Twitter Leaked Obama's Visit To Afghanistan

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Twitter Leaked Obama's Visit To Afghanistan

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday May 2, 2012 @06:22AM from the was-that-a-secret? dept.

hypnosec writes "When you're the President of the United States, sometimes certain activities you're involved in can be hard to keep secret — and yesterday was no exception, after Twitter let it slip that Obama was secretly in Kabul. On Tuesday, the White House released a fabricated itinerary — consisting of all-day meetings in the Oval Office to cover up the fact that Obama was secretly flying to Afghanistan. Whilst only a few US journalists were aware of this event, by mid-morning, a lot more people were suddenly in on the revelation courtesy of Twitter. The first tweet to let the virtual cat out of the bag was Afghanistan news site TOLOnews which reported: 'United States President Barack Obama has arrived in Kabul to meet Afghan President Hamid Karzai.'"

35 of 177 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

headline incorrect by Klync · 2012-05-02 06:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

I love to hate on twitter as much as the next slashdotter, but the summary makes it clear that the headline is incorrect and misleading, possibly to the point of damaging Twitter's reputation. What you *meant* to say was:

Afghanistan news site TOLOnews Leaked Obama's Visit To Afghanistan (via Twitter)

--

----
Not to be confused with Col.
1. Re:headline incorrect by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-02 06:29 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  You'd think that'd be natively understood, but we'll see posts later in this article about how Twitter's bad, etc.
  
  --
  
  "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
2. Re:headline incorrect by amRadioHed · 2012-05-02 06:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I wouldn't expect anyone to understand it without reading the article, the headline is just plain wrong.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
3. Re:headline incorrect by Nimey · 2012-05-02 06:40 · Score: 2
  
  What makes you think Slashdot's editors give two shits about the truth? This place is a tabloid with occasional interesting discussions.
  
  --
  Hail Eris, full of mischief...
  
  E pluribus sanguinem
4. Re:headline incorrect by cdrudge · 2012-05-02 06:42 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  And most people here barely read the headline before posting as an expert on whatever article the summary might link to.
5. Re:headline incorrect by gstoddart · 2012-05-02 06:48 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  An even more accurate way to look at it is "Obama's security team fails to do its job".
  How the hell do you keep something like moving POTUS a secret? The convoy and Airforce One aren't exactly subtle.
  Once this information is known by anybody, it can just as easily become public ... more so with things like Twitter.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
6. Re:headline incorrect by icebike · 2012-05-02 07:00 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  This is still a bit concerning. If the media saw AF1 land, that's one thing. If the media got wind of the POTUS arriving from the current Afghan Administration or Intelligence agencies, they have some leaks that need fixing and US Security and Intel should take note.
  As for Twitter? Their role here was the non-story. Sorry.
  Look, Airforce One is hardly a stealth aircraft, especially when trailed by a constantly refueled squadron of Airforce / Navy fighters.
  There is no route to Afghanistan that does not cross some other country's air space, and you can bet that not every single air traffic controller between here and Kabul keeps his mouth shut all the time. The miracle is that Obama could get from the Whitehouse to the airport with no one leaking that info on twitter.
  In this world, expectations of surprise visits are all to be taken with a wink and an nod. Even when the press in in a feeding frenzy over the Secret Service's bimbo in Colombia, this visit was well known in the US Press.
  Its amazing that Twitter didn't break the news first. (It probably did, but nobody noticed).
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
7. Re:headline incorrect by petersam · 2012-05-02 07:05 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I'm not even sure that "leaked" is the correct word to use. He was in Afghanistan. It's hard to hide Air Force One, the motorcade, etc. They were reporting the news, i.e. what they're expected to do.
8. Re:headline incorrect by boaworm · 2012-05-02 07:18 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Look, Airforce One is hardly a stealth aircraft, especially when trailed by a constantly refueled squadron of Airforce / Navy fighters.
  The flight plan that AF1 files is not always as AF1, sometimes they fly "incognito", under a different callsign and as a different aircraft type. There is a famous incident when a British Airways pilot accidentally does a visual identification of AF1 over the atlantic while Bush was flying to Bagdad, and is being told that the 747 is in fact a little Gulfstream by AF1 pilots.
  BA Pilot: "Did I just see Air Force One?" the pilot radioed.
  AF1: "Gulfstream 5" -- a much smaller aircraft.
  BA: "Oh..."
  So when ATC routes AF1 around the most common tracks it can stay "incognito".
  http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/12/01/bush.pilot.reut/index.html
  
  --
  Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
  Aristotele
9. Re:headline incorrect by TWX · 2012-05-02 07:21 · Score: 2
  
  On top of that, It's unlikely that an actual plan to threaten the President could be designed and implemented in such a short amount of time, especially with no other itinerary. It doesn't sound like this information was disseminated until he was already on the ground, and my guess is that he didn't remain in place for very long. He would have quickly headed to the first secure location, probably arrived unannounced to all but a handful of staff sworn to secrecy, and would have left equally unannounced to the next similar stop.
  
