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.'"

Comments

This is what they should start doing

[devxo]

Personally I'm waiting for CIA to also launch an task force called NWO, just to have some fun with conspiracy theories.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Dracos]

Of course, this NWO stands for No Wikileaks Online.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[God'sDuck]

I'm waiting for the inappropriate jokes at the kick-off dinner to toast the future success of the unit: the WTFFTWNSFWBBQ.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Anonymous Coward]

Or how about powerful american politicians forming an organisation calling for US global dominion? And call it something like "project for the new american century"? That would really wind up those conspiracy jerks. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Re:This is what they should start doing

[cpu6502]

Random Question?

Can I change my name to WTF6502? ;-)

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Anonymous Coward]

Powerful american politicians? It was a group of pundits, none of whom have ever held public office. Oh, and they closed down 4 years ago. And their goal was never US global domination. Nice (though weird and random) troll.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not the case. Many politicians and public officials were members of the PNAC. Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Doug Feith, and Richard Pearle to name a few. And they didn't close down so much as change their name. They are now called the Foreign Policy Initiative IIRC. It was a weird and random troll though.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Pojut]

No, but you can change your name to WTF1138 :)

Re:This is what they should start doing

[khallow]

Powerful american politicians? It was a group of pundits, none of whom have ever held public office.

Some of their more famous writings had input from and were signed by genuine powerful US politicians who ended up serving in the G. W. Bush administration, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Megane]

Also the "Looking Out for Leaks" task force.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Anonymous Coward]

The will probably do that under the Langley Meeting of Affiliated Organizations (LMAO).

Re:This is what they should start doing

[cpu6502]

(Score:0)

Sorry for offending everyone.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is WTF?

Re:This is what they should start doing

[zish]

Unacceptable! It must be WTF5138008, if it is to be anything!
Although I suppose WTFZ80 might work as well.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[IronWilliamCash]

Oblig Bash.org quote : #6460 +(9847)- [X] what the fuck is wtf

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Anonymous Coward]

Powerful american politicians? It was a group of pundits, none of whom have ever held public office.

Some of their more famous writings had input from and were signed by genuine powerful US politicians who ended up serving in the G. W. Bush administration, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.

All of which, BTW, had served in *previous* administrations as well. For instance, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were both responsible for the paranoid-fantasy-masquerading-as-analysis exercise known as Team B, most notable for producing idiotic assessments like "we can't find any evidence of the Soviets having an advanced acoustic method of detecting submarines, so they must have a non-acoustic one that we can't detect". For bonus points, track down the footage of Rumsfeld from that era and note how eerily similar it seems to the "we can't find any evidence of WMDs in Iraq, so they must just be really sneaky" logic he used to help sell Shrub's (and PNAC's) war.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Mitchell314]

Oi, get off my Zilogs. And my yard.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[mapkinase]

As it has been replaced by

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Policy_Initiative#Persons_associated_with_FPI

Check this out:

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/node/17236

"...He has served in senior positions at the Departments of State and Defense as well as the White Hous..."

Re:This is what they should start doing

[serutan]

This will complement some of their other programs:
Operation Masked Government
Locate Open Leaks
Reduce Our Federal Loopholes

Re:This is what they should start doing

[flappinbooger]

It's "funny" how there's all this FCC internet regulation, WTF investigation, and renewed vigor with "net neutrality" crap now that wikileaks has dropped the massive turd on the white house front door.

Before it was really just whining about lack of sales tax on internet sales, and spam, but now that the dirty laundry is embarrassing powers that be, they are flexing their muscles and lashing out at "the internet".

Re:This is what they should start doing

[nopainogain]

this is in the wake of my new group "Brigade of Useful Logical Levied Strategic Helpful Intellect Team"

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Metabolife]

But the meetings must be approved by the Federal Appropriations Panel For Associate Policy. Or FAPFAP.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[GameboyRMH]

They search from the air with Reconnaissance Oriented Field Lookout helicopters, and if required they can use Wikileaks Termination Force tanks.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Rasperin]

You mean WTF5318008 unless boobies is spelled boobeis.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget Manning Lived?

Re:This is what they should start doing

[kimvette]

It is if you're syldexic!

Re:This is what they should start doing

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a job for... the Federal Agency for the Investigation of Leaks.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[zish]

I noticed that a bit laet to trun bakc.

Re:This is what they should start doing

[lsatenstein]

I thought the three letter abbreviation was NFW (No Foolish Way)

first

[Anonymous Coward]

first

I'm confused

[The Creator]

"CIA's counter-intelligence centre"

I can't decide if this is redundant or an oxymoron.

Re:I'm confused

[by (1706743)]

"CIA's counter-intelligence centre"

I can't decide if this is redundant or an oxymoron.

You know, intelligence about marble top counters, hardwood counters, laminate counters, etc.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

It's practically a palindrome. Let's call it "anti-intelligence" and refer to it as CIAAIC.

Re:I'm confused

[operagost]

You mean the Central Intelligence Agency's Counter Intelligence Center? I hear they're snooping your NIC card and reading your PIN number when you enter it at an ATM machine.

Re:I'm confused

[oldspewey]

Does that mean they're also tracking me using a GPS system?

Re:I'm confused

[Pojut]

No, but they are stealing the VIN number off your car.

Re:I'm confused

[Midnight Thunder]

"CIA's counter-intelligence centre"

I can't decide if this is redundant or an oxymoron.

Nah, this is more in the same vain as "Intelligent Design". It is about CIA being against intelligence.

Re:I'm confused

[oldspewey]

I really hope they're not storing all this info in PDF format.

Re:I'm confused

[gadzook33]

There actually is a company in the Langley area called Counter Intelligence that does this. You occasionally see their van driving around.

Re:I'm confused

[corbettw]

Yo dawg, I hurd you like intelligence, so I put an intelligence in your intelligence so you can spy when you spy.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

and also, Johnson Counters, Binary Counters and Decade Counters

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Network Interface Controller card is a perfectly cromulent expression.

Re:I'm confused

[drinkypoo]

Nah, this is more in the same vain as "Intelligent Design". It is about CIA being against intelligence.

I took the lord's name in vein today and now I can't come down off of this cloud.

Re:I'm confused

[gfreeman]

I forget - is PDF readable by the DOS system?

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

damn them! even if you etch out the VIN, they always get that VIN number.

Re:I'm confused

[Scrameustache]

There actually is a company in the Langley area called Counter Intelligence that does this. You occasionally see their van driving around.

That's what they WANT you to believe!

Re:I'm confused

[Stiletto]

The Vehicle Identification Number number?

Is that like the Automated Teller Machine machine?

Or the Liquid Crystal Display display?

Re:I'm confused

[GameboyRMH]

You'll need an OS system with a GUI interface.

Re:I'm confused

[w0mprat]

No, intelligence about click-counters, hand-held tally-counters, etc.

The CIA is working hard to ensure the U.S. is ahead of the rest of the world in estimating crowd size.

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me counter with this short encounter I had with this violent counter launching what I guess I mistook for a counter attack. I was just minding my own business in the coffee break room, noticing my lovely co-worker leaning down and into the counter, having apparently dropped her spoon behind it..

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

wwwwwwooooooooooooooooooooossssssssshhhhhhhhhh

Re:I'm confused

[QRDeNameland]

There actually is a company in the Langley area called Counter Intelligence that does this. You occasionally see their van driving around.

Along with the Pizza Delivery van, and Flowers By Irene...

Re:I'm confused

[Anonymous Coward]

Weeeeeeeak.

Re:I'm confused

[Noughmad]

Running on a PC computer.

Re:I'm confused

[BlueWaterBaboonFarm]

And shipping it via FedEx Express.

Re:I'm confused

[dgatwood]

Ugh. It's like a bad hacker movie, only lamer. Everybody knows it's always a UNIX system (even when it's a 1990s era Mac).

Re:I'm confused

[awehttam]

Yes, Adobe Acrobat 1.0 for DOS. iirc

Really? People are surprised?

[chemicaldave]

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!

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[beakerMeep]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[chemicaldave]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[captainpanic]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Charliemopps]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[aeroelastic]

I don't understand what you're getting at. First you say :

An organization aids a person in obtaining classified documents

then you say

He had nothing to do with actually getting them

Which are contradictory. You also said

They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[chemicaldave]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[erroneous]

Yeah, Gary McKinnon helped with some of that stuff too. Where did that get him?

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Carewolf]

I don't understand what you're getting at.

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

There may be reason to believe that Wikileaks helped Manning, but Wikileaks != Assange.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[nospam007]

"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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[rtb61]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Blue6]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[DrXym]

What's more incredible is that no one noticed this. I've worked in places where you just know there are triggers on certain tables, that queries are logged, that you can and probably would trip alarms of you did something prohibited such as looking up celeb details, or someone's medical records without authorisation.

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[mpyne]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[BobMcD]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[TubeSteak]

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"

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[BobMcD]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[sletraBydnaR]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Charliemopps]

"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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[nomadic]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Pstrobus]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[smartr]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[index0]

The only person that exposed Manning was himself. If you got that detail wrong ...

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[DavidTC]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[mpyne]

"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?

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[DavidTC]

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.)

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Chyeld]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[captainpanic]

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

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Scrameustache]

I don't understand what you're getting at.

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[TheCarp]

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

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

... 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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

What I find surprising about it is he was lip-syncing Lady Gaga while "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was still in effect.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[blair1q]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[blair1q]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[countertrolling]

Because the CIA only upholds the law.

Gag me with a microdot! That's funny as hell! TNX

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[blair1q]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Carewolf]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[mcgrew]

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".

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[nomadic]

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?

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[keeboo]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[russ1337]

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)

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[scot4875]

instructions and a means to submit the documents

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

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Totenglocke]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[scot4875]

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

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Nadaka]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[blair1q]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[blair1q]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[wideBlueSkies]

>>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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Scrameustache]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Scrameustache]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[dangitman]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[keeboo]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[blair1q]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 ;)

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[DavidTC]

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.)

