Slashdot Mirror
CIA Launches WTF To Investigate Wikileaks
krou writes "In an effort to investigate the impact of the leaked diplomatic cables, the CIA have launched the Wikileaks Task Force, commonly referred to at CIA headquarters as 'WTF.' 'The Washington Post said the panel was being led by the CIA's counter-intelligence centre, although it has drawn in two dozen members from departments across the agency.' Although the agency has not seen much of its own information leaked in the cables, some revelations (such as spying at the UN) originated from direct requests by the CIA. The Guardian notes that, 'WTF is more commonly associated with the Facebook and Twitter profiles of teenagers than secret agency committees. Given that its expanded version is usually an expression of extreme disbelief, perhaps the term is apt for the CIA's investigation.'"
Personally I'm waiting for CIA to also launch an task force called NWO, just to have some fun with conspiracy theories.
"CIA's counter-intelligence centre"
I can't decide if this is redundant or an oxymoron.
FRA: STFU GTFO
Welcome To Facebook, of course!
Let me be the first to say LOL
But seriously, this sounds like a much more sensible approach than many other US responses we've seen so far.
I hope the WTF internal memos don't end up appearing on Wikileaks as it could cause the creation of a WTFTF: task force recursion.
First they give 3 million people access to this information and then they complain at a guy that has nothing to do with it. Given the way the US threats people I am sure that the poor soldier who has been in isolation for months has gotten 'an offer he can't refuse' to sign a fake testimony against Assange. The weirdest part about this all is that half the population seems to believe the threat of terrorism is coming from some Muslims living in the desert. Totally blind for the real terrorism we face everyday, put in place by the so called government. Don't believe? Start a blog, become a journalist or try to get on an airplane without having some dick take a look at your dick, or even worse, your 5-y/o dick. Terrorism from Muslims can be a threat, however, the only terrorism I actually witness everyday is from white guys in suits.
Will there also be a website where you can get Daily WTF updates? This could be interesting. Add some crappy user commenting software are you are all set for a fun time.
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Not surprised, but did they aid in obtaining them? I got the impression they aided in publishing, but that Manning obtained them all on his own.
meep
the buzzing! life isn't supposed to imitate art! I gotta keep moving west or my head will explode!
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
NWO is small potatoes. Its the FML that I'm really concerned about
If this was April 1st I'd guess "yes". Who on earth thought it should be named WTF? How about LMFAO? Or like my last company:
"Safety Has Its Time" - one of the contractors won an award for that slogan; submitted it just after he received an offer to work for another company
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
I'm waiting for Operation OMGWTFBBQ myself... Oh My, Government Wikileaks Task Force Better Be Quick!
Not surprised, but did they aid in obtaining them? I got the impression they aided in publishing, but that Manning obtained them all on his own.
There is reason to believe that Assange provided Manning with instructions and a means to submit the documents. He had nothing to do with actually getting them. This wasn't a case of "Here, Wikileaks, have these documents." It was more like "Wikileaks, help me submit these." The government is operating under the assumption that Manning didn't submit the documents like everyone else and wait for Wikileaks to find it. Rather, Wikileaks knew what was coming and helped Manning submit them. This is in contrast to an oft cited example, the Pentagon Papers, where Daniel Elsberg handed them documents without the journalists knowing what it was.
Somebody please tell me it's April 1st.
"Mr. President, here is the WTF report"
HTML is obsolete. It's time for a new, simpler and richer markup language.
Just what would that "reason to believe" be? I have seen absolutely no evidence supporting your claim, and I've been following this whole thing very closely.
Brought to you by the Federal Acronym Research Team ;)
Ridiculous you say. I wouldn't be surprised I say.
I could save them the effort. Nobody has been killed, no attacks carried out. The world is still pretty much the same. There are a few red faces where rich and powerful people have been shown to be the duplicitous, lying hypocrites we suspected them to be. That is what this task force is trying to prevent in future.
Given that its expanded version is usually an expression of extreme disbelief, perhaps the term is apt for the CIA's investigation.
This really shouldn't surprise anybody. An organization aids a person in obtaining classified documents and the CIA investigates? Preposterous!
So, the primary question should still be: Is wikileaks considered the leak itself, or is Wikileaks considered journalism which doesn't fit in the standard state propaganda (but should still be legal under the freedom of speech laws).
I thought that the leak was in the US army, not outside hackers... Anyway, they might as well broaden the investigation to all media?
CIA launches MTF, Media Task Force, to investigate the impact of a well-informed population.
The only organization that aided Bradley Manning in obtaining classified documents was U.S. army intelligence. He was sitting in Bagdad browsing diplomatic cables from every embassy in the world, none of which had anything to do with the type of intelligence he was supposed to be gathering. There was no hacking involved.
Bradley Manning:
“I would come in with music on a CD-RW labeled with something like ‘Lady Gaga,’ erase the music then write a compressed split file,” he wrote. “No one suspected a thing and, odds are, they never will.” “I listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga’s ‘Telephone’ while exfiltrating possibly the largest data spillage in American history,” he added later. ”Weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis … a perfect storm.”
The US military basically left a $100 bill laying on the bar while they went to the bathroom and some lowly PFC found it and did what anyone would have in his situation. Now they are trying to pretend like this worldwide network of thieves dropped in like ninjas and snatched it from their 3ft thick titanium safe.
Think for a second on what Mr. Mannings goal was... informing the public. Now think of how easily it would be for a foreign security agency or even a terrorist sympathizer to achieve the same level of clearance. Their goals would be far less noble, and far less public. They'd most likely never get caught. Bradley Manning has probably done more to help secure the US Militarys network than any idiot at the CIA that doesn't even know what the acronym WTF stands for.
then you say
Which are contradictory. You also said
which clearly isn't true. The law here is very murky, and "aiding in submitting documents" probably isn't a crime. If there was a clear crime comitted here, we'd have heard specifically what it is by now.
"It doesn't take a rocket scientist" -I guess I should leave then
It will be known as OMG WTF CIA
GBT - Google Background Task-force (to look into the background data from wifi snooping)
WANK - Wide Area Network Keeper (protect infrastructure from DDOS)
SHIT - Secure Homeland IT (initiative against cyber warfare)
The law here is very murky, and "aiding in submitting documents" probably isn't a crime. If there was a clear crime comitted here, we'd have heard specifically what it is by now.
When I said "aids a person in obtaining classified documents" I really mean "aids Wikileaks in obtaining documents FROM Manning." Nobody thinks Assange had a hand in actually obtaining the documents from the government. But there's reason to believe he helped Manning submit the documents based on chats Manning had with the hacker who exposed him. Based on these, Assange provided Manning with locations and instructions on how to submit the documents to Wikileaks instead of submitting them like everyone else and waiting for Wikileaks to sift through the submissions, and the timeline from when Manning had the documents to when Wikileaks released them supports this claim.