  The hardest part would be the coordination of the meeting with Karzai, as that part can't be made random in location or time, but can still remain unannounced. All assassinations and nearly all assassination attempts against Presidents or Presidents-Elect happened during scheduled events- either the schedule was advertised or else the assassin managed to obtain the itinerary. The President is most at risk when people know where to expect him to be. He's probably safer showing up to a random college bar like he did last week in Colorado than he is when he's at home, or when he's attending a meeting or a fundraiser. Those that would seek to harm him simply do not have time to act when they only learn of his location because he's already arrived.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
10. Re:headline incorrect by krotkruton · 2012-05-02 07:22 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Why is everyone complaining so much about the headline when there is clearly a bigger issue at hand? We need to hunt down this mysterious Twitter (which I can only assume is a pseudo-name to hide his/her real identity) person immediately he/she is able to leak more information.
11. Re:headline incorrect by sootman · 2012-05-02 07:31 · Score: 2
  
  Actually, it'll probably devolve into a thread about Obama. :-)
  Back on topic, no-- the headline is HORRIBLE. There is a HUGE difference between "Twitter leaked..." and "... leaked on Twitter." When I first read it I thought it meant exactly what it says--that Twitter (the entity) somehow knew his location and accidentally published it--like, a tweet that was put in but set to be published later, or revealed by a geotag ("Posted by THE_REAL_BARACK via Mobile from Kabul") or something.)
  
  --
  Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
12. Re:headline incorrect by icebike · 2012-05-02 07:36 · Score: 2
  
  Even the Taliban took several hours to mount an attack, but mount one they did - it was just too late.
  You would have expected the Taliban to have an attack already in the can for the Bin Laden death anniversary. Maybe they just went ahead with that plan, realizing that an attack while Obama was there would be suicidal. (Not that they seem to have a problem with suicide) .
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
13. Re:headline incorrect by gstrickler · 2012-05-02 07:39 · Score: 2
  
  Valid point, but a minor correction. AF1 is not the plane. It's only AF1 when the Pres is on board. There are in fact at least two planes used as AF1.
  
  --
  make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
14. Re:headline incorrect by TWX · 2012-05-02 07:54 · Score: 2
  
  I have to wonder, in Afganistan, does the President's successful arrival and depart demonstrate that the US can operate with impunity and that the Taliban can only wreak havoc, or is some other conclusion drawn?
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
15. Re:headline incorrect by a90Tj2P7 · 2012-05-02 08:02 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  No, I talked to the Anonymous leader, Dan, and he said they don't have any members by that name.
16. Re:headline incorrect by icebike · 2012-05-02 09:08 · Score: 2
  
  Don't worry, the F16s will keep you well away from the 747.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
17. Re:headline incorrect by EdIII · 2012-05-02 09:35 · Score: 2
  
  That is the exception to the rule. Twitter was not created for the purpose of aiding revolutions, but as a general communication tool. It fails for general communication, for many reasons that I gave, and as far as revolutions go any ability for citizens to communicate to one another is going to be helpful and not the exclusive domain of Twitter.
18. Re:headline incorrect by Dishevel · 2012-05-02 10:01 · Score: 2
  
  If you think that Iran can shoot down Air Force One you have a lot more thinking to do.
  The moment there is a radar lock on AF1 that radar is going down. I am also sure that AF1 has fairly complicated counter measures. Not to mention the fact that if it were me in charge of AF1 security at least 1 of the aircraft flying with AF1 would be designed to obfuscate the entire flight from very sophisticated radars. Much less the ones Iran has.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
19. Re:headline incorrect by Hartree · 2012-05-02 10:05 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  No, but it might devolve into a thread about Drudge. Most US web sites took down the story after they were contacted by the WhiteHouse. Drudge didn't take it down.
  See:
  http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/02/politics/obama-media-afghanistan/
20. Re:headline incorrect by Dishevel · 2012-05-02 11:41 · Score: 2
  
  Chances are what make life great.
  I had a steel Tonka dump truck when I was a kid. I could skate off curbs in the thing and never damage it.
  Replaced by safe crap.
  Lawn darts. Illegal.
  Good Fireworks are crap.
  I watch 1-800-Bad Drug commercials. Suing companies for having "Inadequate warning labels"
  Cold coffee now Everywhere. No fun allowed (Insurance would never allow it)
  We are too focused on safety. I do not need a fucking warning sticker telling me to not use the hair dryer in the shower.
  Anyone who does need this needs to do it.
  Kids have less fun, People are more angry, Life is worth less, but at least we can make it on average longer.
  Crap.
  