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[HJED]

Assange has broken no Australia law see:

• SMH: PM can't say what law wikileaks has broken
• SMH: No law broken, police tell PM
• and here in which the attorney-general is qouted saying "no crime was comited in Australia's juristition"

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[DavidTC]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[dbIII]

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".

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[dbIII]

And you're incorrectly assuming that a significant motive exists among servicemembers to do this.

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Totenglocke]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[mpyne]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[mpyne]

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

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[dangitman]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Totenglocke]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[cold fjord]

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

(e) Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, or note relating to the national defense, or information relating to the national defense which information the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates, delivers, transmits or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States entitled to receive it;....

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

(g) If two or more persons conspire to violate any of the foregoing provisions of this section, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each of
the parties to such conspiracy shall be subject to the punishment provided for the offense which is the object of such conspiracy.

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.

II. There is no Clarity in Current Constitutional Doctrine Over Whether The First Amendment Permits the Criminal Prosecution of Reporters for the Mere Possession or Subsequent Publication of Classified Material. There is, however, Substantial Reason to Doubt that Current First Amendment Doctrine Does Bar the Making of Mere Possession or Subsequent Publication of Classified Material Criminal. Testimony of Dean Rodney A. Smolla, United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary

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

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Slur]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[ShooterNeo]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[DavidTC]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[MaDeR]

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.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[MaDeR]

"did them wrong in a number of ways" Nice weasel wording.

Re:Really? People are surprised?

[rtb61]

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.

WTF stands for...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome To Facebook, of course!

Re:WTF stands for...

[celle]

WTF is the perfect nickname for both the CIA and Facebook. After all, they're both in essentially the same business. The CIA spies on foreign powers and Facebook spies on everybody. And both lie about it and have been caught.

Re:WTF stands for...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, reality was much more mundane:
The task force was named after de first utterance of the CIA director
when seeing a US Apache helicopter mow down a bunch of unarmed journalists,
on public internet...

Re:WTF stands for...

[MichaelSmith]

WTF is the perfect nickname for both the CIA and Facebook. After all, they're both in essentially the same business. The CIA spies on foreign powers and Facebook spies on everybody. And both lie about it and have been caught.

Combined they could be called the Central Intelligence Corporation.

Let me be the first to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me be the first to say LOL

WTF?

[mcvos]

But seriously, this sounds like a much more sensible approach than many other US responses we've seen so far.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

What the fuck?

Yeah, they address that in the article.

And ....nevermind.

Re:WTF?

[milonssecretsn]

CIA WTF FTW! OMG!

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

BBQ

Re:WTF?

[leuk_he]

That is what they want you to think. WTF is a term that you cannot get a google about. If someone of the WTF team blogs about WTF, the term "WTF" will be hidden in the masses of real curse words.

Re:WTF?

[maxume]

It's a trick. By running the investigation, they ensure that they never find out that the CIA did it.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the CIA is only now launching a 'Task Force' to investigate Wiki-leaks, this country, and it's intelligence sector, is fucked.

Really? The CIA hasn't been tracking Wiki-leaks from it's inception in 2006~? What the hell kind of Intelligence game is the US playing? Last to the finish line?

Re:WTF?

[GameboyRMH]

You win this thread!

Re:WTF?

[indi0144]

this just in! lolercopters just pined down Cyber Turrurist Julian Assange in his residence in London.

Re:WTF?

[hesiod]

pined down Cyber Turrurist Julian Assange

Did they whack him with a spruce tree or something?

Re:WTF?

[dangitman]

But seriously, this sounds like a much more sensible approach than many other US responses we've seen so far.

Well, when all of the other US responses we've seen have been balls-out-mind-fuckingly-retarded-multiplied-by-Ashton-Kutcher-on-a-short-bus, a response that is only extremely retarded might seem more sensible, but only in a relative sense.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

But seriously, this sounds like a much more sensible approach than many other US responses we've seen so far.

Yeah it sure is a sensible approach - quiet purposeful, (if unintentionally aptly named) task force on the front door, and honeytrap and character (at this stage) assassination at the back.
(just kidding).

Re:WTF?

[MichaelSmith]

pined down Cyber Turrurist Julian Assange

Did they whack him with a spruce tree or something?

Bet he'd go for that.

WTF?

[satuon]

What the fuck?

More leakage

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:More leakage

[Vectormatic]

Don't tell me, it's Task Forces all the way down?

Alternative joke: How many of those leaks would we need to cause a CIA stack overflow?

Re:More leakage

[ushering05401]

Don't tell me, it's Task Forces all the way down?

You just won my joke of the thread contest. There are a bunch of funny acronyms posted, but I read this joke after taking a sip of eggnog.. so you get the near catastrophe modifier.

Re:More leakage

[MichaelSmith]

Yo Dawg I hear you like task forces...

Idiots

[santax]

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.

Re:Idiots

[chemicaldave]

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.

Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.

Re:Idiots

[santax]

Yeah I'm sure they have chat-logs. Found those probably next to the WMD's in Iraq.

Re:Idiots

[mrsteveman1]

They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.

That isn't the same thing as assisting someone in stealing classified information.

Re:Idiots

[chemicaldave]

They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.

That isn't the same thing as assisting someone in stealing classified information.

Correct, but it's also different than the role most news outlets play, which is the ignorant journalist. Assange likely knew of the documents and helped Manning submit them. That's how the government is operating in this investigation. So, like I said, we'll just have to wait for a trial to see what the courts say about it. How far can a media outlet go in obtaining classified information? The answer is likely to be "zilch, media cannot knowingly obtain classified documents."

Re:Idiots

[Knuckles]

Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.

If you mean this, then what they have are chat logs of Manning telling Lamo that Assange helped him with the upload to WL. Read the article. This is very different to Assange helping Manning to *obtain* the documents, and while IANAL it appears that helping to publish secret documents as such is not a crime. And Assange claims not to have any contact with Manning.

A trial may bring some light into it, but as far as the Manning case shows it appears that the US military prefers to torture its soldiers instead of shedding light by a speedy trial. And Assange is neither a US citizen nor is he located in the US, so I still fail to see why he should be subject to US laws.

Re:Idiots

[Knuckles]

Ooops, I messed up the quote tags. Should have been.

Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.

Re:Idiots

[truthsearch]

If someone mails classified documents to a newspaper, and the newspaper wasn't expecting them, the newspaper isn't guilty of anything. If someone calls the newspaper and and paper provides their address to send them classified documents, is the newspaper breaking a law? I don't know the laws involved, but I doubt it.

Re:Idiots

[chemicaldave]

If someone mails classified documents to a newspaper, and the newspaper wasn't expecting them, the newspaper isn't guilty of anything. If someone calls the newspaper and and paper provides their address to send them classified documents, is the newspaper breaking a law? I don't know the laws involved, but I doubt it.

The question would be, does the newspaper know that it's getting classified documents?

Re:Idiots

[mrsteveman1]

That doesn't appear matter at the moment, so unless the law changes..

Re:Idiots

[haggisbrain]

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.

Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.

Incorrect, they only have chat logs between Manning and Lamo (the person who reported Manning). http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/wikileaks-chat/

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Replying as Anon so as not to undo my mods. The mods who modded you troll should be ashamed of themselves. That was nothing but suppressing a differing opinion.

Re:Idiots

[nospam007]

"...and helped Manning submit them."

Yes, he even gave him military grade encryption and lots of tips on how to protect himself.
Like they give to EVERYBODY!

http://www.wikileaks.lu/submissions.html

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

"the law" is pretty clear about these things? The concept of "jurisdiction" certainly is. Please look it up.

Re:Idiots

[BobMcD]

If someone mails classified documents to a newspaper, and the newspaper wasn't expecting them, the newspaper isn't guilty of anything. If someone calls the newspaper and and paper provides their address to send them classified documents, is the newspaper breaking a law? I don't know the laws involved, but I doubt it.

The question would be, does the newspaper know that it's getting classified documents?

Without seeing them, how would Wikileaks have known? This is the INTERNET after all. Not everything you see in an online chat is reality.

Wait ,did you send money to Nigeria? Did you give 'sexylady1954' your home address? Please for the love of GOD tell me you didn't agree to reship packages for that Prince in Malaysia?!?!

Re:Idiots

[CCarrot]

Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.

The mods who modded you troll should be ashamed of themselves. That was nothing but suppressing a differing opinion.

I fully agree. There was nothing objectionable or inflammatory in the GP, just a different opinion, and a claim of facts that may or may not be accurate.

Remember, there is no "disagree" mod option. If you disagree, step up and say so, and support your arguments!

Try not to mod with your dicks, boys...

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

The question would be, does the newspaper know that it's getting classified documents?

A morom would know.
Not sure about the media.

Re:Idiots

[bsquizzato]

Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.

Honestly why was the parent modded a troll? You don't mean to tell me that folks on Slashdot are censoring any negative information related to Assange, do you?

Re:Idiots

[truthsearch]

Yes, I meant knowingly. The NY Times knew it was getting classified documents from Wikileaks, and yet we all know that the Times hasn't broken any laws. Wikileaks getting the documents from the source is no different.

Re:Idiots

[chemicaldave]

Without seeing them, how would Wikileaks have known? This is the INTERNET after all. Not everything you see in an online chat is reality.

Wait ,did you send money to Nigeria? Did you give 'sexylady1954' your home address? Please for the love of GOD tell me you didn't agree to reship packages for that Prince in Malaysia?!?!

Should a drug mule go unpunished because he didn't KNOW he was carrying drugs? Should an accomplice in a murder go unpunished because he didn't KNOW that his partner would kill someone. Do you see what I'm getting at? Wikileaks doesn't have to KNOW what they were receiving to be guilty of collusion. Does it really matter though? It's likely that there wont be any direct evidence linking Assange and Wikileaks to Manning, just circumstantial evidence and testimony. It's very unlikely he'll even face extradition to the US.