I don't want people to think I don't support Wikileaks or agree wholeheartedly with the government. I'm trying to look at this from a neutral perspective based on details of the investigation released thus far and based on the law. But once again, slashtards see something they disagree with and mark it -1 Troll.
If the group can't even decode the Acronym WTF, I have serious reservations about their ability to counter the efforts of the global geek community out to get them.
"Ok 4chan, we were going to use 256-bit AES to transmit our instructions but it has recently come to our attention that if we simply use an encrytion schema called "Leetspeak" the CIA will be completely mystified and far less likely to crack the code."
***3 months later***
President Obama: "Our Military leaders and Intelligence officials have asked that I request help from the American people in our time of need. We are in desperate need of translators. Specifically in the Swedish ethic language of "LeetSpeak." The also asked me to say 'U will pwn n00b haxors" and said you'd know what that means."
Yeah, Gary McKinnon helped with some of that stuff too. Where did that get him?
erroneous: look me up in a dictionary
He is trying to restate, the official excuse for why wikileaks is considered to have engaged in criminal activities, as his own opinion.
What you think of people who for some reason needs to pretend to think for themselves when they verbatime restate official statements, I will let you decide.
There may be reason to believe that Wikileaks helped Manning, but Wikileaks != Assange.
...the CIA's opinion of the rest of the government's computer security procedures.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
WTF, not another Wikileaks story! In the spirit of the upcoming holiday season, maybe we can just forgo any more Wikileaks stories until after the New Year.
We fade in on a low lit smoky government war room.
Many high ranking CIA operatives are seated around a circular table.
Task force chairman: Gentlemen, we have our network completely set. Operatives are in place and the funding is acquired. .a name.
All we need now is . .
[CIA Director walks in]
Director: Well Hey Howdy boys! What are we all up against this time?!
Task force chairman: Director, we just learned about the release of numerous secret diplomat cables from a website called Wikileaks.
Director: WHAT THE F@$K?!! NEOTHEONENSFWBBQ?!!
Task for chairman: Hmmmm. . . WTF. W. . .T . . .F . . .That's it! Gentlemen, we have our name! Congratulations, Director!
[Cheers go out. Scotch is poured and toasts are made.
Screen fades to black.]
[Fade in on Julian Assange sitting in a British pub. A CIA operative, a couple MI5 operatives with some British Bobbies come
walking in the door.]
MI5 Operative: Julian Assange?
Julian: Yes?
MI5: You are being held for extradition to Sweden under allegations of rape. Please come with us.
Julian: WTF?!
CIA Operative: [Takes off sunglasses] Exactly.
[Fade to black. Cue Credits. Roll End Theme]
before the American people hit the reset button on the country? The government is obviously completely out of control. We have the TSA fondling children and strip-searching innocent citizens who simply want to travel from point A to point B. We have a Congress and Whitehouse who simply can't be bothered to do anything to help the Middle Class, preferring instead to concentrate even more wealth and power in the hands of the ultra-rich, ultra-connected, unaccountable, and demonstrably incompetent (eg. tax breaks for the wealthy and net neutrality). And thanks to Wikileaks the illusion that the government knows what it's doing has been shattered.
It's almost like those in power are betting each other they can screw the American people indefinitely, unapologetically, right in front of them and no one will do anything. And amazingly, the most heavily armed populace in the world is letting them get away with it.
Is there no steel left in the American soul?
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
..some old fogey is working at the CIA who is 100% out of touch with modern slang came up with this name. ..or.. ..someone at the CIA has a great sense of humor. ..or... ..some 4channer is an insider at the CIA and thought they would do this for the ultimate lulz. It's not unlike Fight Club where you find out members of Tyler's gang work everyday jobs and can secretly add things to your meal.
lol!
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
People, is this really transparency? Or is this espionage? Frankly I think that all the wikileaks documents fall on the side of espionage. Allow me a minute to elaborate my position. The government, private industry, and even individuals. Have private things that they want to keep private. By law, everyone's privacy is protected. When documents that are supposed to be private are "stolen" that is espionage and theft. How would you guys like it if the content of your hard drives was stolen and then posted on the internet? How would you like it if they did it under the guise of keeping you honest? I am sure all would agree that even under this "explanation" you would still feel like and have the rights under the law that information was stolen. Yes I understand that our government has to be transparent. There are however, methods to get information in the properway. Using the law, one can subpena the governemet, private industry, and individuals. Using legal ways information can be forced to be released. So what is my point? Basically, the protections must be in place to protect everyone, lest they be excluded whimsically. Much like our right to free speech. Everyone, has the right to free speech in the US. Even people that speak with hate. Any lawyers care to chime in? 01110000 01100101 01100001 01100011 01100101
Look at the signatories on this page, and tell me with a straight face that none of them have held public office.
What The Fuck?
I'm just waiting until the WTF creates its sister agency, the Operational Management Governing Bureaucratic Branching Queue.
Am I missing something? I thought it was some other guy, not related to Wikileaks who stole the documents? Shouldn't that guy/security hole be the target of an investigation? What's there to investigate with Wikileaks? They publish leaked documents. There, end of mystery. *sigh*
"There is reason to believe that Assange provided Manning with instructions and a means to submit the documents"
It's true. It's called the 'submissions' webpage.
There is a substantial deference between, hey wikileaks how do I submit these documents and hey wikileaks how do i obtain these documents. In point of fact in the first case the documents are unsubstantiated documents until they are submitted and of course once published they can not be defined as factual by anyone else the 'oops' US government.
So CIA will no play the propaganda game, denial, obfuscation and, misinformation. Pretty much the same stuff that was already indicated in a lot of the documents.
To be clear the stupidest the US government could ever do in the first place was to admit the documents released were real, dumb, dumb, dumb. I know, difficult to deny, but certainly easy no to admit to. This at least enables the challenging of any individual document as being true or valid, dumb, dumb, dumb. In fact the US government did everything imaginable to validate the documents, international diplomatic pressure, corporate strong arm tactics, ramping up of criminal charges, political rah rah with talks of execution, dumb, dumb, dumb.
So counter intelligence in every sense of the word in every facet of the US government. Hint, here's how to lie next time, some documents were released by a foreign source who has tainted and altered them, for political and economic reasons. Most of the documents released were inconsequential and yet still altered here are some examples and the rest are just fabrications based upon the wording of those other unimportant documents. See no terrorism, no executions, no extraordinary renditions, no diplomatic rubbish, no threats of prosecution and you bust the leak for inappropriate access to a secured computer network not espionage, so still admitting nothing.
