Seriously? The guys been in the paper constantly the last few months and has given countless interviews. My mother knows his name. Oh, and he looks like Bill Maher but slightly gayer and more strung out.
Yes, Seriously. I guess everyone missed my point.
WikiLeaks has been around for years and it has only been in the last couple of months that he's come out of the woodwork to defend what they have done.
Before this episode, one would would have to look kind of hard to get his name and his photo wasn't the easiest thing to find - I tried a couple of years ago when WikiLeaks first started making waves.
That isn't a media whore.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
I think the Taliban can note who enters/exits/mixes with the CIA ect. They also get their own people close to the CIA.
As for fame, thats his only protection.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
Not everyone, just the guy claiming that he's a fame whore.
Technoli
*cojones
Dilbert RSS feed
Yeah, too bad Wikileaks redacts identifying names of at-risk persons before publishing, which invalidates your entire comment.
He's a nice guy. Soft spoken, almost shy. Not someone I'd consider a fame whore.
They knew what we were in for.
When you see photos of Afghanistan and see all that rubble, guess who did that? The Russians bombed them back into the Stone Age and they still couldn't get them under control - and if you consider that the Soviets didn't give a rat's ass about PR, I'm sure they didn't pull any punches like we do (read: the didn't give a shit about civilian casualties)
Bush KNEW this would be folly if they didn't have an adequate plan but Nooooooo, he went in there shoot'in up the place with no plan.
So yes, I'll blame Bush - he deserves it.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
I should hope not. Too bad the authorities have convinced the public to condemn the messenger instead of the message... Very sad state of affairs we have here.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
The US will hack into Wikileaks and post a cartoon of Mohammed!
1 - Start a war 2 - Documents about it leak on Wikileak 3 - Start a war on Wikileak 4 - Documents about the war on Wikileak leak on Wikileak 5 - ??? 6 - PROFIT !
Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell admits publicly that the Pentagon is completely clueless about the internet and the Streisand effect.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
Fame whore? Without googling, off of the top of your head, what's the full name and correct spelling of the guy behind WikiLeaks? And what does he look like?
"What?" .....
[overturns the small table in the room] What country are you from?
"What?"
What ain't no country I ever heard of! They speak English in "What"?!
"What?"
English, motherfucker! Do you speak it?!
"Yes!"
Then you know what I'm saying.
[gasping] "Yes..."
Describe what the WikiLeaks founder looks like!
"What?"
[points gun directly in face] Say "what" again. Say "what" again! I dare you! I double-dare you, motherfucker! Say "what" one more goddamn time!
"He-he's black."
Go on!
Ever put a freshly chewed wad of bubble gum on your butt hole?
Places like the Hague make some justice possible, but for those of us who acknowledge the possibility of imperfection, the lack of justice is tempered by the possibility of vengeance
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
So THAT's why they've created these 6 DNSSec "Internet keys"! They plan to destroy all Internet and then recreate it again, pure and obedient, free from uncontrollable flaws! And at some point there will be this guy, who'll discover that they did it five times already... oh, wait, wrong storyline.
Absence of proof != proof of absence.
To expand on my comment, Wikileaks released the initial documents and with-held this additional 15,000 documents BECAUSE they were concerned about the risk that these particular documents may contain some information that should be redacted for safety (in particular, names/locations, etc). As Wikileaks states, they approached the Pentagon and requested their assistance in identifying certain documents or items within these particular 15,000 documents that should be redacted. The Pentagon REFUSED to assist them in doing it.
So if you're going to try and claim that Assange and Wikileaks don't care about people's safety that might be directly impacted by release of these documents, then you MUST also claim the same of the Government. The government is pouting and saying that they would rather tell Wikileaks to eat it than disagree with them AND at least have a chance to promote the safety of those very people they claim to be concerned about.
Dick Cheney never faced repercussions for outing an active undercover CIA agent, and that was for purely political purposes. WikiLeaks should get the same pardon Scooter Libby got.