Re:Idiots

[BobMcD]

Should a drug mule go unpunished because he didn't KNOW he was carrying drugs?

Yep.

Should an accomplice in a murder go unpunished because he didn't KNOW that his partner would kill someone.

Yep.

Do you see what I'm getting at?

Sure I do. You're getting at 'vengeance' - same as the CIA.

Wikileaks doesn't have to KNOW what they were receiving to be guilty of collusion. Does it really matter though?

Ergo the 'vengeance'. It doesn't really matter if any crimes were committed, they must be made to pay. I get it, I really do.

It's likely that there wont be any direct evidence linking Assange and Wikileaks to Manning, just circumstantial evidence and testimony. It's very unlikely he'll even face extradition to the US.

I suppose time will tell. They put that Canadian kid in Gitmo for, what, seven years because they thought someone threw a grenade from his general direction.

Re:Idiots

[DavidTC]

So you're suggesting that if I, in any way, inform people how to give me classified information, I have committed a crime?

That's bullshit on so many levels I don't know how to start.

It is not criminal to knowingly receive classified information. It is not criminal to instruct people how to give the information to you.

If what you just said was illegal, then you just outlawed the Pentagon Papers. All you have to prove is that, at any point, Deep Throat was given directions to the parking garage.

Um, and you have noticed the CIA is 'investigating' this, right? The CIA. You know, the organization that routinely frames people for crimes?

Since when the fucking CIA investigate crimes?

Re:Idiots

[DavidTC]

In what universe is that 'the question'?

The law doesn't say anything close to what you seem to think it says.

People not only have a first amendment right to speak, they have a first amendment right to be spoken to, and they have the right to aid others in speaking to them. (Yes, the courts have actually upheld this, when the government attempted to get sneaky and assert people have the right to say whatever they want, but the government could arrest people for listening.)

Manning waived his rights when he got clearance, and he has, rightly, been arrested. (And then, wrongly, illegally held in solitary confinement for no reason whatsoever, probably to get him to make up something about Assange that they can arrest him on.)

Assange did not waive any of his rights, he has a first amendment right to be told things, and cannot be punished for helping people tell him things, even if that person was breaking the law at the time.

Any speech between two people is constitutionally protected. Just because one person has waived that protection does not mean the other person is somehow committing a crime if he 'helps' the conversation somehow. That is flatly absurd...he has a constitutional right to have that conversation, period, even if the other person does not. (Moreover, the idea of speech that becomes criminal based on the legal status of another person is absurdity ascendant. How is anyone else supposed to know they waived their speech rights?)

There is, of course, a distinction between helping the conversation, and inciting the original crime, but Assange did not do the latter.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually the leaks from Wikileaks proves there WERE wmd's in iraq.

Re:Idiots

[spun]

You have a very twisted idea of justice. Thankfully, our legal system disagrees with you in all particulars.

Re:Idiots

[Hao Wu]

They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.

That isn't the same thing as assisting someone in stealing classified information.

A new theory says Wikileaks is run by the CIA. They essentially collected their own secrets, thus identifying leakers while also exposing corruption among diplomats. They have also attempted to set a pretext for war with Iran and North Korea (since the public would never believe it if our government made claims about missile transfers after losing credibility in Iraq).

If true, then Assange himself would most likely be a British agent since he is an Australian citizen. Agencies often do work together.

Re:Idiots

[Dorkmaster Flek]

According to New York Times Co. v. United States, I don't think that matters. The freedom of the press overrules the classified status of the government documents. Providing a means to submit the documents to them is not illegal.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, of course, the US is such a terrible tyranny.. keeping the poor boy in isolation for stealing & revealing secret documents while in active service - how nasty of them, just spank him & tell him not to do it again or else !

And their rather pathetic attempts to go after Assange also show the lack of style. A nice cup of plutonium tea would be so much more civilized.

Seriously - I think Manning got what he deserved. Wikileaks should be treated like a newspaper, though, and the gov't is overreacting to what is essentially their own failure to keep things secret. However, their overreaction is very lame, so far. I can just imagine what would've happen to Assange had he pissed of Russia, China, or some drug cartel.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

So, like I said, we'll just have to wait for a trial to see what the courts say about it.

COURTS?!?!? But but but we've got these torches! And pitchforks! Pitchforks, chemicaldave, pitchforks! And this is teh gummermint we're talking about! Come on, already! We went through all this trouble inciting fear and rabblerousing, we're going to need SOMEONE dead at the end of all this!

PITCHFORKS! Seriously! What ELSE are we going to do with them? They weren't cheap, you know!

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't always the case of the american media? They help stereotyping. They put important headlines when minorities commit crimes, but when a regular Caucasian/white commits a crime, they just slip it under the rug.

The biggest threats to freedom and peace are both the government and the media. They both contribute to make us racists and paranoids.

Re:Idiots

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Actually the leaks from Wikileaks proves there WERE wmd's in iraq.

Oh yeah? Cite the relevant passages, and give the name of the document and the page number. But before you post it here, give Fox News a call. The "b-b-but they were really there, we promise!" crowd has been groping after some kind of hard evidence for their claims and coming up empty for years now; if you've found the bombshell (so to speak) that will prove them right, you'll earn yourself their eternal gratitude and probably a shitload of Rupert Murdoch's money. So go for it.

Re:Idiots

[rcamans]

Not white guys in suits, just people in suits. I go through the airport a lot, and see women as well as men, and Spanish as well as white.
Yes, their orders came mostly from White guys in suits. WASPs, too.
But let's not be bigoted. The US is an equal opportunity country. All people have the same chance to be fedgov terrorists.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

The law in question is from 1930s. And government has to *prove* that Assange not only knew of classified information, but aided the person in capturing the said information. That does not mean "transmit" to him. It means aiding how he should go about stealing it in the first place.

But in either case, this would be a *political* crime and normally you do not get extradited from Britain for political crimes. Otherwise Russia would certainly want some rich guy back and China would want some dissidents from US and elsewhere too (including Britain).

Re:Idiots

[DrVomact]

...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.

Just half the population? I think it's more than 98% who haven't noticed that America has been yanked out from under our feet and been replaced by the "Homeland". Nobody has rights in the Homeland because individual rights might hamper the herculaean work of the Department of Homeland Security to make us all perfectly safe. They just haven't changed the flag yet—henceforth, we will fly our true colors: The Brown Underpants of Fear.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

I get people tearing up my yard, stealing my shit sifting around my vehicle. People I don't know or have never seen or talked to. They live in the same shit town and I consider that terrorism, let them try to break into my house and I will throw some terror at them.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

National security trumps idiots out to level the playing field for his or her own agendas.. Its not about ~vengeance. Thats just one take. I say, anonymously, but not cowardly, "WTF, Go get that sockcucker". Now if /. doesn't censor this out..

Re:Idiots

[alexo]

And Assange [...] nor is he located in the US

Yet.

Re:Idiots

[indi0144]

Don't worry, if this is just the biggest troll in the history of internet somehow Wikileaks will show us the truth, oh wait

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Co-conspiracy ring a bell? USA is engaged in War. Assange has taken a stance against the USA and has willfully and openly become enemy. Any support to him also enemy.. Need Moore? He could be tried for war crimes against the USA if a single soldier or US citizen dies as a result of this.

Re:Idiots

[Kharny]

sorry, but nobody deserves that kind of solitary confinement for months.

Re:Idiots

[dangitman]

Remember, there is no "disagree" mod option. If you disagree, step up and say so, and support your arguments!

Well, there should be a mod for posting incorrect claims. Until there is, people will use alternatives. Some arguments are just so incorrect it's not worth spending the time debating them.

Why should we waste time debating drivel and distractions, when we should be discussing the salient facts and issues? If we went down the path you suggest, then we'd have to debate every crackpot argument.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

He could be. If this was the fucking Man in the High Castle and the Nazis ran the US.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

"Should a drug mule go unpunished because he didn't KNOW he was carrying drugs?"

Yep.

"Should an accomplice in a murder go unpunished because he didn't KNOW that his partner would kill someone."

Yep.

If the "mule" had no knowledge of this and that can be substantiated, then they ought to be freed (found not guilty). It is not clear if by "arrested" you mean "prosecuted and convicted". OTOH, the burglary/robbery/rape/kidnapping accomplice who doesn't know his partner is going to get murdery on someone IS guilty because he was complicit in the lessor felony. Intent matters in both cases. It is just the case that if you intend to commit a small crime you will be held responsible for any greater crimes that result from it. This is correct, IMO.

Re:Idiots

[hesiod]

The next time you read something incredibly implausible, might I suggest you consider whether or not the statement may have been made in jest or sarcastically.

Re:Idiots

[Wandering Idiot]

A new theory says Wikileaks is run by the CIA.

A new theory by people with styrofoam for brains, most likely. Take a look at how many people have US Top Secret clearances, especially with the expanded military/intelligence sector after 9/11, then look at how easy it is to publish things on the internet, and the only question is why this didn't happen even sooner in a big way.

But wait, common sense and rationality are just conspiracies by the Trilateral Commission! They've gotten to me too! OH NOES!!1

Re:Idiots

[jordan_robot]

In what universe do you live? And how did this get modded +5 Informative?

Assange is not a US citizen, he has no US rights. I get the point your trying to make, but it doesn't work in this case.

Re:Idiots

[MartinSchou]

Should an accomplice in a murder go unpunished because he didn't KNOW that his partner would kill someone.

You get a call from a friend, who asks you if you have time to drop him off at his ex-girlfriend's place, wait while he picks up his TV and drive him back. You have time, and he says he'll pay for gas, and you just have to wait in the car - he doesn't want to have a scene in front of others.

Do you do it for him?

Now, what you didn't know, is that he brought a gun (with a silencer), shot the ex-girlfriend and stole her TV to make it look like a robbery gone bad. Congratulation, you're now an accessory to robbery and murder, AND you were the get-away driver. Welcome to the electric chair.