  --
  Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
21. Re:headline incorrect by rtb61 · 2012-05-02 16:02 · Score: 2
  
  More importantly why should it be secret, there is something horribly wrong with secret head of state meetings, something inherently corrupt and really security is not a good enough excuse.
  The big secrecy seemed more to revolve around adding a decade to the hostile occupation of Afghanistan. Letting it all slide because an election is up and coming and the majority of people, globally are sick of America's military occupations of other countries. All with promises to rebuild infrastructure but reality of destroying infrastructure with missiles and bombs and saving people from autocratic governments by 'er' killing them.
  Wikileaks has proven that the secrecy in diplomatic circles is very unhealthy to democracies all around the globe.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 06:26 · Score: 2

Just because someone used Twiiter to post something, doesn't make Twitter responsible for that post. Geez...how stupid to say that Twiiter leaked it.
1. Re:Seriously? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2012-05-02 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  Just because someone used Twiiter to post something, doesn't make Twitter responsible for that post. Geez...how stupid to say that Twiiter leaked it.
  I'm sorry Mr. AC. This is /. and the title clearly states that Twitter is the culprit in this case. And don't start in on what the summary or TFA states. On /. we only need to read the title, we're all too smart for summaries and such.
Twitter is a communication medium by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-02 06:30 · Score: 5, Funny

Substitute another (imagine "Telephone leaked Obama's Visit to Afghanistan") to see how truly silly your headline is.
Memes by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-05-02 06:36 · Score: 5, Funny

More like TROLOLOLONews, amirite?
(crickets)
Ah, the hell with ya.
Anyway, it wasn't leaked until he was on the ground in Kabul? Is that so bad?
1. Re:Memes by amRadioHed · 2012-05-02 06:53 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Presidential visits to Iraq and Afghanistan have been unannounced for as long as I can remember, this is not unusual.
  
  --
  We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
2. Re:Memes by TJ_Phazerhacki · 2012-05-02 07:16 · Score: 2
  
  The president's specific travel itinerary has been considered a matter of secrecy for years. When the specific route of travel is generally known, bad things can happen (just ask Mr. Kennedy, oh, wait...) This is not odd at all. The tension in the middle east has been high for the last two thousand years, and does not dictate whether we know when our country's leader is flying or not. I actually find it reasonably comforting that this managed to stay "secret" for as long as it did.
  
  --
  Physics is nothing like religion. If it was, we'd have an easier time trying to raise money!
3. Re:Memes by Quiet_Desperation · 2012-05-02 08:33 · Score: 2
  
  Well, there WAS a 4 hour battle in a the capital not long afterward.....
  Yeah, in Kabul they call that "lunch time". Amirite, guys?!
  (crickets again)
  Sheesh!
Re:Why fabricate this? by YrWrstNtmr · 2012-05-02 06:47 · Score: 4, Informative

The president flying into an active warzone is usually kept secret.
As would be for any head of state flying into a warzone.

You don't really want to give some nutjob with a Stinger the landing time and flightpath, do you?
Visibility by maz2331 · 2012-05-02 07:03 · Score: 2

Air Force One has to be the most uniquely recognizable aircraft on the planet. It's kind of hard to keep quiet when it flies into someplace, unless they flew in on a nondescript plane.
Re:So? by schwit1 · 2012-05-02 07:25 · Score: 4, Informative

President Obama made an unannounced trip to Afghanistan on the first anniversary of the the killing of Osama bin Laden and signed a security agreement that pledges U.S. support through 2024
Re:So? by bbecker23 · 2012-05-02 07:48 · Score: 2

And that, my friend, is called the sunk cost fallacy.

--
cat /dev/random > sig.txt
Oblig. XKCD by Kittenman · 2012-05-02 09:51 · Score: 2

http://xkcd.com/932/

--
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Re:So? by steelfood · 2012-05-02 10:09 · Score: 2

Yeah, but support comes in many forms. For example, how we "support" Pakistan or "support" Taiwan or "support" Israel.
I wouldn't be surprised if we set up a (semi-) permanent base there as a launchpad for future middle east and east asia operations. We have bases in Germany and Japan.
Tl;dr, pulling the troops out and continuing to support them are not mutually exclusive.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."