Law enforcement and intelligence were too compartmentalized according to the 9/11 commission. They didn't share enough data, didn't make it available across the board and all that. Problem is that the more sharing there is, the more likely some asshat in a place like the Pentagon or FBI can leak data from the CIA or military intelligence (NSA, DIA, NGA, NRO, etc.) or vice versa.
I don't know why this is a surprise to anyone on Slashdot. It's generally taken for granted by most posters here that the more people that can get on a system, the more likely it is that security will be compromised.
Of course, the solution is quite simple. We treat whistleblowers who revealed classified docs the way we should treat people who send prisoners off for rendition: you are judged by the outcome, not your intentions. If you reveal classified docs that show clear, unequivocal felonious behavior, you get pardoned for breaking the law. If you misinterpreted it and are wrong, you get sent to Leavenworth for the better part of the remainder of your life.
you can't erase mails when sent
you can't erase copies of this type of documents when they have been copied X number of times all over the world...
those pentagon idiots appear to still believe in santa claus or something...
The DoD sets up an AssLeaks website and post all of Assange's personal information... all in the name of transparency... I'm sure he will support that... right...
In my humble opinion these documents were officially leaked by the US government, not some rogue person within it. It's 90,000 pages of junk It doesn't include anything of real national security, nothing new came out of this, oh wait! the ISI is helping the the Taliban! Shocking news!!! Who does that benefit, the US government. Wikileaks does not pose a US national security risk, if it did, it would be shutdown, it's people en-prisoned or disappeared. All of the comments put out by the US government about how dangerous Wikileaks is just propaganda.
Did you even bother to read the complete summary? No. Well, let me qoute the relevant part for you: "According to the BBC, Morrell also 'acknowledged the already-leaked documents' viral spread across the internet made it unlikely they could ever be quashed,' but hopes to prevent the dissemination of a further 15,000 documents WikiLeaks is reportedly in the process of redacting."
Idiot indeed but it isn't the Pentagon
now that's just funny, government and people talking about "at risk" persons. this "war" in Afghanistan is a lie, it is NOT against those who attacked the U.S. on 9/11 (they're long gone) nor is it against the Taliban who hosted the attackers (also long gone). The label "Taliban" is instead now slapped on insurgents who are, surprise!, pissed off at a foreign occupier. Let's not give this bullshit war-for-profit-and-political-coin any legitimacy by claiming that it is somehow treason or puts people at risk by publishing information about its folly
And he likes long, moonlit walks on the beach.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
So if you're going to try and claim that Assange and Wikileaks don't care about people's safety that might be directly impacted by release of these documents, then you MUST also claim the same of the Government.
I don't think anyone is dumb enough to try to argue that the government cares (about anything).
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
You'd think they'd have learned by now. Queue Streisand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
The Streisand effect is a primarily online phenomenon in which an attempt to censor or remove a piece of information has the unintended consequence of causing the information to be publicized widely and to a greater extent than would have occurred if no censorship had been attempted. It is named after American entertainer Barbra Streisand, following a 2003 incident in which her attempts to suppress photographs of her residence inadvertently generated further publicity.
permanently delete them from its website, computers and records.
You cant take something off the internet, its like getting pee out of a pool, once its in there, its in there. - Joe (Newsradio)
What is the Pentagon trying to hide? Honestly Wikileaks should tell them to go get stuffed.
Now why can't our personal information enjoy the same level of secrecy?
the Pentagon wants it's virginity restored...
Make no mistake, by the standards of any state in the union, Julian is a murderer.
Wikileaks is probably moribund now because of how they handled this. But this is the internet, so there will be a replacement sooner or later. I can only hope that the replacement learns the right lessons here.
The leaked data can fit (broadly) into 4 categories.
1) Junk. Unavoidable in any large data/document set.
2) "This is what war looks like." Gun camera footage, etc. Kudos for releasing this. The people back home should be able to see this so they can make informed decisions.
3) "Our plan isn't working very well." We all knew this already. No harm in releasing it, and drawing attention to it might foster real debate.