In all the private contractor bullshit and politics, US intelligence services have become really clumsy and stupid, dumb, dumb, dumb.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Maybe the CIA used OpenBSD. Damn those FBI agents. Damn them, I say.
It was either the Liquidate Bradley Manning brigade or this.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
The problem is everyone sees the word classified and assumes it must be important, that is not always the case. Just because it is classified does not mean that reveling it would have an impact on U.S. national security. For example, the number of rolls of toilet paper bought for a unit every month maybe classified, due to the fact you could potentially determine unit size and strength from the number. However, it has no impact on the overall National Security of the U.S. The fact that he is a PFC. means nothing either everyone in the military has the equivalent of a secret clearance it does not mean they have access to anything of importance though. It is just poor journalism and over excitement by Wikileaks in thinking, they have something valuable because it is stamped classified. Nothing of real importance was released in regards to national security, but it sure has helped to feed the ego of someone that seems to crave the spotlight.
EGOTIST, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
It beggars belief that any intel officer could do the equivalent to "select * from reports" and nobody batted an eyelid. If he had to search a database, he should be required to enter search criteria. Results should be limited. His search should be logged. Unusual or suspicious searches should flagged for immediate attention. Even the text of the reports could even tagged in obvious and less obvious ways so if they did leak that the culprit could be forensically identified.
So while we can debate about the ethics of what wikileaks is doing, the reality is that the fault for all the leaks lays fairly and squarely at the feet of the US governments sloppy security. If Bradly Manning was doing it then who else was? I wonder if China, Russia, Iran etc. have had to feign surprise at these leaks. Perhaps they've long owned their own copies.
The US military basically left a $100 bill laying on the bar while they went to the bathroom and some lowly PFC found it and did what anyone would have in his situation. Now they are trying to pretend like this worldwide network of thieves dropped in like ninjas and snatched it from their 3ft thick titanium safe.
Well, not any PFC would have done this, because thousands of "lowly" enlisted personnel before and during Manning's service managed to have access to this information without burning it to CD-RW's while lip syncing to Lady Gaga songs. At the same time I don't remember seeing the Army ever claim that they were remotely attacked, only that PFC Manning broke several laws and even agreements he made personally (all servicemembers who use government networks are required to sign a form stating quite explicitly that they will not do what PFC Manning admitted to doing) in order to improperly remove classified material from the SIPRNET.
Although this is also a failure of the government's willingness to share sensitive data so widely, the fact of the matter was that this was a deliberate policy by the government as a corrective action to the inter-agency communications failures that led up to 9/11. Afterwards information was made widely available to and across agencies so that different government departments could actually work together instead of looking like a bunch of bumbling 'tards in the lead up to the next massive intelligence failure leading to a terrorist attack. I guess the U.S. government is damned if they do, damned if they don't.
I don't think it is so much that we 'slashtards', as you so lovingly refer to such a wide group of people whom you'll probably never even meet, simply disagree. Rather, I think it is that you're without a point. You say:
Assange provided Manning with locations and instructions on how to submit the documents...
This is only a crime if using Wikileaks is a crime. As far as I know, it is not. Until they had the documents, there was no legal reason to believe that they were in fact classified. Manning could have been deceiving them, etc. Wikileaks is designed to receive files, so aiding someone in that task is within the scope of helping someone use their website. This is a thought crime, at best.
...to Wikileaks instead of submitting them like everyone else and waiting for Wikileaks to sift through the submissions, and the timeline from when Manning had the documents to when Wikileaks released them supports this claim.
And giving him special treatment is what sort of crime, exactly?
Maybe, maybe, maybe if Assange and Wikileaks were under the jurisdiction of American law then MAYBE you'd have a nitpicky point. As they're not, you don't. There's no international consensus that helping someone use a website and giving someone priority status are crimes. These points alone are no more or less significant than the entire overall process of receiving the documents and publishing them.
Molehill, meet mirror. Mountain is over there.
The US military basically left a $100 bill laying on the bar while they went to the bathroom and some disillusioned, disgruntled, and recently demoted lowly PFC found it and did what anyone would have in his situation.
fixed that for you.
His motivations are much more complex than "oh look what I found laying around"
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Think for a second on what Mr. Mannings goal was... informing the public. Now think of how easily it would be for a foreign security agency or even a terrorist sympathizer to achieve the same level of clearance. Their goals would be far less noble, and far less public. They'd most likely never get caught. Bradley Manning has probably done more to help secure the US Militarys network than any idiot at the CIA that doesn't even know what the acronym WTF stands for.
Understand, though, that with a minimum of the Apache attack, someone on the inside clearly WANTED those documents to be leaked. They were in a folder marked 'please leak me', or something functionally similar, when Manning went snooping for them. We probably have a case of individuals alarmed by what they're seeing, motivated enough to make things easy to steal, but not yet motivated enough to face prison time over it.
The military and to a larger extent the government are suffering from systemic corruption and there are people on the inside who hate it. They, far more than Manning, made this situation possible.
I actually like this reaction a lot more than the others.
Seems someone in the agency has had the guts to realize that the horse has left the barn, and instead of yet another attempt at closing the door, is trying to figure out what the damage is and how to react to it.
That's a lot more sense than most politicians make these days.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
The US military basically left a $100 bill laying on the bar while they went to the bathroom and some lowly PFC found it and did what anyone would have in his situation. Now they are trying to pretend like this worldwide network of thieves dropped in like ninjas and snatched it from their 3ft thick titanium safe.
You would grab a $100 bill off of a bar that wasn't yours? I for one would not. Don't assume that everyone is a thief like the PFC in question.
"The Real WTF is the Forum Software."
Classic
-Woof woof woof!
So now, the CIA is inspecting Barn Doors after the horses have left and are running down mainstreet?
Well, apparently we now know the gov's more concerned about their image then about actually treating people decently.
Wikileaks is made to keep government's honest. No threat in that.
But the American Government? They don't want to be honest, shit, they don't even want to do anything for the people of the USA.
They rather the sheeple, i mean, people of the USA kept their heads in the sand, while they (the government) run around with the corporations, because all the matters is money. Not how you get it, who you step on to get it, but actually having it.
Should the CIA be investigating wikileaks? No. They need to get their lazy, over paid asses in line, and start doing shit for the people of the united states, instead of the corporations or government of the united states.
Ah, fuck it, who am I kidding? Most the people are too stupid to even realize when the government is stomping on their rights to even care. Glad I should be dead within 40 years, seriously sad fucking world we are turning into here.
Be seeing you...
"Well, not any PFC would have done this, because thousands of "lowly" enlisted personnel before and during Manning's service managed to have access to this information without burning it to CD-RW's while lip syncing to Lady Gaga songs."
You're incorrectly assuming that if they did this they'd
A. Get caught.
B. Get publicly arrested.
Given the almost keystone kops level of security reveled here, it is quite likely that there are quite a few people with less noble goals... You could make quite a bit of coin selling such information to the right people.