Okay, that may be a bit far out. How about this then? He's the one with the car. You call him at 1 AM on a Friday evening, just after he's shot his girlfriend and loaded the TV into his car. You're drunk and need a ride home. He's in the neighbourhood, picks you up 5 minutes later, and 30 minutes after that you're stopped by the police.

Since you're in the car with stolen goods, a murderer and a murder weapon, you are about to face hell as an accomplice. Congratulations and welcome to the electric chair.

Isn't life wonderful?

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Assange did not waive any of his rights, he has a first amendment right to be told things, and cannot be punished for helping people tell him things, even if that person was breaking the law at the time. ...speech between two people is constitutionally protected ...he has a constitutional right to have...

Blah blah blah

No, he doesn't. He's a foreign national, publishing US secrets to the public domain in a foreign country. The US constitution does not apply to him.

I do believe, tho, that the US has a right to militarily strike against this person, and against wikileaks, to protect US interests. They appear to have declared war on the US.

Once again, you nerds love Assange because he is using YOUR beloved internet to do his dirty deeds. If he was using the TV or phoning and faxing everyone, you'd want him taken out.

Re:Idiots

[DavidTC]

No, he doesn't. He's a foreign national, publishing US secrets to the public domain in a foreign country. The US constitution does not apply to him.

If US law applies to him, if they actually wish to have him extradited from Sweden or England, the US constitution does apply to him.

In your crazy universe, where the US conducts military operations against individuals in allied nations, no, the constitution would not apply, but we're not actually living in that universe.

I do believe, tho, that the US has a right to militarily strike against this person, and against wikileaks, to protect US interests. They appear to have declared war on the US.

Really? You think the US has the right to conduct military operations against England? You want the US to attack a street in England and attempt to capture Assange?

Perhaps you should lay off the crack, dude.

(Wouldn't invading England require NATO to declare war on us?)

Re:Idiots

[DavidTC]

Um, actually, the first amendment applies to non-citizens also. It is a bar on the government making such a law. There is no exception for non-citizens.

But, perhaps more importantly, because the government is barred from making such laws, there are not actually any such laws, even if, hypothetically, they could make such laws about non-citizens.

The laws about classified documents only apply to those who have signed up to have them applied to them, period. That is how they are written to pass constitutional muster. Some sort of hypothetical wide-reaching laws that controlled people who had not agreed to them might actually, under your theory of how the constitution works, pass muster for non-citizens, but such laws do not actually exist regardless.

But, as I pointed out, non-citizens have first amendment rights in this country, just like they have fourth and fifth amendment rights. That is because those rights restrict the government from doing things, period. They are not 'citizen rights' or 'people rights', they are 'government restrictions'.

Re:Idiots

[ushering05401]

sorry, but nobody deserves that kind of solitary confinement for months.

They do if you need to determine whether they exhibit normal spectrum deprivation symptoms. If Manning fails to break down properly we have seen only the beginning of the inquisition.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

They appear to have declared war on the US

jesus fucking christ how are you even intelligent enough to get out of bed in the morning?

Re:Idiots

[dbIII]

Really? You think the US has the right to conduct military operations against England? You want the US to attack a street in England and attempt to capture Assange?

That was the story with Daddy Bush and Panama at a time when he was having trouble in the press and needed to look "strong" - a military attack on an allied nation with the excuse of conducting an arrest.
So yes, there are some idiots that think exactly that the US does have the right to do that sort of thing.

Re:Idiots

[dbIII]

Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents

Brad you want my email address? Ok it's ... oh no! Twenty years hard labour for material support of terrorism!
Any lawyer that pushes such an angle to get him extradited is just going to get laughed at publicly, have their reputation diminished and be the butt of jokes for years. You can push it because you are a clueless fool looking for a straw to clutch at for revenge against someone you see as insulting your country. Patriotism is one thing. Hyper-nationalism where nobody running the country can possibly be wrong on anything due to the divine right of fucking Kings is a completely different thing and leads to insane outcomes.

Re:Idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Im not arguing free speach, and agree with what Assange is doing, however, Assange is not American, and therefore, does not have a first ammendment right...just an observation.

Re:Idiots

[CCarrot]

Some arguments are just so incorrect it's not worth spending the time debating them.

Why should we waste time debating drivel and distractions, when we should be discussing the salient facts and issues? If we went down the path you suggest, then we'd have to debate every crackpot argument.

Actually, the proper course of action would be to ignore so-called crackpot arguments, especially if, as you say, debating them would be a waste of time.

Modding them down just because you don't agree is nothing but a knee-jerk reaction, akin to putting your hands over your ears and shouting "la la la, I'm not listening, and I'll shout loud enough so nobody else can hear you too!"

Save your mod points for promoting that which is actually worth reading, in your opinion, or demoting true trolls and spammers. Even with great karma, initial posts are at the most rated a two, so if everyone ignores them, they never even raise above most people's threshold (unless someone else with mod points happens to believe differently than you, of course).

There is a good reason there is no 'disagree' mod. Wouldn't this be a boring place if we all agreed about everything? And if it's a factual error, then you do no one any favours by not correcting it via a quick comment and *wasting* a mod point instead!?! *facepalm* How else do us non-experts ever learn? ;o)

Re:Idiots

[CCarrot]

Actually, the proper course of action would be to ignore so-called crackpot arguments, especially if, as you say, debating them would be a waste of time.

Heh, so feel free to ignore my above post in it's entirety!

Disagree = debate|move along
Disagree != downmod

Re:Idiots

[sjames]

Properly, a crime requires you to knowingly do something you shouldn't or to not do something you know you should. Even the crimes of negligence depend on the idea that you should have known to be more discerning (that is, that a reasonable person would have known a crime was involved).

In law, this is known as mens rea or "guilty mind". Part of the objection to the war on drugs is the way "tough on drugs" laws have perverted justice by ignoring this important principle or even specifically excluding it.

Re:Idiots

[DavidTC]

Ha, I'd forgotten about that.

I'm sure there are some idiots that think the fact the UK hasn't captured and detained, without charge, Assange, to turn him over to the US, does mean we should invade the UK.

Of course, those idiots probably don't realize, as I pointed out, that the UK is part of NATO, and hence invading it would a) kick us out of NATO, and b) cause us to go to war with, essentially, half the countries in the entire world that we consider 'allies'.

Even Canada, which is going to, um, suck, as all of Europe starts moving troops there.

Like I said, some people live in crazy land. Where the US can do whatever it wants.

You know, people like the last three Republican presidents.

Daily updates?

[OzPeter]

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.

Re:Daily updates?

[Okind]

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.

You mean http://thedailywtf.com/ ?

Re:Daily updates?

[jgtg32a]

http://www.meh.ro/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/meh.ro5863.jpg

Re:Daily updates?

[Carewolf]

The daily WTF hasn't had daily updates for years... Or am I taking your joke too serious now? ;)

Re:Daily updates?

[sourcerror]

The appropriate answer is "Woosh!". You must be new here.

Re:Daily updates?

[Minwee]

Add some crappy user commenting software are you are all set for a fun time.

Not just a fun time, not even just a fun day, but a Mandatory Fun Day.

Re:Daily updates?

[jgtg32a]

I considered the "Woosh" but I felt like mixing it up a bit

Re:Daily updates?

[spun]

Pretty close to daily, sometimes more than one a day, but occasionally less.

Re:Daily updates?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.thedailywtf.com - The Daily WTF, Although I don't know if this is what you're looking for :D

Re:Daily updates?

[dotar]

well... I'm sure if you return to /. tomorrow there will be another article on the subject...

my eardrums!

[digitalsushi]

the buzzing! life isn't supposed to imitate art! I gotta keep moving west or my head will explode!

FML

[malignant_minded]

NWO is small potatoes. Its the FML that I'm really concerned about

Re:FML

[drachenstern]

Sadly I haz no modpoints, this was teh funniez

Re:FML

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't I Can Haz Cheezburger. Stop posting like that. You make Slashdot shittier.

Re:FML

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't I Can Haz Cheezburger. Stop posting like that. You make Slashdot shittier.

You would have a point if there wasn't a meta-joke in there. So here is your meta-woosh:

P.S. It is normal for people that receive a meta-woosh to not be able to see the m-w itself.

Re:FML

[GameboyRMH]

Humor, u don't haz it.

Re:FML

[BronsCon]

If that's even possible, you're more likely to do so than GP.

April Fool's Joke?

[cpu6502]

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

Re:April Fool's Joke?

[AlterEager]

The story is that the City University of Newcastle on Tyne got as far as printing the letterhead before they decided that they needed a name change.

Re:April Fool's Joke?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, after a French colleague asked if there were any more acronyms like "TGIF = Thank G-d It's Friday", a quick thinking American co-worker who doesn't like the French replied "Of course... there's Sure Happy It's Thursday".

The funny thing is that no-one bothered to tell the Frenchman what "shit" meant, and he actually used it in several emails in the department until he one day sent one out of the department and was reprimanded.

Re:April Fool's Joke?

[VJ42]

The story is that the City University of Newcastle on Tyne got as far as printing the letterhead before they decided that they needed a name change.

I think that this is an urban myth as there is a similar story about the Southampton Higher Institute of Technology who allegedly had to change names after seeing the stationary... and I'm sure I've heard it elsewhere about other institutions as well. Who knows where it really happened now, if at all.

Well...

[d3vpsaux]

I'm waiting for Operation OMGWTFBBQ myself... Oh My, Government Wikileaks Task Force Better Be Quick!

Re:Well...

[nicholas22]

Yes and you should expect sub-task forces such as OMFG and xD ROFL to be created once some of the results are in from the first task force.

Re:Well...

[gknoy]

Or the Reserve Officer Force Liason for a helicopter command... :)

Re:Well...