4) Shit that is going to get people killed. There is no journalistic value in publishing a list of villagers that are helping us. The world does not benefit from knowing which people in the Taliban were feeding us information. These people are DEAD, some already and some soon to be. And Julian killed them just as surely as if he had pulled the trigger himself.
So, after the leak hangs and Julian goes into hiding, if you decide to start Wikileaks 2.0, please try really hard not to help our enemies kill our friends. We want to support your cause and we think that it is important to make the truth available to the people so they can make informed decisions. But we have limits, so you need to have some decency and exercise some discretion.
See that "Preview" button?
The claim that Wikileaks redacted identifying information is not mentioned in US mainstream media. I checked the recent NPR stories. I emailed them about this. A google search brings up various conflicting bits of information. See for example:
http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2010/08/03/wikileaks-redacted/
I really would appreciate reliable coverage of this aspect.
I think Wikileaks should send the files to the Pentagon before publishing, let them do the redaction. I am sure that they will not "overdo" it, but if they do, Wikileaks can call them out on that...
Since everybody knows that the US respects no laws and will invade anyone at a drop of a hat, Wikileaks took precautions by putting up a large *encrypted* file called "Insurance".
Presumably everybody has downloaded it even though nobody has the password.
And if America tries to have the wikileak people assassinated the password is probably set to spread automatically.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Just like the Pentagon you might attack the messenger also. I don't really care. See, the Pentagon is just doing what all Americans do, blame the message and the messenger for bursting their bubble. In times past people were willing to put everything on the line to put our country right. They saw no risk as greater than that of a government not controlled by the people. However as soon as life got a little too comfortable and the country's population was simply coasting on the accomplishments of past generations, people had something to risk such as their view that life was easy and freedom didn't mean doing anything. In the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's, it was clear our government need a course correction. Voting was not the answer, because clearly that didn't work. I'm calling Americans cowards when it comes to taking control of their government, and I want to know what they will do other than blame the messenger, or what it will take for them to do anything at all. At the very least we need to confront our own problem of inaction as a people, and people in general need to become politically active. As the Constitution says "We The People...", which means we all have a duty to be activists. The power of government emanates from the people. It's our power, now we just need to take control.
If just voting is not working what other methods are there to make the government answerable to the people? I have seen great imagination solve amazing problem. PJ over at Groklaw . The EFF and the Software Freedom Law Center. I have seen amazingly selfless efforts do the impossible such as, create the web, the browser, Linux, MySQL, Postgres, and countless other software project which nobody would have even believed would happy. I was a Linux user and advocate in 1995, and nobody cared until I built a Linux based ISP that same year. With all these projects the people working on them knew it could be done, even when "normal" thinking told others it tool a large company, because there is something magical about a large company. There isn't. Just as change in this country does not take a large political organization, it only takes the same exact faith which created Linux, or any of the other projects. We face nothing more than a crisis imagination. If we can imagine a way to do it, then it can be done.
If you have done nothing to address the problem, the you get what you get. Don't blame the mirror for the ugliness you see in it.
Motivate your friends and family. The major parties are in bed with the large companies. We need government answerable to the people. Storming the castle doesn't work anymore since they have far better arms. We need imaginative solutions. Don't "be the change" you want to see in the world, be a virus of change.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
Why no classified Russian or Chinese documents on Wikileaks?
Oh that's right.
The Russians and Chinese would hunt them down and kill them.
Which is not out of the question, btw. It will be a real tragedy when Julian is knifed in a botched robbery attenpt.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
You never see him and bin Laden in the same picture.
One of the claims of the press is that they are the "fourth branch of government" and that they are necessary to keep the people in power honest. Of course that is all BS as the press first serves it's own interests and hides behind a constitutional protection of "freedom of the press".
You're sort of right, there. It has become a 4th branch of government. Meaning that "its" interests are the same as those of the other three branches. Which seem to boil down to "usurping as much power as possible."
We are talking about the international press and they are not obligated in any way to act as responsible stewards of US government information. For the most part, the press is propaganda. It is just not easy to figure out who they are serving as most of the time they fly no flag and take whatever position that leads to the creation of bigger and more sensational stories.