My tax records on my home network are more secure than these documents were.
So, the primary question should still be: Is wikileaks considered the leak itself, or is Wikileaks considered journalism which doesn't fit in the standard state propaganda (but should still be legal under the freedom of speech laws).
Why would that be the primary question? It would seem to me that would be a tangential concern at best to the CIA.
Think for a second on what Mr. Mannings goal was...
Getting revenge for being demoted to PFC. Getting revenge for Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Oh, and embarrassing the folks who had done him wrong.
He can drape that in the flag and grab for the first amendment, his allies can praise him to the skies for his nobility of purpose; but he is not solely a Noble Martyr to the Cause of Freedom, Justice and Truth.
"The conduct of neither [party], if strictly examined, will be irreproachable." -Elizabeth Bennet
They should have called it the Secrecy Task Force Unit.
Sounds like Wikileaks used Manning to validate leaked documents if this is the case. Exactly what's wrong with assistance in submitting something? If a secretary told Daniel Elsberg not to just put the papers in slot A, but slot B, what difference does that make again? I imagine it's not unusual to get in contact with someone in the media before just dumping info on them.
The only person that exposed Manning was himself. If you got that detail wrong ...
How the fuck is what you described illegal?
Receiving classified information is not illegal, even knowingly. Neither is informing someone where they can leave classified information where you'd see it better.
And anything Manning's says is suspect. He's being tortured until he makes up some bogus way for them to arrest Assange.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
They have no case yet, they think, it needs to be bigger. So they torture Bradley. See http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/accused_wikileaker_bradley_mannings_torture_by_isolation_20101215/ or even http://www.google.nl/#hl=nl&source=hp&q=bradley+manning+torture
"Well, not any PFC would have done this, because thousands of "lowly" enlisted personnel before and during Manning's service managed to have access to this information without burning it to CD-RW's while lip syncing to Lady Gaga songs."
You're incorrectly assuming that if they did this they'd
A. Get caught.
B. Get publicly arrested.
And you're incorrectly assuming that a significant motive exists among servicemembers to do this.
I'm not certain why you mention getting publicly arrested though, as getting publicly arrested still beats the other alternative, and given Manning's current treatment, it seems to me that avoiding arrest is motivation enough for many soldiers who are just trying to do their time and get out of the Army.
Even with that though, it's harder to keep doing things without getting caught than you make it sound. All it would take is one person glancing over and seeing a CD writer program, one bored IT dweeb browsing through the logs, or hell, one officer who knew the rule against bringing in media noticing and you're caught. Not impossible to do (obviously) but requires some dedication to the task, a dedication which isn't exactly foremost among most of the volunteers who make up the Army.
My tax records on my home network are more secure than these documents were.
Would that still be true if millions of people required access to your home network to do their job?
It doesn't matter what is 'considered' the leak.
The US has no Official Secrets act. It is perfectly legal for anyone to tell classified information to anyone else as long as they have not sign documents stating they will not do that.
Basically, all punishment for leaking classified information is contractual. Mannings agreed to it, and hence he be punished.
No one else did, certainly no one at Wikileaks, and hence the government cannot do anything^W^W^W will instead torture Manning until he claims Assange 'incited' Manning to or something so they can extradite Assange from the country where they've got him held on a bogus rape charge now. (Whereupon the charge will magically go away.)
The game is really obvious, people. Really REALLY fucking obvious.
I'm just a little baffled that the CIA is openly admitting the government is trying to figure out ways to charge Assange with a crime. (Since when does the CIA investigate crime? When they need to invent a crime, that's when. The FBI and whatnot have moral objections to framing people, the CIA does it all the time.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
According to Guardian's WikiLeaks and the first amendment, it doesn't matter what was the newspaper's (WikiLeaks') stake in the matter:
...how any news organisation can be said not to have colluded with a source when it receives leaked documents. Didn't the Times collude with Daniel Ellsberg when it received the Pentagon Papers from him? Yes, there are differences. Ellsberg had finished making copies long before he began working with the Times, whereas Assange may have goaded Manning. But does that really matter?
What matters is whether publishing leaked documents poses such a grave danger to national security that it warrants prosecution. The supreme court, in the 1931 case of Near v Minnesota, ruled that the standard for stopping publication – that is, for censorship – is whether the information is so sensitive that it would be akin to revealing the movement of troops during wartime. That standard was affirmed in the 1971 Pentagon Papers case...
To the question "were any troops endangered" U.S. already has posted an answer: Pentagon review: No troops endangered by Wikileaks documents. If Slashdot was a TV show you'd be hearing "I rest my case".
I want to be part of the WTF task force. ...dude, WTF?
Nothing, it's what every investigative journalist out there does. The government, and the people buying into their bullshit are just reaching for anything they can throw right now, because they are pissed about being caught with their pants down.
So, the primary question should still be: Is wikileaks considered the leak itself, or is Wikileaks considered journalism which doesn't fit in the standard state propaganda (but should still be legal under the freedom of speech laws).
Why would that be the primary question? It would seem to me that would be a tangential concern at best to the CIA.
Because the CIA only upholds the law. They do not make the laws.
If publishing leaked materials in mainstream media is considered harmful to a society, then your lawmaking organization (i.e. the president, congress - basically all politicians) should do that.
Once there is no more Separation of Powers, you're in trouble.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution
He is trying to restate, the official excuse for why wikileaks is considered to have engaged in criminal activities, as his own opinion.
What you think of people who for some reason needs to pretend to think for themselves when they verbatime restate official statements, I will let you decide.
You are trying to restate his opinion, that means YOU believe the excuse that he restated, does it?
Of course you don't, and neither does he.
He was explaining the situation and how people are interpreting it, and you go "omfg he must believe that!".
ATTENTION EVERYONE: learn the gorram difference between explaining a position and believing that position! Come on! It's...it's not that hard, all you have to do is read with your eyes open instead of jumping to the first flammable strawman conclusion you can infer. Try it, for a change.
You can't take the sky from me...
Wikileaks responds by launching an equally appropriate FAIL committee. (Forcing Accountability In Leadership)
Think for a second on what Mr. Mannings goal was... informing the public. Now think of how easily it would be for a foreign security agency or even a terrorist sympathizer to achieve the same level of clearance.
Very difficult: Bradley Manning is a true patriot, that's how he cleared the security screening. If they test for possible traitors, he passed because he always intended to serve his country.
You can't take the sky from me...
Somebody is clearly writing this nonsense.
If their insight into the reality of what makes the human mind react is this thin, then I can only imagine that the punchline/plot-twist/grand-finale is going to be just as campy and groan-worthy.