[Barny]

Nah, the funny bit will be when wikileaks puts 'ORLY?' on their front page, the CIA will counter with 'YA RLY'... you can see where this is going right? :)

I prefer though, Operational Management Groups gala dinner for members of Wikileaks Task Force will be of course, the OMG WTF BBQ.

Gotta be a joke

[reboot246]

Somebody please tell me it's April 1st.

Re:fist

[Anonymous Coward]

fist

When they report to the white house...

[spectro]

"Mr. President, here is the WTF report"

Re:When they report to the white house...

[GameboyRMH]

"Thank you, now GTFO (Gimme That File, Officer)"

Federal Acronym Research Team

[Anonymous Coward]

Brought to you by the Federal Acronym Research Team ;)

Re:Federal Acronym Research Team

[Spykk]

Is poo-pooing them really necessary? Researching acronyms is hard work and, lets face it, there have been stinkers far worse than this one in the past.

Re:Federal Acronym Research Team

[RDW]

Yes, but why are they wasting time on this nonsense when they could be investigating serious threats like the Moro Islamic Liberation Front?:

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

The Director of Central Intelligence was aware of their activities at least 5 years ago!:

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2005/Goss_testimony_02162005.html

'In Southeast Asia, the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) continues to pose a threat to US and Western interests in Indonesia and the Philippines, where JI is colluding with the Abu Sayyaf Group and possibly the MILF.'

Re:Federal Acronym Research Team

[Anonymous Coward]

Read this if you haven't. There is something very odd about the way the man of the hour welcomes the others in his opening remarks.

Anyhow, the remarks about Emmanuel, the presence of Biden, plenty of evidence to suggest that the CIA has the potential to fall hard enough to take down some favored sons. The leak situation must be addressed by fundamental policy shift, and the CIA needs to be fulfilling their duty in the most objective manner possible to save some heads.

The information battle field has always belonged to those that survive the war. This is the guidance the CIA should be shepherding towards the Pols with regards to the leak reaction. Time will tell if it happens. Right now too many Pols seem to act as if the U.S. and allies are supposed to ascend some sort of data throne to rule the new age. There is a throne, and hackers manning the sewers beneath... Get it... MANNING ;)

Re:Federal Acronym Research Team

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? Now we get in trouble for using that now? IJNR

Re:Federal Acronym Research Team

[Anonymous Coward]

Better the Federal Acronym Research Team, then the Federal Acronym Research Company. The first simply smells bad. The latter kills you because they want your nation.

Re:Federal Acronym Research Team

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I'd say this WTF is still better than the Canadian CRAP.

Re:Federal Acronym Research Team

[magus_melchior]

That reminds me of a Dilbert strip from a while back--

PHB: "You'll need to come up with an acronym (codename?) for your project, but all the other departments took the good ones. You can choose between 'phlegm' and 'placenta'."

Re:Federal Acronym Research Team

[webXtasy]

MILF attack? Bring it... someone is seriously fucked!

Re:Federal Acronym Research Team

[Anonymous Coward]

Is poo-pooing them really necessary? Researching acronyms is hard work and, lets face it, there have been stinkers far worse than this one in the past.

Never ignore a poo-poo. I knew a Major, who got poo-pooed - made the mistake of ignoring the poo-poo. He poo-pooed it. Fatal error. Because it turned out all along that the soldier who poo-pooed him had been poo-pooing a lot of other officers who poo-pooed their poo-poos. In the end, we had to disband the regiment. Morale totally destroyed - by poo-poo!

Re:Federal Acronym Research Team

[Thangalin]

Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party. ;-)

Re:Federal Acronym Research Team

[Anonymous Coward]

Brought to you by the Federal Acronym Research Team ;)

GNAA

Led by the CIA Universal Network Team

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Led by the CIA Universal Network Team

[Jiro]

It's going to be incredibly difficult to prove that Wikileaks resulted in a death, since in practice it's just going to be one contributing factor among others--you'll always have plausible deniability and be able to claim the death was caused by one of those other factors. It'll raise the probability of death and so some people will die who wouldn't die without it--but it's going to be hard to tell which ones.

Imagine that, for instance, some terrorist uses the leaked list of targets as targets for terrorism. It would always be possible to say "maybe he would have attacked this target anyway without Wikileaks". There would be no way to definitively prove Wikileaks was responsible--even if the terrorist actually admits to using Wikileaks, his defenders could always say "if Wikileaks wasn't around he would still have chosen targets by some means". You could never prove it.

Re:Led by the CIA Universal Network Team

[Anonymous Coward]

Even further, the people living around the areas listed as critical now know the situation and are more vigilant (eh, paranoid?) and report any and all possible terrists. This will lower the probability of death.

Re:Led by the CIA Universal Network Team

[smartr]

If you go by what Daniel Ellsberg said (I think this was a democracy now interview), Wikileaks actually sent the information they were going to leak to the Pentagon, so as to have the "targets of terrorism" redacted. The Pentagon refused to cooperate in this manner. Exactly what party is responsible for keeping this information safe?

Re:Led by the CIA Universal Network Team

[Anonymous Coward]

i could have come up with the list of leaked Canadian targets when i was in grade school. power generating stations and communications are always targets.

Re:Led by the CIA Universal Network Team

[kevinNCSU]

I hear the KGB would often send stolen documents back too asking the pentagon to highlight ^W^W^W^Wredact the important parts too. Who knows why they would always refuse.

Re:Led by the CIA Universal Network Team

[Thing 1]

Now I understand why posters so often the verb: overzealous ^Wing.

Re:fist

[Anonymous Coward]

piss

Wikileaks launches counter to WTF CIA department

[assemblerex]

It will be known as OMG WTF CIA

Re:fist

[Anonymous Coward]

bad luck fist fuck

Some suggestions

[Chrisq]

I could make some more suggestions:

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)

Re:Some suggestions

[spun]

You know how Wikipedia has that "Did you know?" section on the front page listing some of their newest articles? A few days ago they had one that went, "Did you know, you can take the Wankbahn to the Wankhaus at the top of Wank Mountain," and I thought to myself, no. No I did not know you can take the Wankbahn to the Wankhaus at the top of Wank Mountain, but now that I do know, I hope that someday I can ride the Wankbahn, visit the Wankhaus, and climb the the very peak of Wank Mountain. I'm not sure what I'll do there, but I'm sure it will be fun.

Re:Some suggestions

[GameboyRMH]

FUCK - Federal Unified Counterterrorism Kit (to be distributed to police to help them deal with terrorist attacks) - "Chief, everyone in my squad desperately needs a FUCK!"

COCK - Centrally Organized Cyber Killswitch - to shut down the Internet in case of "cyber-terrorism" - "Fellow Americans, I fear I may have no choice but to use my COCK to shut down the Internet. This is hard for me, and there is no easy way to take this"

CUNT - Critical Undergrount National Treasury - Where the most important data the US requires is backed up - "Our CUNT is close to full right now, please don't jam any more in there!"

Re:Some suggestions

[Barny]

So, we need to store the presidents COCK in the nations CUNT.

Also, police should have access to a really good FUCK at all times, I would say they even need a FUCK in every squad car.

There will be underground versions of the FUCK, some people will give a FUCK, some of the FUCKs will be sub standard, but in a few collaborative cases, FUCKs could be superior to the official ones.

um...

[Charliemopps]

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."

Re:um...

[TaoPhoenix]

Okay, just for 38 special seconds, assume they're not dense. This is that "security through crowd-cover" on the search engines. So what do they gain by co-opting one of the top-five acronyms?

Re:um...

[Charliemopps]

Besides scorn and ridicule? Not much... They could have called it "operation Double Rainbow" and have been laughed at less. At least it would appear they were intentionally trying to be funny rather than completely misunderstanding the very subject matter they were trying to investigate.

Re:um...

[trollertron3000]

I've met some of the guys that work there at Langley. Sleep on them all you like, they are some of the best. They'd love for you to think they're a bunch of buffoons. Just like they'd love for you to think PFC Manning is the sole reason for this mess.

Re:um...

[Anonymous Coward]

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."...

Some military and government acronyms are by design by their crafters, for which I won't elaborate... perhaps its a subtle, otherwise unincriminating, political statement...

WTF may be intended to express...

[John Hasler]

...the CIA's opinion of the rest of the government's computer security procedures.

Re:WTF may be intended to express...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it exemplifies CIA's opinion about the investigation. It was probably pushed on them from "the top" (eg. a nameless, retarded schitzo senator) and there is really nothing to investigate. Someone stole information and passed it onto Wikileaks. What investigation is needed?

WTF!

[Dcnjoe60]

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.

Re:WTF!

[ushering05401]

They don't stop wars to share a nip over holiday any more. At least not at the public level.

Re:WTF!

[Dcnjoe60]

Once again modded down for make a post critical of Wikileaks.

With all of the talk/complaints about paypal, mastercard/visa, etc. cutting off service to Wikileaks, it seams that Slashdot is no different.

Zero tolerance of non-conforming opinions.

How it really happened

[AgentSmith]

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.
                                          All we need now is . . .a name.

[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]

Re:How it really happened

[Anonymous Coward]

Julian: WTF?!

CIA Operative: [Takes off sunglasses] Exactly.

[Fade to black. Cue Credits. Roll End Theme]

Close, but you left out "YEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!"

How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Phoenix666]

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?

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Sold it to the Chinese to pay their debts.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

You say you want a revolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright

You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds
that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright

You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright Alright

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is there no steel left in the American soul?"

Nope, it's all pork-fat and Twinkies now.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[jimicus]

People don't do that when they're only mildly annoyed - which right now, no matter how much you complain, is the case for most.

People do that when they are absolutely, desperately hacked off and there really is precisely nothing more they can do short of revolution.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there no steel left in the American soul?

Nope. That got off-shored decades ago.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[corbettw]

Is there no steel left in the American soul?

No.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[trollertron3000]

I agree with that. The sadness in that scenario is it will take "radicals" because those are the only ones willing to try something, most people just waddle along. So then they topple the existing system, install themselves, and we repeat the process again 100 years later.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Duradin]

From all this bluster I bet you didn't vote.