Seems pretty obvious to me. When Lindsay Lohan's trip to rehab is bigger news than the latest death tolls in "our" latest imperialist adventure in Asia, it's hard to ignore the conspiracy theories.
Wikileaks is not a press organization. It is a clearinghouse for folks who are willing to reveal information that they may be sworn to protect.
You have to wonder what would make people willing to violate that sort of oath. Maybe they've come to realize just how evil their lords and masters truly are?
Many of the sources of information on Wikileaks are folks who have committed an act of treason against their country by revealing information that was meant to be kept secret.
This is where you went completely off the deep end. And one of the huge reasons America is in such horrible shape.
Pointing out war crimes is not treason. It's a responsibility. Doing so knowing that you're risking torture and death at the Egyptian version of Gitmo is an extreme act of patriotism. AFAIC, it ranks right up there with having the courage and patriotism to sign the Declaration of Independence.
America's Founding Fathers were traitors and terrorists, too.
A voter who's kept in the dark and does not know what the government is doing cannot vote intelligently. Sure, all governments have to keep secrets. But "ours" has become pathological about classifying absolutely everything.
We're about two steps from being Soviet Russia. Getting the truth out to people the way wikileaks is doing is just about the only thing that might wake up enough people to keep us from taking those steps.
What should happen is that folks who commit treason should be dealt with "old school", drawn, quartered and their body parts spread to the different corners of the realm.
Goose-stepping fascists like you seem to be are exactly the reason the Founding Fathers wrote that minor little clause about "cruel and unusual punishment." I realize that you obviously have absolutely no respect for the Constitution, but here's the catch about that: it is the basis for the federal government's authority. Without it, the United States does not exist.
It has been entertaining to most of us as we have had any skin in the game, it was always someone else s secrets.
I couldn't make heads or tails out of that sentence. I'm tempted to say something insulting about it, but I'm trying my best to keep this reasonable and civil.
The way this article is written reminds me of the bank spider covering debt.
PT) Can we please have the documents back?
WL) What? These are digital, do you want me to send them back to you in an email?
PT) Yes please.
WL) Ok, here are the documents.
PT) Are you sure these are the same documents? These have hundreds of civilian deaths and show that we are loosing.
WL) We are sure.....
PT) Ok, sorry maybe you will accept these new documents with only 10 civilian deaths and all the bad guys dead?
Wolf men don't have nards.
Someone should post Julian's personal info (including all known family members' info), encrypted, to the world, make sure it's indexed well, etc.
Then, if he releases the encryption key to the world for what he has, that person releases that encryption key and everyone can have fun calling his family, etc.
What's with this "return the documents" crap? Has the pentagon lost their copies?
Maybe wikileaks should send them an invoice for backup services.
What is this "war" everyone is talking about? We elected the guy that represented the half of the establishment party that was against the war. Clearly it is over.
Last I checked the citizens of the USA are the rightful owners and based on the information in them, the Pentagon as a whole needs to be fired by their employer AND the rightful owners of those documents: US citizens.
Consider this my official endorsement of the "Anyone but a Republicans and Democrats" candidate.
Brewster had it right, time to vote "None of the Above"
Clinton dropped the ball.
Bush kicked the ball out of bounds.
Obama then robbed the spectators and sold the ball to the opposing team.
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
That's the most asinine plan I've heard. Let the guys who originally kept it secret self censor? WTF!
That's not the way it works, let all government and especially the military be at the mercy of the media. Even this woeful thing we call the media today.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
After your first two sentences, I was actually going to bring up the point that you did in the rest of your comment, which is that they are indeed playing around with the meaning of words again. We originally referred to the Taliban as . . . well, the Taliban, which was a violent organized religious and political movement in Afghanistan. Recently, however, they've re-defined it to apply to practically anyone they encounter and want to apply it to. Of course, this is just to justify their extended military action. Redefine your enemy to redefine the agenda.
True, we are only relying on the word of Wikileaks in their claim that they issued the request to the Pentagon to assist in identifying and redacting certain portions of the documents, but I don't see what they could benefit from lying about that.