If they hadn't already softened up (force-fed) their audience with twenty years of the most embarrassingly and increasingly low-brow circuses humanity is capable of viewing without actually drooling into their popcorn, I'd venture to guess that nobody would buy any of this farce.
-FL
The CIA uplholds the law?
Was that what "Operation Midnight Climax" was? Or, more recently, the kidnapping and torture of foreign nationals? Maybe thats what the attempted assassination attempts on Fidel Castro were?
The CIA are one thing and one thing only: Criminals In Action.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
... think of how easily it would be for a foreign security agency or even a terrorist sympathizer to achieve the same level of clearance. Their goals would be far less noble, and far less public...
Why would you think this hasn't happened already? From a security perspective, the only safe move (ie, the most paranoid one) is to assume that *all* foreign intelligence agencies *already* have *complete* and *non-redacted* versions of *everything* that would have been available to Manning. Killing the informants would only tell you their cover was blown.
Maybe the reason the cables endanger informants is that knowledge of their blown cover would be public rather than private: they're no longer useful as honeypots / double agents.
What I find surprising about it is he was lip-syncing Lady Gaga while "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was still in effect.
All the attention is in the messenger, all the efforts are focused on Assagne, how to discredit, capture, torture and punish him. Not in the message itself. That means two things, they want to make the public to forget about the leaks themselves (that are bad, but not too bad), and that they want to ensure that Assagne, his organization or anyone else that would want to emulate him gets in touch with the real bad documents that exist but they already got sure that don't leaked yet.
It is perfectly legal for anyone to tell classified information to anyone else as long as they have not sign documents stating they will not do that.
No, it isn't. They can't nail you for violating your agreement, but they can still nail you for creating a potential for damage. It's not the classified-ness that gets you, it's the reason it was classified.
Assange released a lot of stuff that shouldn't have been classified. But along with it he released a lot of stuff that should have been kept secret. He'll be punished for the latter.
bad ass date rape
Oh, and the CIA operates outside America, just not inside it. That's why you always think FBI and not CIA when these things happen. Because they can't come after you.
Also, the only "game" that is obvious about Assange and the rape charge is that Assange is lying like a trapped child that someone's persecuting him.
Because the CIA only upholds the law.
Gag me with a microdot! That's funny as hell! TNX
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
and did what anyone would have
No, if you walk up to a bar and see a C-note sitting there, you leave it there. It's not yours, it's the bar's, or it's the property of the person who will be coming back from the bathroom. /. seems to be full of people who would get their asses beat if they ever went out in public anywhere other than the comic-book store or McDonald's. And probably there, too.
I considered the possibility, but it didn't look like that was the case.
I believe firmly in allowing people to play the devils advocate or to admit to understanding the reasoning of those we otherwise call unreasonable. I just don't see a lot of that going on.
I don't think it is so much that we 'slashtards', as you so lovingly refer to such a wide group of people whom you'll probably never even meet, simply disagree. Rather, I think it is that you're without a point.
My idea of a "slashtard" is one of many here who don't really belong; wannabe nerds with an IQ of two digits, or barely three. Some people think knowing how to boot Windows makes you a nerd. Others thing buying cool electronic toys that they have no clue of how they work makes them a nerd.
My definition of a dork is a nerd without the IQ.
A comment without a point would rightly be modded "overrated".
Free Martian Whores!
Joel, you wanna know something? Every now and then say, "What the fuck." "What the fuck" gives you freedom. Freedom brings opportunity. Opportunity makes your future.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
I'm honestly having trouble following what you're saying. The CIA's job is to protect the national interest, not act in response to crimes. If Iran is building up forces on the Iraqi border, there is no crime committed. Are you saying the CIA should therefore not care about this? Similarly, if wikileaks created a problem, you're saying the CIA should not even look at the issue if a crime was committed?
Assange released a lot of stuff that shouldn't have been classified. But along with it he released a lot of stuff that should have been kept secret. He'll be punished for the latter.
Assange is not a US citizen, nor he did that in US soil.
And I don't remember electing the US administration as Earth government.
In this case, the Regional Transportation Financing Agency.
The law here is very murky, and "aiding in submitting documents" probably isn't a crime. If there was a clear crime comitted here, we'd have heard specifically what it is by now.
They're looking... and it reminds me of this:
If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged. - Cardinal Richelieu*.
They'll find something.
* (source disputed)
Wait...
So you're implying that it's ok to have a whistleblowing/leak website, just as long as nobody documents how to submit documents to the website?
It's ok for a whistleblower to give documentation to a news reporter, just as long as the reporter doesn't say "mail them to my P.O. box at this address"?
It's ok for a reporter to receive leaks, as long as they make sure that they don't prioritize any one leak above any other and make sure to read through their entire inbox before reporting on any of them?
That's some brilliant logic right there.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Man, I wish I had mod points right now...
As much as I'm for wikileaks and against all the things the government is doing to cover up their tracks, you can't take anything from salon.com seriously. It make tabloids look reputable.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Yule log.
"Should an accomplice in a murder go unpunished because he didn't KNOW that his partner would kill someone."
It depends. If he was a knowing accomplice in the commission of a crime, and then his parner killed someone while committing that crime, he is guilty of murder. This is long-settled law and precedent. By being involved in the crime he actively set up the situation in which the person was murdered.
If you're just walking down the street and your friend kills someone, not guilty.
"Wikileaks doesn't have to KNOW what they were receiving to be guilty of collusion."
If a WikiLeaks agent actively solicits a specific person to release specific information, the agent is likely guilty of a crime. I doubt this is the case with Manning.
If WikiLeaks says it'll publish any info given to it, and someone releases classified information to WikiLeaks, that is not a crime for WikiLeaks. The information has been released, it is a freedom of speech issue now. See Pentagon Papers. But the person who leaked it is screwed, especially if he's in the military.
I'm not sure that people who are actively trying to find information about this matter would not just put wikileaks task force in google. Or, if they only hear that there was something called WTF from the CIA they'd throw those 2 words together plus wikileaks and find something about them rather easily.
I think what he's saying is that if he left a $100 bill on the bar and went to the bathroom, he wouldn't expect it to still be there when he got back.
I guess that reading isn't as fun for you though, because with your misinterpretation you get to call the GP a thief. Name calling is so much fun and adds so much to the discussion, right?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Off the bar? No, it could be intended as payment. Off the floor? Absolutely, you don't leave money you care about on the floor.
When you find something on the floor of the bar it belongs to the owner of the bar, not to you. When you find something out in public it belongs to you until the owner claims it from you. It's an ethical question as to how you will go about assisting the owner in finding you if he comes back and doesn't find his property where he left it or believes he may have dropped it.
But this is a digression Manning didn't find the information he stole on the floor.
He found it in a secured computer in a secured building on a secured military installation.