What takes more resolve? Calling for revolution when you believe you can't change things even though legitimate means are available (because you choose not to use them) or waiting out the slow response time of using the system legitimately?

Really, if you're drawing parallels to the American Revolution you should read up on it. The colonials had no representation and no power within parliament and would not even negotiate.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Phics]

That's the root problem... the government lost control. Regaining control is becoming increasingly more difficult and messy. Information flows too easily. Not so long ago, they used to be able to stick a finger or two in the dam to keep the flow of information at bay, but the dam is about to burst, and the government is grasping at straws, (sorry to mix metaphors), and someone will have to be held accountable.

At some point, we will either have a situation where the citizens have ultimate control over how their country operates, or the government will have to toss out bigger and bigger chunks of the constitution to handle the fallout.

Which do you think is more likely?

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

They won't rise up against it because they secretly admire them.

(Ab)using your power to screw over other people for your own benefit is the American Dream.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[burnttoy]

I'm afraid my language is going to be blunt.

The USA, UK and Italy are prime examples that you can fuck a population sideways, remove their rights, lock a bunch of them up for no apparent reason, allow massive unaccountable kakistocratic companies to buy and do whatever the hell the like in the most inefficient way possible and piss off nearly everyone so long as there's plenty of food, oil and housing.

Cover that and that's all the general population give a damn about. I mean... why the hell would I rebel? I make just about enough to keep me, the wife and kids going, pay the bills... what else do I want? Why should I give a damn that students will have to pay huge amounts of tuition fees very likely making university education the preserve of the elite. Why should I care that my way to "the top of the tree" is blocked by funny handshakes and old-boy networks. Why should I care about the dismantling of the social state. Why should I care that the President owns and corrupts all the media, gets fucked up with coke and whores?

Why should I try and see the future when I'm feed and watered today with a leather chair in the car to absorb my well fed arse...

Why should I give a fuck? I'm alright jack...

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[bill_mcgonigle]

What takes more resolve? Calling for revolution when you believe you can't change things even though legitimate means are available (because you choose not to use them) or waiting out the slow response time of using the system legitimately?

Well, to play devil's advocate, how long should this response time take? People were writing about these problems in 1950, heck 1850. Has the American Government become better or worse since then?

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[bill_mcgonigle]

But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow

Oh, those beautiful ideallists.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

nope sold that to china so they could buy a 9mpg suv and give all their poorly educated kids ipad's for christmas because they won't shut up about how their 'friends' have them.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[BJ_Covert_Action]

I talk to a lot of folk about this, how we can reset our political will in this country, etc. So far as I can tell, very few people outside of slashdot can be bothered to give a damn. Citing various excuses from, "I'm too busy," to, "Come on, it's not that bad."

I think the combination of working 40 hour weeks making people too tired to care, and the steady stream of nationalist propaganda convincing folk that we are still the best place to live in the world is going to keep our population copulating our government overlords for quite some time to come. I always found it fun to fantasize about the collapse of society and revolution and such in my younger years, but the older I grow the more I figure that it's just not going to happen.

On a somewhat related note, can anyone think of a country with a strong space industry I can move to?

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Duradin]

How long did the Civil Rights movement take? Women's Suffrage? Those weren't overnight operations but they did cause radical change within the system.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[TheCarp]

No, they lost the illusion of control.

Regaining the illusion of control *IS* becoming increasingly more difficult and messy... and we should be thankful for that.

All of their so called "control" is now, and always was, based on one thing: People believed in them. PFC after PFC was given access to more and more information, and few ever abused and, and nobody so pubically as now.

However, anyone could have, the ability to spill secrets was always there, always will be. Now some illusions have slipped. Less and less people are duped into believing that the Aristocracy is actually a manifestation of the peoples will, less are people willing to believe that their government is anything but a product to be purchased by the highest bidder.

Without that lie, its going to get harder and harder for them to keep secrets. It has been publically acknowledged, even before this, that the US government and its agents have participated in kidnapping and torture, all the way up to the HIGHEST LEVELS.

Their credibility is utterly shot, and I say, good.

-Steve

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

I am with you but let's play a devil's advocate here. One day some terrorist (I deliberately not name any particular group or religion) sticks a couple hundred grams of explosives into his infant son's diapers, gets on board a plane, and blows it up (one of these days the terrorists are bound to find someone who can successfully strike a match, eventually). The entire country will then complain about idiotic gov't not taking diapers seriously enough. Sure the TSA is a joke but I sort of see where it is coming from. You may talk all you want about the very successful Israeli or somewhat successful Soviet models of preventing terror acts on board their planes, however none of them would work in the US, as they are extremely expensive and involve very harsh, direct, and obvious ethnic / religious profiling.

And the government we have is the government we've elected.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[blair1q]

The only thing out of control is your interpretation of these things as significant when they are hyped to attract clicks.

Go back to looking at celebrities in bikinis. You'll be less misinformed.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

And amazingly, the most heavily armed populace in the world is letting them get away with it.

Right, because rifle bullets are extremely effective against F16s. This isn't the 18th century, our "most heavily armed populace" is extremely outgunned.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there no steel left in the American soul?

No.

Actually, you mean yes. Hand in your geek card on the way out, please.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Phoenix666]

I did vote. I vote in every election including local, judicial elections. I'm what they call a "1."

I have also been an activist, petitioning our representatives lawfully and demanding they change. I have given money to those candidates and causes with whom I agree. None of it did any good, because it only reinforced the status quo.

Our government is not designed to evolve to fit present circumstances. It is designed to protect the privilege of established interests and to resist change at all costs. As such, it has failed as a model of government. We, the American people, must hit the reset button now or we shall see a further slide into totalitarianism.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Phoenix666]

No, it's you who should go back to looking at celebrities in bikinis. If you think that what the government is doing is normal, then you are either too young to know any better, or you are a doublethink posterchild who will do anything to avoid having to do anything real to correct the course of our country.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Phoenix666]

Let's assume that an F-16 pilot will fire on innocent American civilians. How long will they be able to fly sorties before the fuel that was previously supplied by innocent American civilians runs out?

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there no steel left in the American soul?

Find me a lawyer that can win (successfully defend) a murder case against me for executing a tyrant, and then find me the highest profile government official that meets the criteria for being labeled a tyrant.

I am one of the few Americans that have read the Declaration and Constitution. I am one of the few Americans left that understands the obligation, the duty, that these documents have placed upon me in regards to tyranny and oppression. I have steel left in my American soul. I have steel, and lead, left in my American hands.

I am simply unwilling to forfeit my own life without the promise of martyrdom at the very least.

I wish not to ruin the lives of my family and friends by killing a man, and being persecuted as a murderer.

I wish to grow old and die from "natural causes."

I am a Patriot.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Duradin]

I wouldn't worry about F-16s, too fast, can't loiter, and small payload. A-10s and AC-130 gunships on the other hand would be murder on civilians. And then there's the BUFF.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[FrozenFOXX]

Is there no steel left in the American soul?

Thanks to numerous typos on the Internet we have, "steal," not steel. That's probably where the problem comes from.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[alexo]

Firstly, don't start a sentence in the subject and finish it in the body. It is harder to read, harder to quote and does not make you look as smart or as original as you think.

[How much more ridiculous does this have to get] before the American people hit the reset button on the country?

Lots and lots more.
People have it worse in Iran. People in the DPRK have it worse. In the PRC and the the Russian Federation (most) people have it worse. The US government knows that there's a lot of rope left to tighten before they should start worrying.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US military opens fire on citizens wholesale, half the military would defect, mutiny, or simply go AWOL. And most military bases would be overrun within a week. Maybe I'm being optimistic, but we don't even do that sort of thing in Afghanistan or Iraq. On US soil against civvies? That's just about as crazy as trying to take down F-16s with rifles.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[blair1q]

The government of GW Bush did not do normal. We knew that as soon as Jon Bolton put together a fake protest group to "storm" the vote-counting room.

Commanders in the field are making errors in battlefield situations. War happens. Additionally, they're classifying everything in sight. because they don't have time to redact it all, now that every soldier's activities are logged in real-time, and we're trying to win a war with half the people we should have out there. 99.9% of it is irrelevant. A few things could be referred for prosecution. Releasing the names of informants in a global dump of all information is fucking stupid. The commanders are doing less wrong than Assange is.

The State Department classifies everything out of hand. That's always happened, since diplomacy, like poker, is enhanced by keeping your adversary in the dark as to your true feelings. Not just because it might tip your intent, but also because it might spook them irrationally. You want the situation controlled, and you do it by giving only the information you want given, and nothing for them to read between the lines. 99.9% of it is irrelevant. A few things were embarassing or illegal.

Keeping things secret to prevent embarassment or prosecution is illegal under the most recent Executive Order (in fact under all such EOs since the Ellsberg case blew up the old policy) but if the stuff never gets leaked who knows.

Obama's government is getting this shit right. It will prosecute Assange and it will prosecute those identified by the leaks as doing things wrong. It will protect those identified by the leaks as our informants in the field, and, if it can't, it will prosecute Assange again on additional counts for getting them killed.

You have no idea how old I am, and you assume too much about what I do and don't know about what's going on. The biggest mistake you can make is to eliminate our security and gut our effectiveness around the world by trying to remove the ability of the government to keep a secret that needs to be kept. You'd be far more useful picketing Fox News.

Here, you earned this: http://celebritybikinigossip.com/category/celebrities/

If that's too complex, try this: http://static.zenimax.com/bethblog/oldcontent/bright_shiny.jpg

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Noughmad]

And most military bases would be overrun within a week.

There's a reason why the government is buying new weapons.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[MakinBacon]

From TFA:

The group will scour the released documents to survey damage caused by the disclosures.

God, you're right, we are getting SO SCREWED by the government. They're reading wikileaks and learning their own secrets.