Maybe they can use as similar method to this man (http://www.geekologie.com/2008/11/good_idea_man_submits_drawing.php) to buy some time.
What bothers me most is that the documented shortcomings shown in those leaked documents seem irrelevant, all they care about is to punish the Whistleblower(s) and Wikileaks.
but honestly, the guy is a fame whore who really doesn't care who dies just as long as he has fame. He wants his time in the sun. Even after seeing other press stories about Taliban acting on namesof informants and such he doesn't really seem to care.
JULIAN ASSANGE: Well, we’ve got to be careful, Amy. Mullen actually was quite crafty in his words. He said "might already have" blood on my hands. But the media has gone and turned that into a concrete definition. There is, as far as we can tell, no incident of that. So it is a speculative charge. Of course, we are treating any possible revelation of the names of innocents seriously. That is why we held back 15,000 of these documents, to review that.
Now, some names may have crept into others and may be unfortunate, may not be. But you must understand that we contacted the White House about that issue and asked for their assistance in vetting to see whether there would be any exposure of innocents and to identify those names accordingly. Of course, we would never accept any other kind of veto, but in relation to that matter, we requested their assistance via the New York Times, who the four media partners involved—us, Der Spiegel, The Guardian and the Times—agreed would be the conduit to the White House so we wouldn’t step on each other’s toes. Now, the White House issued a flat denial that that had ever happened. And we see, however, that in an interview with CBS News, Eric Schmidt, who was our contact for that, quoted from the email that I had relayed to the White House, and that quote is precisely what I had been saying all along and completely contradicts the White House statement.
You can't take the sky from me...
Why is it that Charles Manson is in prison for ordering people to kill but Bush and Soetoro ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousands and continue to walk free?
Wikileaks needs to immediately send an e-mail, attaching every single document, with the words "Here are your documents back. Thanks." :)
This is also contrary to what I've heard. I believe I heard on NPR that Taliban fighters are going over the documents and picking out names of informants in order to "deal with them." So, are the informants (and others) redacted or not? Very confusing.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
... DoD won't do a war in order to find those documents, such as the war in Iraq in order to find the WMDs...
Until the skies turn blue...
Until the air of freedom strikes us...
Isay find some incremenating records on Wikilinks and Britsh government and post them on the web. Maybe the documents on the Queen killing Pricess Diana or someother juuicy document that the Britsh Government would not like the general public to see. It is all fair to see all documents of all governments that are deamed classified. The Army person who released them shout be tried as a traitor adn if found guilty shot.
This shows that Obama was wrong when he stated that these documents were meaningless and of no use. Contradiction in the Govt. is never a good thing. Now Obama has to withdraw what he said or else the people of the United States will come at him with knives and pitchforks.
by long, moonlit walks on the beach do you mean: REALLY long walks like pack a lunch, and don't complain about wanting to turn back after the first five miles ?
Because that's MY definition of long walks on the beach...
If they think that they'd get convicted. Nations are allowed to do a lot of things. You can argue if that should be the case or not, but it is. While the US may not have had a good pretext for going to war in Iraq, it had a legally valid one. The original Iraq war didn't end in a peace treaty, it just ended when the allies stood down. A de facto state of war still existed. All the more so because of the no fly zones. The allies declared a "no fly zone" over north and south Iraq and had jets patrolling it. Iraq liked to take pot shots at the jets with SAMs. That is also an act of war, or rather a continuation of the war.
Regardless, by international law, a war still existed. So while the US might not have been right in deciding to pursue that war, they were in the clear legally.
Plus just starting a war isn't grounds for any sort of trial at the ICC. You have to prove war crimes. Now I know some people like to get screamy about what the US has done, but compare it to the examples you provided. Not even the same kind of thing (and Saddam wasn't tried in international court).
People have to remember that it isn't as though because they don't like what a world leader did, that means they are guilty of something an international court could or would convict them of. "Being a dick" isn't against the law.
classified information is an iPhone4, is it?
Alex Jones has an interesting theory: Wikileaks is actually a false flag project by the government to (1) leak information and then (2) use that to justify why only people with Internet Licenses should be allowed to have websites.