His job, and his legal and ethical responsibility, was not to take it.
His other legal and ethical responsibility, and also part of his job if he'd bothered to pay attention to the briefing he signed when he was issued his clearance, was to point out the illegalities in the information to his chain of command, one rung at a time, including the inspectors general at each level, until someone either gave him legal reasons the information should remain classified or started declassifying it.
Instead, he chose to do a wrong thing. Rather than acting ethically and legally, he acted in the mistaken belief that it would somehow make him a hero. It makes him a hero only to the ignorant and the enemy.
He committed a crime against the laws of the United States and against the United States. If the US requests his extradition from a foreign country, (one of the reasons he went to Sweden is that it doesn't extradite to the US) the foreign country may agree to extradite him to the US for trial and punishment.
It wouldn't be unreasonable for foreign governments to take a dim view of the kind of thing Assange did and expedite his extradition. He's currently pissing off Sweden by not cooperating in what should be a simple police investigation in an unrelated matter. So they may even give him up.
He also broke an Australian law against doing what he did to Australia's allies. Which is another reason he's hiding in Europe and not in Australia.
>>The US military basically left a $100 bill laying on the bar while they went to the bathroom and some lowly PFC found it and did what anyone would have in his situation.
I disagree. The reasons why the $100 was left on the bar are irrelevant. The PFC had a choice, freewill. He could have, and should have left the bill on the bar. It wasn't any of his business.
And that's what I'd do... leave it there. You don't go stealing from people and you don't mess with things that you don't entirely understand.
Huh?
I considered the possibility, but it didn't look like that was the case.
Are you drunk?
I believe firmly in allowing people to play the devils advocate or to admit to understanding the reasoning of those we otherwise call unreasonable. I just don't see a lot of that going on.
Or you're just really bad at spotting it. Seriously, I've just had a look again, he's definitely not endorsing the government's position.
You can't take the sky from me...
Not surprised, but did they aid in obtaining them? I got the impression they aided in publishing, but that Manning obtained them all on his own.
There is reason to believe that Assange provided Manning with instructions and a means to submit the documents. He had nothing to do with actually getting them. This wasn't a case of "Here, Wikileaks, have these documents." It was more like "Wikileaks, help me submit these." The government is operating under the assumption that Manning didn't submit the documents like everyone else and wait for Wikileaks to find it. Rather, Wikileaks knew what was coming and helped Manning submit them. This is in contrast to an oft cited example, the Pentagon Papers, where Daniel Elsberg handed them documents without the journalists knowing what it was.
Dude, however modded you down should check themselves in rehad.
You can't take the sky from me...
As much as I'm for wikileaks and against all the things the government is doing to cover up their tracks, you can't take anything from salon.com seriously. It make tabloids look reputable.
So, do you have any actual reason why Salon's articles should be ignored, other than you don't like the publication? From what I've seen, they have a very good record of publishing accurate and informative stories.
... and then they built the supercollider.
As they're not, you don't. There's no international consensus that helping someone use a website and giving someone priority status are crimes.
Hosting leaked documents that foreign governments don't want to be visible isn't even a crime. If it is, someone better arrest John Young for this outrage.
And that's the way you want it, unless you want international law to allow extradition ti China for hosting pages critical of the Chinese government?
There people in trenches and posts who are the only thing what separates the world from tyranny and darkness. Yes, Wikileaks are fun, but I do not want these people die because of it. Assange and co should be careful what they publish after all.
That's kinda disappointing, really. Hey you guys~~! Have a look here already.
Sheesh.
The CIA's WTF, named by FART, is mostly definitely SBD.
FML.
Killing wikileaks will prevent our secrets from being disclosed, the same way that killing Napster stopped P2P. Yay!!
Free unix account: freeshell.org
Given the amount of "tampering" that Wired did and the reluctance to make the full chat logs available back when Manning was first arrested, my confidence in the reliability of those chat logs is approximately 0.
They're going to need something more concrete than a confession from a man being tortured and a chat log that's been arbitrarily edited.
But strangely, not all records in police databases are ... watched.
People that are of public interest (tv/movie stars, politicians, etc) usually get police records flagged in such a way that any attempt to access material related to those records is logged/alerted. If you don't need to know/access that information, then it is in the interests of you continuing to work there that you don't.
The same flags/alters are rarely present on the records relating to "normal people."
Been there, worked on that.
He committed a crime against the laws of the United States and against the United States.
That's my point: if you're not a US citizen, nor are you in US territory, US laws are irrelevant to you.
What makes extra-national laws (and international organizations) appliable is when a country formally recognizes those, otherwise they legally do not exist in such jurisdiction.
In cases such as Assange's, what matters in practice is political pressure, it's not really about laws.
The US government has already decided to destroy that man. What they're doing now it applying some legal dressing over it in order to legitimize that, so UK/Sweden won't be in a difficult political situation when cooperating with the US.
He's currently pissing off Sweden by not cooperating in what should be a simple police investigation in an unrelated matter.
I'm not sure about that.
The perfect timing and the way the investigation happened in Sweden so far makes that very suspicious.
He also broke an Australian law against doing what he did to Australia's allies. Which is another reason he's hiding in Europe and not in Australia.
I don't know australian laws, but your claim is too broad... Do you know which laws specifically he broke?
To me it looks quite obvious that Assange feared Australia being easily bound by US political pressure, since it's an official ally. But that, by itself, has nothing to do with laws.
Did you just said the US tortured the soldier who leaked this information? Amazing! First Americans let the US torture some brown "people" because, hey, they're brown and wear funny towels on their heads. Then, you let the US government torture this American soldier because hey, Benedict Arnold and all that. What's next? I am also amazed that Americans appears to be mostly nonchalant about the human right abuses that your government commits openly. Maybe because you think that it will not happen to you. Guess again. I have put the US on my no fly-there list, the same way people before had put South American or African tin pot dictatorship countries on their never go there list. You never now when you could end tied-up naked with water dripping on your face.
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834
and
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. I discuss that at length here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html
There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all."
See also:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/on-dealing-with-social-hurricanes.html#On_dealing_with_the_social_hurricane_of_the_CIA
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Would that still be true if millions of people required access to your home network to do their job?
I'm sorry mpyne, the end of your post throws a syntax error. You are on an IT board. The obvious answer is that only what the millions share a common need to access is on the common portal at my home where the server lives.
If homeboy's tax docs are part of that then there is no security issue. Anything distributed to millions must be considered to be 'in the wild.' Therefore, no worries - the baddies will have it by morning, I work on a contingency plan that reforms whatever rat-fucker decided to start distributing shit like this to millions of people.
If the tax docs are not required for these theoretical folk to do their job then the placement of said docs on the network is at least going to cost an admin their job.
if you're not a US citizen, nor are you in US territory, US laws are irrelevant to you.