HOW MUCH LONGER ARE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GOING ALLOW THIS INJUSTICE!?

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[bill_mcgonigle]

How long did the Civil Rights movement take? Women's Suffrage? Those weren't overnight operations but they did cause radical change within the system.

I think it's important to note the trends here. Both of those you cite started at the founding of the country and had ever-increasing support.

Press freedoms started very high in this country. Lincoln then jailed a bunch of journalists and publishers he didn't like, they passed the Espionage Act in 1917, never rescinded the Secret levels after WWII, the FOIA Act was required and is now wantonly ignored, Judith Miller was jailed in 2005, and now politicians are threatening to assassinate Assange. New York Times Company vs. The United States was welcome, but only by a Supreme Court decision did Ellsberg avoid life in prison.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

And amazingly, the most heavily armed populace in the world is letting them get away with it.

What, the Swiss?

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

And amazingly, the most heavily armed populace in the world is letting them get away with it.

Huh! You are not the most heavily armed populace in the world. I don't know where the most heavily armed populace in the world is, but I do know that Swedes, Finns and Canadians (in decreasing order) have more private arms per capita then USA [those countries have many hunters, but fortunately not as many gun fetishists, paranoiacs and psychopaths]. A Swedish hunter owns 2-6 rifles and sometimes a shotgun. Hunting is the second most popular hobby among both Swedish men and women (after football/soccer). Just because we don't have any guns laying around the house where kids can play with them and don't use them for shooting or threatening people, it doesn't mean that we don't have any guns.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

>We have the TSA fondling children...
nonsense

>strip-searching innocent citizens
AND people carrying bombs. Yes there have been people carrying bombs onto planes. You DON'T want to check to see if someone on your plane is bringing a bomb with them? Are you retarded?

>thanks to Wikileaks the illusion that the government knows what it's doing
I'll let you in on a secret- NO government, EVER, has known exactly "what they're doing".
Now, diplomacy is all a big game of poker- you don't show your hand to your opponents. Assange has damaged the US for nobody's real benefit.

>...screw the American people indefinitely, unapologetically, right in front of them...
Yeah, right the Gubmint is responsible for all your ills.

Load of namby-pamby left wing bollocks.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[dbIII]

China hit the "reset button" on their country around a century ago and so did Russia not long after. Do you really want to go through something like that? After revolutions you end up with "strong leaders", and as Mao and Stalin have shown, some of them are bastards beyond anything that can be imagined.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Tata buy American Steel?

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, China. Off you go.

Re:How much more ridiculous does this have to get

[Thing 1]

and we're trying to win a war

LOL that's really funny, or would be if it wasn't also so sad. There's no "war" there is just conquest of resources by a foreign aggressor, with a little propaganda to make it look like they weren't the aggressor.

Either...

[British]

..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.

Re:Either...

[Minwee]

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.

Ahhh... So THAT'S why the sign says "Warning: Food may have come into contact with nuts".

Re:Either...

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, have a point.

Re:Either...

[Anonymous Coward]

or maybe they just don't care about stupid internet/txt slang....

Re:Either...

[eloquent_loser]

It's obviously quite deliberate - they aren't that stupid. They want to attract the scorn and smug feelings of superiority the use of this term engenders in their primary opponents to action against Wikileaks. That is, they are lulzd into a false sense of security.

WTF?

[loafula]

lol!

The fine line..

[countzerobah]

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

Re:The fine line..

[BobMcD]

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.

Except that this isn't actually true because there's no one to enforce these rules and laws. There's zero oversight. Consider the cases of Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. In the former case they attempted to make a young woman a war hero against her will. They fabricated a 'Rambo from West Virginia' story out of whole cloth, and tried to force her to go along with it. In the latter case they assassinated a dissenter before his scheduled visit with Noam Chomsky, falsified the coroner's report, burned his uniform and his diary, then lied to the family. In these two cases we had people on the inside telling us the truth and STILL the military lied about it. What of the myriad other situations where there's nobody brave enough to tell the truth?

Maybe Wikileaks is not the answer, but someone needs to do something, so at least in this way I support them. Stop the lies, end the secrets. Let's move together into a new era of being decent human beings.

Re:The fine line..

[countzerobah]

BobMcD, It looks like we agree on the wikileaks thing in priciple.

I think that there is someone to enforce the laws. However imperfect, we have a system of checks and balances in our US government. So if the military is engaged in "nefarius acts", Congress and the Suppreme Courts can balance it out. I quess, maybe, the fact you know all this is a testament that maybe the system is working?

"It is difficult to watch these clips from yesterday's House hearings investigating the absolute, deliberate lies regarding Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch fed to the American public by the U.S. military -- with an eager and accommodating assist from our excellent and intrepid media -- and feel anything other than disgust (and this is just beyond comment). But as anger-inducing as it all is, there is really nothing remarkable about any of it. " from Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2007/04/25/tillman_lynch)

Re:The fine line..

[Chowderbags]

The government, private industry, and even individuals. Have private things that they want to keep private.

The government is answerable to the people. Private industry is answerable to government. The people are supposed to (for the most part) be free and able to live their lives without interference or constant investigation. This is supposed to be the cornerstone of American ideas of liberty.

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.

We do not need to justify ourselves to the government. The government needs to justify itself to us.

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.

The government then claims "state secrets" and you get no information. Meanwhile, the NSA and CIA are this very second have a database of over a trillion calls made since 2002 and are tapped into internet backbones collecting every piece of traffic, all without warrants or effective oversight. And you can't sue over it, since they won't admit to any evidence and claim that even having it go to trial would damage national security. And you can't sue the companies that allowed it, since the government gave them immunity after the fact.

So what is my point? Basically, the protections must be in place to protect everyone, lest they be excluded whimsically.

Protect all humans who aren't doing official government business. Otherwise, fair game.

Much like our right to free speech. Everyone, has the right to free speech in the US. Even people that speak with hate.

Sure, but we limit that right in regard to state actors.

Re:The fine line..

[Anonymous Coward]

What, are you afraid of something the US government has in those cables? If you haven't done anything wrong, why would you have to hide it?

Re:The fine line..

[Anonymous Coward]

Enemies ARE REAL. You live in a fake utopia if you think that the atomic explosions won't happen and that there aren't thousands of millions of people that want to gloat in complete and utter destruction of life as we know it on planet EARTH. WAKE UP from your snooze and kick people like assange in the ass for what he is doing. So far, US has been more than kind to him, in light of what he is doing.

Re:The fine line..

[cbhacking]

So many things wrong here.

First of all, acquiring the docs may be esionage, but posting them online is not. This has been discussed many times. Wikileaks does the latter, not the former.
Second, you make a false analogy (which severely damages your credibility). The government is not a private citizen, and does not have a citizen's rights to privacy.
Third, you can't subpoena what you don't know about. Did you know our government was kidnapping innocent German citizens and holding them for months without trial?
Fourth, what enforces your ability to subpoena the government? The government has broken any number of its own laws; what makes you think they haven't broken this one?
Fifth, you simultaneously bring up government secrets and arguments against Wikileaks with government transparency and free speech. Do you not see the contradiction?

Re:The fine line..

[Anonymous Coward]

If you lay off the weed, you will be less paranoid.

Re:The fine line..

[dangitman]

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.

Have you read the contents of these diplomatic cables? 90% of it should not be secret, it should be public information. This is information about what politicians are doing in our name. It is basically the property of the American people.

The only theft here is Americans being deprived of their own property, and the right to know, all because some politicians want to cover up their own incompetence. They don't want to answer to the people they work for, they want to use office for their own enrichment, their own private deals.

Re:The fine line..

[LordLucless]

People, is this really transparency?

Yes.

Or is this espionage?

No. Maybe in regards to Private Manning.

The government, private industry, and even individuals. Have private things that they want to keep private. By law, everyone's privacy is protected.

No. By law individual's privacy is protected. Due to companies being considered individuals due to legal stupidity, they may sneak in. Even without that, there is the concept of trade secrets. But the Government has no "right to privacy" because it's not a person.

When documents that are supposed to be private are "stolen" that is espionage and theft.

No. Firstly, if my documents are stolen, it's not espionage. It's theft. Secondly, the governments document weren't stolen, they were copied.

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?

Depends. Was I being funded to the tune of billions by the people I was trying to keep things secret from? Do the documents contain information about how I was abusing my position?
Actually, you're right - I'd be pissed. But my feeling has nothing to do with the right or wrong of the situation. In fact, I'd probably be pissed because I had been caught, and was about to cop holy hell.
In short, data on my HD != government data. Apples != Oranges

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.

Uh-huh. Which means you have to know about it before you can invoke FoI laws. If the government keeps their activities secret enough, nobody knows what exactly they need to subpoena to get the information. Even then, you're assuming that the government abides by the laws when, as the leaked documents prove, they have no problem just ignoring laws when they chose.

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.

Again, you're conflating individuals and government. Stop that. Unless you'd like to give me the right to tax everyone as I see fit. Need to keep "everybody" equal, you know.

Re:The fine line..

[Chuck Chunder]

The government, private industry, and even individuals

Even individuals? I'd suggest that's where privacy rights start (and that they should diminish through private industry and government).

For me espionage has to involve one entity gaining an information advantage over another. If the documents were taken and secretly given to another government that would be espionage as the US would be at a disadvantage (it's information would be held by another party but it wouldn't know about it). Widely publishing the documents is different, the US isn't at an information disadvantage (it knows both the content of the leaks and the fact that they are out there).

It seems peculiar to me that if you are an actual spy operating in the US (eg Anna Chapman) you just get sent home while the US seems intent on actually extraditing to the US someone who doesn't obviously have any reason to be considered subject to US law.

Re:The fine line..

[Ihmhi]

Every man, woman, and child in the entire world has a built in check against their government.

It's called their conscience.

Re:The fine line..

[countzerobah]

Hum... I see your first point. The second point, not as accurate as I did not say that "government = private citizen" I merely said that it has things it wants to keep private. Your third point I also gree with "you can't subpoena" what is not know. As citizens, however it is our job to ask enough questions to uncover what we don't know and then get the information... somehow you found out about the "German Citizens" information. I disagree with your fourth point as the government has been held liable for wrong doings. So the Government is still, apparently to some degree, liable for breaking the Law. I do not see a contradiction as one is an example of a law that caries equal protection. Perhaps I could have worded that differently. Thanks for your comments.

Wait, wait, wait.

[FreonTrip]

Look at the signatories on this page, and tell me with a straight face that none of them have held public office.

Re:Wait, wait, wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I see Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz. None of the others I've even heard about.

Other than Dan Quayle, of course. I mean, Dan Quayle is a signatory to this. Dan fucking Quayle.

Re:Wait, wait, wait.

[Scrameustache]

Look at the signatories on this page, and tell me with a straight face that none of them have held public office.

George Bush could do it. The man can say any lie with not only a straight face, but a look of total empathic trust. It's a skill he picked up back when he was an alcoholic, and it served him very well in business and politics. Just saying: Some people are schemers, some people are sellers.

Re:Wait, wait, wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

Pseudo-competence is encouraged in recruits to certain areas of our government. Alcoholism is common among pseudo-comps. If we didn't have an understanding of this mechanism more people would need to experience more trauma to achieve the same effect of governance that we see today.

The concept of plausible deniability is founded on acceptance that the Executive branch must embrace pseudo-comp to properly glue the pieces together. While our Presidents have theoretical immunity from prosecution, the care and keeping of advanced bio-warfare research units, nuclear arsenals, exotic wastes, and midnight allegiances can require decisions to be made that would be worse than trial if connected to orders given by a sitting president.

I have to laugh when I see people take off after any of the publicly elected Executive branch Pols. The open secret is that they are talented at smoothing attention in orderly flows around and over the truths they know that they must not know.

Re:Wait, wait, wait.

[hairyfeet]

Sarah Palin could pull it off. No, I'm super serial! She would make the NWO look so bumbling and clumsy it would be about as scary as your goofy Auntie from Omaha. Everyone would go "We're supposed to be scared of that? The lady that writes her notes on her hand because she apparently can't see the cue cards? Riiiiight." She reminds me of some green office worker that knows she isn't on the ball or knows what the hell she is doing, but is so damned plucky she is just gonna plow through it even while fucking up horribly with a "go get'em!" attitude and can do spirit.

As for TFA, THIS, this is what the CIA is doing with taxpayer dollars? We've got two wars going on, NK acting like they just can't wait to push the button, and all they can come up with is a snarky acronym and an investigation of a whistleblower site where everybody and their fricking dog knows the score? (Hint: His name is Assange, and he likes to be on camera). If that is the best use they can come up with for taxpayer money, well then maybe it is time to start cutting their budget. Maybe with the purse strings tightened they'd get their shit together and be more interested in putting boots on the ground in the right places, like gathering Intel on the Pakistani border.

Re:Wait, wait, wait.

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't have to hit the way back machine. All the names are the same on the current page!

Re:Wait, wait, wait.

[Scrameustache]

Sarah Palin could pull it off. No, I'm super serial!

Miss Congeniality? Sure, you betcha!

As for TFA, THIS, this is what the CIA is doing with taxpayer dollars?

They're in the business of keeping secrets, those guys are in the business of exposing secrets, they'd better keep an eye on 'em...

WTF?

[Vlijmen Fileer]

What The Fuck?

Law Or Laughter?

[Drakkenmensch]

I'm just waiting until the WTF creates its sister agency, the Operational Management Governing Bureaucratic Branching Queue.

Re:Law Or Laughter?

[Minwee]

If you lived in Toronto you would be used to seeing buildings managed by The WTF Group, outdoor advertising by Oxford Media Group and, yes, a number of BBQ restaurants.

After a while you just get used to being surrounded by OMG, WTF and BBQ every day.

Did They Take the Docs?

[sherriw]

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*

Re:Did They Take the Docs?

[Dakman]

They're looking for anything they can to bust Wikileaks/Assange. By the way, I'm surprised no one has commented on how outrages it is that the government is spending US tax dollars this way.

Re:Did They Take the Docs?

[Minwee]

Rumour has it that Assange removed the "Do Not Remove" tag from his mattress. I'm pretty sure that that's a violation of some aspect of the DMCA.

Re:Did They Take the Docs?

[Dakman]

...bastard. Clearly we need more resources allocated towards this.

Re:Did They Take the Docs?

[DavidTC]

Right now, they have that guy locked up in solitary confinement (without actually having had a trial yet, mind you.)

The suspicion is that they're doing it so he'll testify (aka, make up something) against Assange.

Basically, the US government has decided to go after Wikileaks, despite them not doing anything that is the slightest bit illegal, and something that is literally indistinguishable from journalism. (And wouldn't have been illegal even if they did it in the US. The fact they aren't in the US makes that even less likely they are in violation of any US law.)

This is the CIA's team to invent some charges against Wikileaks.

Everyone needs to read this. It's before the CIA's announcement, but it's pretty easy to figure out what's going on with that.

Source of leaks

[Dcnjoe60]

Maybe the CIA used OpenBSD. Damn those FBI agents. Damn them, I say.

Lesser of two evils

[srussia]

It was either the Liquidate Bradley Manning brigade or this.

not too bad

[Tom]

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.

TRWTF is the forum!

[Tei]

"The Real WTF is the Forum Software."

Classic

CIA seriously?

[Nyder]

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.

WTF?

[Anne_Nonymous]

They should have called it the Secrecy Task Force Unit.

no case

[anonieuweling]

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

Aiding or not aiding, does not matter

[Daedalon]

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".

Re:fist

[Anonymous Coward]

bad date ass rape

WTF Task Force

[Anonymous Coward]

I want to be part of the WTF task force. ...dude, WTF?

I can see it now

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikileaks responds by launching an equally appropriate FAIL committee. (Forcing Accountability In Leadership)

Dissent is patriotic, they forget that...

[Scrameustache]

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.

Re:Dissent is patriotic, they forget that...

[gknoy]

Being a patriot doesn't absolve someone of criminal activities. Recall that our greatest patriots (the founding fathers) were committing treason, and signed their names to it. Civil (and uncivil) disobedience is done with the knowledge that there are potential consequences for one's actions. To act and think that there won't be is pure foolishness.

This is SO scripted.

[Fantastic Lad]

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

Attention

[gmuslera]

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.

Re:fist

[Anonymous Coward]

bad ass date rape

Risky Business

[HTH NE1]

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.

RTFA!

[Quila]

In this case, the Regional Transportation Financing Agency.

MOD PARENT UP!

[sgtrock]

Man, I wish I had mod points right now...

Re:fist

[Anonymous Coward]

Yule log.

Depends

[Quila]

"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 see your point but...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.
 

No international law for hosting leaked documents

[chrb]

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?

Thin blue line

[Max_W]

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.

Re:Thin blue line

[ushering05401]

The economics of data breaches don't work that way. If WL was really orchestrating the leaks then you would have a point.

As is, they must assume once something passes into their possession there is a ticking clock scenario. It is unlikely that leakers are undertaking the risk for information that they believe should be kept secret. WL is not exactly in a power position. If they fail to handle the leak in a responsible manner (ie: thorough redaction), and in a timely fashion they risk empowering less ethical parties.

I know Adrian Lamo has taken a lot of shit, but seriously, he is a great example of a less ethical party than WL. It just so happens that his hidden allegiances and lying mouth came out to be on the side of the U.S. Government. If that guy had been with the Strangers we would have had a serious issue that could only be solved by precipitating the crisis (ie: releasing early w/o full redaction to prevent empowering real enemies by allowing them initiative).

Long story short, the damage of WL not moving on leaked information could dwarf the damage done by the redacted releases.

Does *no one* get the reference?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's kinda disappointing, really. Hey you guys~~! Have a look here already.

Sheesh.

Whole new meaning to "Silent But Deadly"

[Anonymous Coward]

The CIA's WTF, named by FART, is mostly definitely SBD.

FML.

WTF indeed

[uigrad_2000]

Killing wikileaks will prevent our secrets from being disclosed, the same way that killing Napster stopped P2P. Yay!!

You believe the chat logs?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Police databases do have triggers

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Police databases do have triggers

[DrXym]

I've read of a number of cases where someone has accessed their neighbours police records, medical data etc. and been caught doing so.

Any sane system would log all queries by operator even if the records are not flagged. So they would still be in the system if a suspicion or complain arose concerning the person.

Wait, what?

[Chicken_Kickers]

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.

Re:Wait, what?

[jordan_robot]

That's like blaming the people of China for their government. We have no control of our leaders. It'd take a revolution to bring about a significant amount of change. Except then we'd be in tatters, and I don't think what follows next is any better than what's going on right now.

Re:Wait, what?

[Knuckles]

Manning's detention: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/14/manning

I fully agree with you, but don't forget that even all (as far as we know) European governments collaborated with the US abductions to secret torture camps.

hairyfeet eats his own words (twice)

[Anonymous Coward]

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34612834

and

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1916240&cid=34647708

It's ironic

[Paul Fernhout]

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

US Government

[Roger W Moore]

Or how about powerful american politicians forming an organisation calling for US global dominion?

They already have: it is called the US government.

Re:US Government

[The Dodger]

Shut up, 007. ;-)

It's horribly simple

[dbIII]

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.

Not the first time I've heard this kind of thing..

[Anonymous Coward]

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).

I am sure they will achieve the objective

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear that Wikileaks Task Force has been mandated to provide Frank, Unambiguous and Clear Knowledge of the situation.

Interestin acronym

[mu51c10rd]

Wait until the American Secret Systems Handling And Transport group at CIA hears about this.

I've got the catchy tune for it

[ewe2]

http://soundcloud.com/penguinmusic/omgwtfbbq