I think AJ is full of shit too, but it's an interesting thought.
Sounds like something the 1920s-era National Socialists would invent.
I don't think there's a conspiracy here at all... just a case of Bradley Manning's ego running wild (when he gets to Ft. Leavenworth, I wonder if he'll think it was worth it?), but if there was any conspiracy to leak the documents, then it's far more likely that an intelligence agency did it to pressure Pakistan, as many docs purportedly implicate the Pakistani military and intelligence services of aiding Al Qaeda on the side.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
As far as I am concerned, Wilileaks in an accessory to murder and should be prosecuted as such. As far as the original leaker, he should be hung. The leak of these documents has/will lead to the deaths of many people on our (NATO) side who provided information about the Taliban. And speaking of the Taliban, these people are pure evil, no different than Hitler. Check out the Cover of Time for a small taste. This evil must be exterminated as all costs.
Conservative, mod down for violating
This is flambait how? Ignorant slashdot mods don't know that the Taliban infiltrated a CIA compound, eventualy killing 7 CIA agents.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/US/01/03/cia.bombing.claims/index.html
Watch this Heartland Institute video
The people behind Nixon were the same people behind Reagan, and Bush1, and Bush2. You can look at group pictures and litterally see these same people standing behind the frontman.
And?
Obama has Clinton carry-overs. Clinton had Carter carry-overs. Carter had LBJ carry-overs. JFK/LBJ had FDR carry-overs. And some of those administrations had guys that had White House time going back 40 years.
When a President enters office, he wants some seasoned hands with him. That means people that have served in previous administrations. There's nothing sinister or conspiratorial about that. That's just common sense. One of the things Clinton suffered from his first two years was having more green rookies than guys like Lloyd Bentsen who actually knew what the hell was going on. Plus, since Republicans have won more often than Democrats in the White House since 1970, there's a lot more guys with experience working there on the GOP side. You want to bring in some fresh blood, but at that level, it's more important to have experience.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
And NPR knows this how? They checked with their reporters embedded with the Taliban or maybe the DoD told them, or maybe, like most journalists they just made shit up?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
No, they quoted a Taliban spokesman.
Check out my world simulator thingy.
Soldiers always want more war - that is not what is always wanted by society at large.
In 11 years of posting here, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read here. If you really believe that, then you don't know a damn thing about soldiers.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
He's a nice guy. Soft spoken, almost shy. Not someone I'd consider a fame whore.
Who says you have to act like David Lee Roth or Lady Gaga to be a fame whore? Greta Garbo was quiet and famously said "I want to be let alone", and yet she chose a profession that mandated fame and public exposure.
It could be that he's simply not an outlandish fame whore.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Fame whore? Without googling, off of the top of your head, what's the full name and correct spelling of the guy behind WikiLeaks? And what does he look like?
All right, I'll take that challenge.
Julian Assange. Noted hard-left activist. Looks youngish except for a headful of blonde-bordering-on-silver hair.
How'd I do?
Not voting benefit the people in power.
If you want to let them know you despise them don't handle them a blank piece of paper, it is the political equivalent of givinig them a blank cheque...
The fixation on "doing the right thing" is amusing, because as far as Wikileaks is concerned, that is exactly what they are doing. It's not like they are profiting from an act that they agree is immoral. They do this because they believe it is right.
Regardless of whether one supports the disclosure (I do), the logic of this demand is pretty shaky.
(Naturally, it is not expected to be followed. It's probably more of a warning that Wikileaks' redundantly decentralized server infrastructure will be put to the test soon.)
... and there'd better not be any coffee stains or thumbprints on them!
Sent from the iPad I found in your car.
They should print out all the copies they have of the document (i.e. until they run out of copies) and mail them to the Pentagon.
here.
Have a day.
Yours In Moscow,
K. Trout
My initial answer was, "Julian Assange, and he looks like a grey haired hippie, but in nice clothes".
After googling him, and glacing at his Wikipedia page, anyne can see that that is not a 100% correct or flattering answer: his real name is Julian Paul Assange, and he looks a bit more respectable than many would think when they hear "grey haired hippie". However, I only meant it to mean that he has longish hair, and it's mostly grey. :) In retrospect, I should have said that he looked like a grey-haired history professor. Given that he's under 40, I assume that his hair is actually just a very light color, rather than grey. (For some reason, I always thought that he was in his late 50s. Sorry, Julian.)
I forgot that he was Australian, though if you'd asked his nationality I might have guessed right given that Wikileaks is sheltered in Australia. (For some reason, I was thinking he was Belgian. I have no idea why.)
and have an encrypted file named 'Insurance'.
One thing you got right is that he is a rich Saudi. So, we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan.
Bin Laden was a CIA asset when Bush Sr. was head of the CIA.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1245.htm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3340101/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden
Really, anyone who thinks there is any justification of us invading either Iraq or Afghanistan is a fool, or worse. Support Obama in his murderous adventures because he didn't start the wars-- you are worse than a fool.
What happened to 1. collect underwear?? WTF am I supposed to do with all this underwear now?!
This is NOT flamebait!
Wikileaks asked the pentagon for assistance with identifying what redaction is needed. The pentagon refused.
Funny that the New Taliban is a violent organized and political movement in Afghanistan with identical ideology, goals and activities as the Old Taliban, except they now think that narcotics trafficing is A-OK.
It's a Monty Python reference, and quite funny.
Cheers.
Yet Socrates himself is particularly missed.
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed.
The problem with that method of thinking is that you are assuming that the "new" people are any different, but in reality, they are not. You do not even get to vote for them unless they meet the idealistic guidelines of their particular party or affiliation. "Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss"
We pay for the war, the weapons to make war, and all of the government activities, so why the f$$% dont we have the right to know what they are using it for !!!
The government is in place to work for us, and we should have to right to know. I completely support the release of information. Perhaps it will paint a more realistic view of war. Especially a politically and economic profit driven war.
Without making any comments about the Data itself, how it was obtained, or if it SHOULD be classified, we are left with Wikileaks purposely sharing information deemed classified with our enemies during a time of war.
If they are based in the US, this IS treason(by definition)and could be punishable by death.
If they are based outside the US, it makes them a LEGITIMATE MILITARY TARGET.
I would say that wikileaks is extraordinarily lucky that the Pentagon cares more about PR at the moment than the contents of those documents, otherwise the "takedown request" might have come attached to a JDAM or Tomohawk. Actually , there is absolutely no re-assurance to Wikileaks that a high explosive follow up request won't be delivered without warning.
Regardless of the validity of the Moral stand Wikileaks is taking here, they are playing a very dangerous game of chicken with one of the most powerful military organizations in the world. Not particullarly smart IMHO
That's that, now I'm downloading the whole thing.
Prior to this I really had little interest in it.
If they really wanted to get anywhere, they would subpeona everything, as part of the investigation/prosecution of the leaker. Even if they can't be prosecuted for having or sharing the information, they can be prosecuted for helping hide the identity of the person who broke the law by releasing it.
How did Steve Jobs get involved in this, and how did you mis-spell his name that badly?
Pentagon: We demand you take down those documents! We can't have those on the internet!
Me: Good Luck with that...
Clearly the Pentagon has little understanding how this "internet" thing works. I mean they did kind of build it. You know, as a redundant communication system in the event of a nuke attack, that you know, is resistant to attack at a single node.
I mean it's out there in the wild. Do they really think it will be gone if they take if off their website? That's like deleting a shortcut off your desktop thinking you just uninstalled a program. Unless they are just being bitter and spiteful I don't see the point.
The media is waging a war that the government wants it to wage by distracting people with the "Pentagon vs. Wikileaks" where WL is the bad guy, rather than showing the American people who and how many instances of perjury and other forms of deception that have been committed.
Sec. 1.7. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.
(a) In no case shall information be classified, continue to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to:
(1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;
(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;
(3) restrain competition; or
(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of the national security.