That is incorrect. As I pointed out, the US can request that Assange be extradited. And the country he's in at that time may decide to honor the request. Doesn't matter where Assange is a citizen or where he committed the crime.
Most countries won't go along with random requests for extradition for laws that don't fit their own view of right and wrong. But something like what Assange did? Basically waging war against the U.S.? Many countries will see that as a bad thing to let go unpunished, or at least un-adjudicated, and some of those would seriously consider delivering him up, and of those the ones with something to gain diplomatically (especially if the State Department is dangling a fresh carrot) will bag him and toss him on the plane.
I don't know australian laws, but your claim is too broad... Do you know which laws specifically he broke?
Yes. I looked up the Australian equivalent of the US Code when all this first went around a few months ago. I don't have the paragraph number, but it's there. They have an official secrets act and it includes language that makes it illegal to conduct espionage against Australia's allies. The ANZUS treaty makes the US Australia's ally. So the only question is if they consider what Assange did to be espionage. I do. Deliberately releasing someone's secrets is plainly espionage.
The perfect timing and the way the investigation happened in Sweden so far makes that very suspicious.
No "perfect timing" about it. Assange went to Sweden to hide from the US and others. He was making the newspapers and all the TV news reports. Fame is a powerful attractant; ask any fugly rock star. Assange hooked up with a couple of girls who were in the circle of people he was hanging out with. He (as corroborated by the leaked police documents) did them wrong in a number of ways, and they decided to take action.
The fact is, no intelligence agency would do something this lame. They have him for the document releases. Getting him popped for mistreating women just slows down the process of dealing on him for that. If they wanted to go extralegal, they'd just disappear him and spread "evidence" that he was hiding in Pakistan with bin Laden and had been in his employ the whole time.
His reaction to it is pathetic as well. He's playing up his persecution complex over his job failure as a cover for his culpability for his social failure. And his own organization wants to fire him over it.
Clicky Clicky. No crime in Australia per the Oz Feds.
I respect your right to speak. I just wonder where your facts come from sometimes. I also disagree with the way you frame your arguments. That being said I still read your posts ;)
No, it isn't. They can't nail you for violating your agreement, but they can still nail you for creating a potential for damage. It's not the classified-ness that gets you, it's the reason it was classified.
Uh, no they can't.
There is no law that even vaguely covers what you are trying to describe. There is no law that prohibits a citizen of another country from doing stuff that damages US interests.
You're probably thinking of 'treason', but Assange can't commit that for a fairly obvious reason. (And what he did wouldn't qualify anyway.)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
null
Also, the only "game" that is obvious about Assange and the rape charge is that Assange is lying like a trapped child that someone's persecuting him.
Do you actually know any facts whatsoever about the 'case' against him, or his behavior WRT to the case?
He looks like someone who was illegally slandered for a month without any charges being actually filed or the police talking to him at all, and then the second he left the country (As he does all the time...he doesn't live in Sweden.), they put out nonsensical 'we want to know where he is Interpol' alerts, despite the fact they uh, knew where he was. (Because he was still offering to talk to them, as he'd been offering for a month...he just refused to hang around in Sweden forever and be slandered but not charged.)
And the second Sweden actually managed to put together a extradition warrant for the UK that the UK actually accepted, he turned himself in.
But in your universe he's somehow on the run from the law. I guess in your universe, when a government continually leaks information about how you're under investigation but refuses to actually speak to you or charge you, you have to stay in that country forever.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Or how about powerful american politicians forming an organisation calling for US global dominion?
They already have: it is called the US government.
They just want to shoot the messenger. Everything else is a way of trying to look as if they are not. All the fake justification will be done ineptly becuase it's a thankless, futile and pointless task that will be delegated down the chain until it hits people without the authority to ask somebody else to do it.
How do we know they didn't? Nobody caught Manning until he told people about it. I'm sure it wouldn't take foreign intelligence much effort to get enough influence to get a PFC to do what he's told.
One of the cables was even about guys from Shell in Nigeria being unwilling to say much because they saw US intelligence as "leaky".
Money, drugs, sex, or even outrage at the contents of the information (there was a movie based on a case from the last one "The Falcon and the Snowman"). With three million chances a determined organisation with even basic resources is going to find a way in. It doesn't need Mossad (experts at turning high ranking Palestinians) or equivalent, Walmart could do it if they cared.
I think you are incredibly naive if you think nobody within three million people would have a motive to turn access to this information to their advantage.
From the articles I've read on there (when I get bored, I flip through google news - every few days something from salon.com shows up), they're horribly inaccurate and represent nothing but blatant bias with few (frequently no) facts to back it up.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
With three million chances a determined organisation with even basic resources is going to find a way in. It doesn't need Mossad (experts at turning high ranking Palestinians) or equivalent, Walmart could do it if they cared.
I agree completely, and never claimed otherwise. Charliemopps claimed that any PFC would have done what Manning did. I disagreed, and my follow-up post to him was simply to point out that it is, in fact, slightly more difficult than clicking on Nero and burning a CD full of classified info.
Not much more difficult, as it turns out, but enough to make it so that the ones doing it are, like PFC Manning and your Walmart-level organization, actually trying to get information to use for their advantage instead of trying to get $100 to blow at a strip club.
How do we know they didn't? Nobody caught Manning until he told people about it.
I never said that no other personnel besides PFC Manning exfiltrated classified information. I said that thousands of servicemembers did not exfiltrate information. I did this deliberately instead of saying that no one but PFC Manning did this since I don't actually know that at least one, or two, or even more didn't do the same thing. But don't put words into my mouth. :P
At one time, I remember hearing soldiers commenting on an old helicopter that they were still required to fly. Everyone knew that it was old, and when talking to media, one soldier --quite rightly-- called it an old piece of kit. Now that phrase sounds like something else, but its not something else. And soldiers know how to curse better than you. (Trust me). So if the CIA folk think of the Wikileaks Task Force as WTF, they thought of the alternate meaning before you read it. Thats not officially what its called, and when called on the carpet, they will hotly deny it, but thats what they thought of, and think of it. The politicians seeing then name of the task force may not be amused, but everyone else is (ok, privately the politicians are amused too).
So, no actual examples, and no reasoning as to why this particular article should be disregarded. Again, if you have the facts to challenge the veracity of the article, then provide them. Otherwise, "I don't like Salon, so this mustn't be true" does not stand up as an argument.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Ah yes, the typical "you don't document everything you read / see / think / say, so I'm right be default" bullshit of people pushing a biased source. I also never said that it wasn't true, just that if you're using salon.com as your only source, it probably isn't.
