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 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!
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.
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
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
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
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
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 ||
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.
Because while the name of some Afghani that ratted out where a random weapons cache or meeting point is isn't exactly important or ground breaking news to us, it sure makes them less likely to help and the Taliban is already saying their looking over the lists for reprisal targets (probably partially in truth but mainly to scare Afghani civilians into not cooperating anymore).
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
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
Wikileaks relies on stuff people send them. If you have classified information from the North Korea government/military, I'm sure they'll be happy to post it online.
And they do have some reports about North Korea, including about when WMD were traded between NK and Pakistan, but they come from the US, which is where they can get that info.
Dilbert RSS feed
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
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!
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.
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.
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
What is the Pentagon trying to hide? Honestly Wikileaks should tell them to go get stuffed.
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
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.
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.
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? ]=-
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...
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
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
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
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.)