-- source http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13526
Examined content within these documents clearly show discrepancies regarding previously released information under testimony. (read: DOD casualty reports submitted to Congress, UNAMA, NATO and U.N.)
You can't be serious. You expected the Pentagon to assist Wikileaks, to hasten the release of the documents, to personally identify the more sensitive ones? Do you realize how moronic that sounds? They had every reason NOT to. Congress would spin it as "negotiating with terrorists" and "revealing secret documents" and summarily use it to their own favor.
Sorry to say, but the burden of filtering falls entirely on the ones responsible for disclosure. Pointing a finger at the Pentagon and accusing them of non-collaboration doesn't make it any more right; Wikileaks has sole reign over the operation, and thus the task falls back on them once the government declines assistance. Potential fallout trumps all other concerns and cannot be ignored by playing the blame game.
"bathed by the radiant glow of the rangefinder on the .50 cal sniper rifle...."
(Bonus points for CAPTCHA word: gunfire :D)
The problem on the Republican side is that they were tainted with connections to criminal activity and that we saw the same incompetants rising to the top despite the large pool of Republican talent. How do traitors like Poindexter even get another job in Government and how do people like Rumsfeld hold down a job? It just defies belief. On the military side we even saw people rising to the top due to political help with fifty years in the military but not a single day of experience connected in any way at all with the many military operations of the half century - "cold warriors" that owed it all to political connections and nothing at all to experience. Criminal syndicates are run more honestly.
.
The work is divided into five chapters:
1. War is a racket
2. Who makes the profits?
3. Who pays the bills?
4. How to smash this racket!
5. To hell with war!
It contains this key summary:
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
.
In another often cited quote from the book Butler says:
"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents." The book is also interesting historically as Butler points out in 1935 that the US is engaging in military war games in the Pacific that are bound to provoke the Japanese.
.
"The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."
.
Butler explains that the excuse for the buildup of the US fleet and the war games is fear that "the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people."
.
In his 1987 biography of Butler, Maverick Marine,[3] Hans Schmidt gave a brief review:
"Butler's particular contribution was his recantation, denouncing war on moral grounds after having been a warrior hero and spending most of his life as a military insider. The theme remained vigorously patriotic and nationalistic, decrying imperialism as a disgrace rooted in the greed of a privileged few."
.
Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.
They are being used by the CIA to supply dis-information. SPC Bradley is a tool as well. His profile fits the basic CIA requirements of a tool. Government Computers with secret access do not have CD drives, floppy drives, USB serial or parallel ports, are not connected to printers. Deemed recording devices such as cellphones, cameras, ipods, furbys, etc.. are not allowed in the room or building. Metal Detectors are in use. Filesystems use fine grained Mandatory Access Controls, individual file access is based on need to know. All file transactions are monitored and logged. Daily reports are created and reviewed.
White House Won’t Protect Afghan Sources, Won’t Rule Out Killing Assange
-Capturing Bin Laden Takes Back Seat to Fighting WikiLeaks
Last Thursday (072910) I thought I’d ask the White House a simple question. Is it more important to capture Osama Bin Laden, or to detain and “question” (under the PATRIOT Act, we all know what that can mean.) Julian Assange of WikiLeaks.
I thought this was a no brainer. How wrong, I suppose, I was. ...
For the full post, see my blog Scribal Thrum, at dredeyedick.wordpress.com.
Short Link: http://bit.ly/cANjMw ... and yesterday's disgraceful pentagon press briefing confirms Obama's stance: The United States government will NOT act to protect it's Aghan Friends and Sources, if it means admitting the Executive Branch no longer controls declassification. Which, in this important case, it doesn't.
Here's my tweet to Gibbs, today, Aug 6 2010: :Sure wish You'd give answers.WH won't protect Afghan Sources?Won't say You WON'T murder Assange?
It's the WH failing to take killing Assange off the table that really really bothers me. As it should any Citizen who feels that governments should not go around killing People with whom it disagrees.
Cheers, :-|
dcm
I need a little help in following all this. It's a little embarrassing to admit, but I'm IT challenged. Could someone please explain exactly how you return leaked emails?