But apparently you're one of the people who only use "facts" that support the opinion you already have.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I hear that Wikileaks Task Force has been mandated to provide Frank, Unambiguous and Clear Knowledge of the situation.
The US has no Official Secrets act. It is perfectly legal for anyone to tell classified information to anyone else as long as they have not sign documents stating they will not do that.
Basically, all punishment for leaking classified information is contractual. Mannings agreed to it, and hence he be punished.
Not quite.
18 U.S.C. 793 : US Code - Section 793: Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
This also looks interesting: 18 U.S.C. 798 (disclosing classified information)
As does this: 18 U.S.C. 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited
The Pentagon Papers case does not have the expansive application that many assume.
There is plenty of reason to believe that the investigation against Assange is motivated by his behavior, not by some government conspiracy.
10 days in Sweden: the full allegations against Julian Assange
The wildly promiscuous lifestyle of WikiLeaks boss Julian Assange: Look away now Jemima as our report reveals the sordid truth
Contrary to some people's ideas, Interpol does get involved in rape cases.
Since when does the CIA investigate crime?
The CIA has its own Inspector General, and no doubt other investigators. There are plenty of circumstances that might call for investigations when national security is involved in a large organization like the CIA.
I'm just a little baffled that the CIA is openly admitting the government is trying to figure out ways to charge Assange with a crime.
Assange was/is allegedly?/apparently? involved in a conspiracy to procure and publish hundreds of thousands of stolen classified US Government documents on the web so that any enemy of the United States can access them and hunt down named info
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I was going to post on the same point. The CIA can spend public money on an internal investigation of its own leaks, and the Army can spend public money to look into its own leaks (which it wants to do without the CIA helping out, I'm sure). If crimes of espionage have been committed, the FBI should be looking into those. The CIA's mandate is to provide intelligence and to produce counterintelligence as a basis for national security. So, one really has to ask, who directs the CIA to go after someone who has not been charged with a clear crime? If they aren't investigating for the sake of prosecuting a case then they must be intelligence-gathering on behalf of the State and its benefactors.
To the steely lizard gaze of the CIA, WikiLeaks is simply an "extra-state actor" - an entity which is loyal to NO country, and therefore analogous to a terrorist group in the sense that both are Idealistically-driven. The CIA doesn't factor in good intentions.
In full disclosure, the CIA has historically been used as a blunt instrument, an assassination squad, a tool to overthrow governments, a means to spread lies and maintain instability in exploitable regions, a pandora's box of all things secret and nasty that the US feels the need to carry out in the interests of the State and its holdings. So the CIA has itself a plethora of material it would not like to see leaked, and no doubt its zeal to stop WikiLeaks has helped the Administration and the Agency get past any lingering grievances.
Make no mistake, this is a brave new world we live in. I for one applaud what WikiLeaks does and what they stand for. It's not enough for leaders to make a show, to put their hands on their hearts and swear oaths to the old gods. In the USA we founded a union of, by, and for the people, and not just the people on this spit of land, but people everywhere. It's obvious, I suppose, that the government bureaucracy's interests and goals cannot abide the existence of an extra-state actor who makes every person on Earth a part of its conspiracy to know the truth. But that, I think, runs counter to the greater interests of the people of the earth, who deserve to see the way that the arms and agents of the State routinely behave when they think no one is watching.
It's one thing to assert that these mf's are criminals, altogether another to see vivid portraits, with video, of their bloody hands carrying out state-sanctioned diminutions of life with the same routine aspect as they might make a pot of drip coffee. We learn the cynical truth, that it's better to work for the boss, bad to cross the boss. Maybe it's better not to be reminded.
-- thinkyhead software and media
He also broke an Australian law against doing what he did to Australia's allies
You lie, you leave tracks, you have been called out.
We have a word for wankers like you - arseclown.
Funny you mention that...the officer in charge of the prison Manning is in confirmed everything in the Salon article. Is solitary confinement torture? It probably is, but even if you don't believe that, you have to admit it is pretty harsh punishment for someone who has yet to be convicted of a crime.
After Wikileaks revealed how callously the USians turned down the British Prime Ministers pleas not to extradite Gary McKinnon, they're probably not going to find them too cooperative now.
Wait until the American Secret Systems Handling And Transport group at CIA hears about this.
http://soundcloud.com/penguinmusic/omgwtfbbq
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
Jesus Christ
You realize that, if you interpret the espionage act that way, where 'documents' mean 'information', that every single person who read the New York Times, and doesn't attempt to turn their copy over to the government is in violation of the law, right?
That is why the courts don't interpret it that way. That would be an absurd law.
There is plenty of reason to believe that the investigation against Assange is motivated by his behavior, not by some government conspiracy.
Really? Why were the details leaked in violation of Swedish law? Why were the charges brought forth, then withdrawn? Why was he allowed to leave Sweden? Why have they actually refused to question him? Why have they still refused to question him while he's in England on bail?
Contrary to some people's ideas, Interpol does get involved in rape cases.
Contrary to normal behavior, countries do not normally put up Interpol notices for people they still have not charged with actual crimes, but merely wish to interview. (It's worth pointing out that the UK denied the original extradition order exactly because no one would figure out an actual crime they intend to charge him with, and while Sweden did make a new order with an actual crime they intend to charge him with, they still have not actually charged him with it.)
The CIA has its own Inspector General, and no doubt other investigators. There are plenty of circumstances that might call for investigations when national security is involved in a large organization like the CIA.
Inspector Generals do not do anything like you apparently think they do. The CIA's IG is in charge of investigating the CIA's behavior. Inspector Generals are oversight.
There are plenty of circumstances that might call for investigations when national security is involved in a large organization like the CIA.
No, the military police would investigate leaks by the military. The CIA would, presumably, help with that, but only by providing data.
There's no reason the CIA would be investigating the recipient of the leak. The CIA cannot actually prosecute people, it doesn't even have the ability to detain people. It does not have any investigators. The CIA can no more investigate crimes than the Bureau of Engraving.
The Department of Justice are the people who investigate crimes, this one probably via the FBI. And will presumably find whatever evidence the CIA manages to plant while they are, somehow, involved in all this.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Unfortunately, scale of leak alone (250000+ cables) makes it rather unbeveliable that all of it is fabricated. But yeah, damage control could be done way lot better.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
"did them wrong in a number of ways" Nice weasel wording.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
Technically scale of leak and some artful techno babble about computer generated false documents make use of elements of real documents, works fine. The denial is about obfuscating the most embarrassing documents under a layer of exaggeration and outright falsity.
Of course with the revelation about the psychopathic nature of Henry Kissenger coming to light and being deemed as acceptable by numerous US administrations, making anything no matter how bad disbelieve able, is likely impossible. In fact no matter how bad, the rest of humanity would likely expect the full truth of US action in foreign theatres to be even worse.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen