Most Wikileaks supporters are naive and don't understand the imaginably vast resources of the US Government. They also underestimate the ruthlessness of the US Government.
To understand an individual would have to know the history of COINTELPRO. An individual would have to also talk to people who are being gangstalked today or who have been targeted individuals in the recent past to know that the Government is fully capable of covert psychological torture and entrapment. The rape charge, everything Assange and his supporters are dealing with can be found here
If people would have just took these sorts of websites more seriously they'd understand that the Government does not have to kill you, they can just ruin your life in every way possible until you wish you were dead. You'll lose your finances, your friendships, your marriage, your family, and when they are done with you they'll have you looking like a psychopath pedophile, a rapist, a murderer, a snitch (they call it the snitch jacket). They don't follow the law, they don't care about your human rights, they'll destroy your life just as they did to hundreds of thousands in the 60s under COINTELPRO.
Julian Assange has gone too far. If you download his Insurance file or donate money to his site, expect to be put under intense surveilence COINTELPRO style.
If you want to know how the Feds are going to handle this situation just look at how they handled it in the 60s. The church committee report details what the feds could do in the 1960s. Joel Byran Harris is an ordinary individual who pissed off a high level bank executive in the 1990s and he has been subject to a constant harassment and psychological operation ever since.
Here are the links for anyone who thinks I'm full of it.
This is why the Feds warned their own with that email. It looks like cyberwar is about to be declared. If that happens everyone who supports Julian Assange in any way will be put under COINTELPRO style surveillance. This means they'll have to deal with the gangstalking, the character assassinations, the entrapment, the loss of their jobs, friends they knew their entire life who wont talk to them, etc.
Think about it. If you are keeping Wikileaks strong by donating money and an operation is launched to cut off the money supply by blocking paypal, it means they have the list of names and credit information of all the supporters. The NSA has the list of names of all who downloaded the insurance file. The government also has the list of IP addresses of all who went to the site and who made stupid comments on Slashdot, Facebook or anywhere else.
Once those list of IP addresses is turned into a list of names they will be put into a special government database for Julian Assange supporters. From here the government will launch a COINTELPRO just like they did to the new left, the communists, the black panthers, weathermen underground, etc.
Don't say you weren't warned. They did it to Joel Harris.
If you donated the Insurance file, you are going to end up being the collateral damage. The FBI, NSA, CIA are absolutely ruthless and when he pissess off the RUSSIANS it can turn deadly.
My advice is anyone who has donated, change your name. If you downloaded then expect to be put under government surveillance. Expect the government to see you as a member of Julian Assanges terrorist network.
If the government considered Wikileaks a terrorist organization or if they decide to take down the supporters, the first people they'll harass are the people who give Wikileaks money and who download the Insurance file.
Joel Bryan Harris is an example. He pissed off a bank executive and they put him on some COINTELPRO list with the help of INFRAGUARD or whatever they are calling it now. Once you are on that list you can't ever get off. And you have no human rights.
Julian Assange is protecting himself with that Insurance file. He is not protecting his supporters and the government knows this. Governments and corporations around the world are targeting his finances. When they find out who donated and paypal will probably tell them, what do you think will happen?
Anyone who was stupid enough to download the Insurance file, or who sends money or support to WIkileaks, will be Gangstalked like this guy, will be COINTELPRO'd.
I'm up for my third security clearance investigations. What makes somebody with security clearance different from a member of the general population?
- The fortitude to spend about five hours filling out the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned SF-86 form. - A guaranteed mostly-clean criminal record. - Not in dire financial straits - A U.S. Citizen - Not currently suffering from major mental illness, nor on any more than negligible doses of tranquilizers or opioid painkillers. (They do pull your health records.) - You don't spend time hanging out with the local terrorist cell - A sense of humor to answer questions like: "Are you planning to overthrow the US govt.? Are you a terrorist? Are you a drug dealer?, etc." without busting out laughing that they even ask. (If you answer "no" to any of those questions and they find out you were lying, I don't think the "negative employment consequences" they warn you about when filling out the form will matter a whole lot..)
In other words, probably about 90%+ of U.S. citizens are perfectly eligible for security clearance; it isn't that hard.
If that is the case, why do so few Americans have security clearance? If the US Government gave more Americans security clearance then more Americans would trust/have faith in the US Government.
The reason the Wikileaks scandal gains so much momentum is because the US Government treats the majority of Americans as "them" or as the terrorist, and if anyone asks why "Well It's classified, you don't have a security clearance"
So what are they going to do? Let the majority of Americans distrust and fear them? Or give out more clearances? I think it's exactly the opposite, I don't think 90% of Americans can keep a secret if their lives depended on it. 10% is more like it and even among the 10%, most of them are vulnerable to coercion of some sort. Isn't that what the government is most concerned about?
So if you have Americans who are closet homosexuals due to DADT, wouldn't this make them more vulnerable to coercion?
People with security clearance fear the law and follow it ruthlessly.
Spoken like someone who has never been around anyone with a security clearance. People with clearances are like everybody else except they try to not to talk about some parts of their work. You take two people working for the same organization with roughly the same background and responsibilities but one has a clearance and the other doesn't, you aren't going to find a significant variation except the one with the clearance is more reticent about talking about their job. Ain't nothing 'ruthless' about it.
Then why are so many people denied clearance? If people with clearance are ordinary people and anyone can get one shouldn't anyone be able to get a federal government job? Clearly thats not the case.
Something like 1% of people in the USA have a security clearance.
They fear the rule of law more than death and Government is their God.
Yes, and they also kidnap infants and drink their blood at their Satanic gatherings.
Can we stop with the hysteria yet? People in the US government are like people anywhere else -- some good, some bad, most just trying to pay their bills and keep out of trouble. Just because it's in the political interest of certain right-wing media organizations to regularly vilify them doesn't mean you have to mindlessly play along.
So it's reasonable to believe people in the government aren't like people everywhere else because unlike everybody else they know how not to get in trouble.
Considering these cables are on every news site and on TV it's no longer classified by law.
I suspect you will find that "the law" (probably in practice several laws) says otherwise.
They can try and pretend like it's still classified but it's not. Once it's saturated in the media and millions of people know about it all over the world it's public information.
The two may well not be mutually exclusive... Especially to people in the "intelligence" community.
Once again a law is not effective if it's only known to people in the intelligence community. Wouldn't all these News organizations be breaking the law? All these reporters?
Do they take into account the internet? If the material is virtually everywhere on every website discussed by everyone, at that point if you are the only one who wont talk about it or read it then automatically everyone knows you're the one who works for the government.
It doesn't matter who knows you work for the government or not. That has little to do with your security clearance level. The issue is can you keep a secret.
Wouldn't it be harder to keep something secret if everybody knows you have security clearance?
That being said if it's in the NDA that it's one of your duties then I agree nothing is more important than upholding those duties.
I still don't see how this would apply to people who have not read or signed an NDA agreement. This says nothing about whether or not graduate students are responsible or can follow rules in an NDA or keep secret.
Unless someone agrees and accepts responsibility and duties how exactly can you punish them for breaking a promise they never made?
How about the Classified Information Non-Disclosure agreement which you have to sign to get a clearance? http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf All of the laws referenced in the agreement, apply regardless of whether you have a clearance or if you even sign the agreement.
How can it apply to you if you haven't signed or even heard about the agreement?
and I have been specifically told by our gov't security folks that if I access Wikileaks (either via my work computer or my home computer) I will lose my security clearance. I can understand them making a rule not to view it at work and taking away someone's clearance if they do it anyway, but I really don't see how they can legally take away someone's clearance for looking at a website on their home computer that basically ever major news outlet has shown screenshots of.
If you have a clearance already then you know what the rules say. If you are a college student why should you be expected to follow the rules of a security clearance that you don't have?
Once again unless Hillary Clinton or someone representing the State Dept is willing to go on record saying that, it's basically expecting people to just know not to discuss Wikileaks.
..."Don't read the cables"? It says "Don't take part in disseminating them."
rj
Once again if the government wants people to know that is the policy, Hillary Clinton should go to the New York Times or CNN and say that. Why let Assange and everyone basically bait everybody into discussing it?
If they don't have a security clearance and they haven't read the security forms how exactly would they "know better"?
Basically it's like saying if you wear these shoes made in China you might sympathize with the Chinese so you can't be hired in the federal government. Why? Because some obscure law in some form that 99.9% of Americans have never seen says so.
What if you discuss Wikileaks because you don't sympathize with it? If they are saying it's illegal to discuss it thats not the same as sympathizing with it.
Nobody is saying the government should hire Wikileaks sympathizers as that would be stupid. The problem is most people aren't going to know every obscure law regarding classified information so only individuals who have been briefed or who have clearance will know they can't discuss Wikileaks.
Now of course if you agree to protect a secret or not to discuss it then you should be held accountable.
If you can't talk about it, which makes sense. Sure you shouldn't talk about it if you can avoid it but if you actively avoid talking about something then people will question why everyone is talking about it but you.
So if it's supposed to be a secret that you work for the State Dept, in situations like these it becomes obvious who works for the State Dept or the government in general. Do you know anyone who hasn't been willing to discuss Wikileaks?
That would be kind of difficult when everyone is asking or talking about it on every channel and website.
Sure they can refrain from discussing it but then they'll obviously be the one suspected to work for the federal government. It will be like "Hey why isn't Ron talking about the State Dept leaks? He must work for the State Dept."
If you have a security clearance, you are not allowed to talk about classified materials, even if you only know of those materials from an out of channel source (the news).
Ludicrous on its face, but: this sounds like we can figure out every single government official! That old "are you a cop" routine; "Read this article; then, comment on it."
If he works for the feds and has a security clearance he absolutely must follow orders. It's the same system for civilians as it is for the military, if you get ordered not to do X then you can't do X. It does not matter why, it's because the chain of command says so.
So if they say you can't read or discuss wikileaks then you cant and shouldn't. I don't think it makes a lot of sense because it will make the people who don't talk about it stand out, but if it's a direct order "Do not discuss or read wikileaks", that has to be followed.
Just because the information is in the wild doesn't mean it has lost its classification. If you're discussing classified material (however you came to possess it), then you obviously cannot be trusted with future classified material. That's what this warning is about.
Do they take into account the internet? If the material is virtually everywhere on every website discussed by everyone, at that point if you are the only one who wont talk about it or read it then automatically everyone knows you're the one who works for the government.
Slashdot Mirror
Most Wikileaks supporters are naive and don't understand the imaginably vast resources of the US Government. They also underestimate the ruthlessness of the US Government.
To understand an individual would have to know the history of COINTELPRO. An individual would have to also talk to people who are being gangstalked today or who have been targeted individuals in the recent past to know that the Government is fully capable of covert psychological torture and entrapment. The rape charge, everything Assange and his supporters are dealing with can be found here
If people would have just took these sorts of websites more seriously they'd understand that the Government does not have to kill you, they can just ruin your life in every way possible until you wish you were dead. You'll lose your finances, your friendships, your marriage, your family, and when they are done with you they'll have you looking like a psychopath pedophile, a rapist, a murderer, a snitch (they call it the snitch jacket). They don't follow the law, they don't care about your human rights, they'll destroy your life just as they did to hundreds of thousands in the 60s under COINTELPRO.
Julian Assange has gone too far. If you download his Insurance file or donate money to his site, expect to be put under intense surveilence COINTELPRO style.
If you want to know how the Feds are going to handle this situation just look at how they handled it in the 60s. The church committee report details what the feds could do in the 1960s. Joel Byran Harris is an ordinary individual who pissed off a high level bank executive in the 1990s and he has been subject to a constant harassment and psychological operation ever since.
Here are the links for anyone who thinks I'm full of it.
http://www.jbhfile.com/index.html [jbhfile.com] and http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm [icdc.com]
This is why the Feds warned their own with that email. It looks like cyberwar is about to be declared. If that happens everyone who supports Julian Assange in any way will be put under COINTELPRO style surveillance. This means they'll have to deal with the gangstalking, the character assassinations, the entrapment, the loss of their jobs, friends they knew their entire life who wont talk to them, etc.
Think about it. If you are keeping Wikileaks strong by donating money and an operation is launched to cut off the money supply by blocking paypal, it means they have the list of names and credit information of all the supporters. The NSA has the list of names of all who downloaded the insurance file. The government also has the list of IP addresses of all who went to the site and who made stupid comments on Slashdot, Facebook or anywhere else.
Once those list of IP addresses is turned into a list of names they will be put into a special government database for Julian Assange supporters. From here the government will launch a COINTELPRO just like they did to the new left, the communists, the black panthers, weathermen underground, etc.
Don't say you weren't warned. They did it to Joel Harris.
If you donated the Insurance file, you are going to end up being the collateral damage. The FBI, NSA, CIA are absolutely ruthless and when he pissess off the RUSSIANS it can turn deadly.
My advice is anyone who has donated, change your name. If you downloaded then expect to be put under government surveillance. Expect the government to see you as a member of Julian Assanges terrorist network.
If the government considered Wikileaks a terrorist organization or if they decide to take down the supporters, the first people they'll harass are the people who give Wikileaks money and who download the Insurance file.
Joel Bryan Harris is an example. He pissed off a bank executive and they put him on some COINTELPRO list with the help of INFRAGUARD or whatever they are calling it now. Once you are on that list you can't ever get off. And you have no human rights.
Julian Assange is protecting himself with that Insurance file. He is not protecting his supporters and the government knows this. Governments and corporations around the world are targeting his finances. When they find out who donated and paypal will probably tell them, what do you think will happen?
Don't know what Gangstalking it? Google it.
Anyone who was stupid enough to download the Insurance file, or who sends money or support to WIkileaks, will be Gangstalked like this guy, will be COINTELPRO'd.
This is something you absolutely do not want.
I'm up for my third security clearance investigations. What makes somebody with security clearance different from a member of the general population?
- The fortitude to spend about five hours filling out the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned SF-86 form.
- A guaranteed mostly-clean criminal record.
- Not in dire financial straits
- A U.S. Citizen
- Not currently suffering from major mental illness, nor on any more than negligible doses of tranquilizers or opioid painkillers. (They do pull your health records.)
- You don't spend time hanging out with the local terrorist cell
- A sense of humor to answer questions like: "Are you planning to overthrow the US govt.? Are you a terrorist? Are you a drug dealer?, etc." without busting out laughing that they even ask. (If you answer "no" to any of those questions and they find out you were lying, I don't think the "negative employment consequences" they warn you about when filling out the form will matter a whole lot..)
In other words, probably about 90%+ of U.S. citizens are perfectly eligible for security clearance; it isn't that hard.
If that is the case, why do so few Americans have security clearance? If the US Government gave more Americans security clearance then more Americans would trust/have faith in the US Government.
The reason the Wikileaks scandal gains so much momentum is because the US Government treats the majority of Americans as "them" or as the terrorist, and if anyone asks why "Well It's classified, you don't have a security clearance"
So what are they going to do? Let the majority of Americans distrust and fear them? Or give out more clearances? I think it's exactly the opposite, I don't think 90% of Americans can keep a secret if their lives depended on it. 10% is more like it and even among the 10%, most of them are vulnerable to coercion of some sort. Isn't that what the government is most concerned about?
So if you have Americans who are closet homosexuals due to DADT, wouldn't this make them more vulnerable to coercion?
People with security clearance fear the law and follow it ruthlessly.
Spoken like someone who has never been around anyone with a security clearance.
People with clearances are like everybody else except they try to not to talk about some parts of their work. You take two people working for the same organization with roughly the same background and responsibilities but one has a clearance and the other doesn't, you aren't going to find a significant variation except the one with the clearance is more reticent about talking about their job. Ain't nothing 'ruthless' about it.
Then why are so many people denied clearance? If people with clearance are ordinary people and anyone can get one shouldn't anyone be able to get a federal government job? Clearly thats not the case.
Something like 1% of people in the USA have a security clearance.
They fear the rule of law more than death and Government is their God.
Yes, and they also kidnap infants and drink their blood at their Satanic gatherings.
Can we stop with the hysteria yet? People in the US government are like people anywhere else -- some good, some bad, most just trying to pay their bills and keep out of trouble. Just because it's in the political interest of certain right-wing media organizations to regularly vilify them doesn't mean you have to mindlessly play along.
People with security clearance fear the law and follow it ruthlessly. See here http://www.fas.org/sgp/isoo/guidelines.html
So it's reasonable to believe people in the government aren't like people everywhere else because unlike everybody else they know how not to get in trouble.
Considering these cables are on every news site and on TV it's no longer classified by law.
I suspect you will find that "the law" (probably in practice several laws) says otherwise.
They can try and pretend like it's still classified but it's not. Once it's saturated in the media and millions of people know about it all over the world it's public information.
The two may well not be mutually exclusive... Especially to people in the "intelligence" community.
Once again a law is not effective if it's only known to people in the intelligence community. Wouldn't all these News organizations be breaking the law? All these reporters?
Do they take into account the internet? If the material is virtually everywhere on every website discussed by everyone, at that point if you are the only one who wont talk about it or read it then automatically everyone knows you're the one who works for the government.
It doesn't matter who knows you work for the government or not. That has little to do with your security clearance level. The issue is can you keep a secret.
Wouldn't it be harder to keep something secret if everybody knows you have security clearance?
That being said if it's in the NDA that it's one of your duties then I agree nothing is more important than upholding those duties.
I still don't see how this would apply to people who have not read or signed an NDA agreement. This says nothing about whether or not graduate students are responsible or can follow rules in an NDA or keep secret.
Unless someone agrees and accepts responsibility and duties how exactly can you punish them for breaking a promise they never made?
How about the Classified Information Non-Disclosure agreement which you have to sign to get a clearance?
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/security-forms/sf312.pdf All of the laws referenced in the agreement, apply regardless of whether you have a clearance or if you even sign the agreement.
How can it apply to you if you haven't signed or even heard about the agreement?
Seems like a secret law.
and I have been specifically told by our gov't security folks that if I access Wikileaks (either via my work computer or my home computer) I will lose my security clearance. I can understand them making a rule not to view it at work and taking away someone's clearance if they do it anyway, but I really don't see how they can legally take away someone's clearance for looking at a website on their home computer that basically ever major news outlet has shown screenshots of.
If you have a clearance already then you know what the rules say. If you are a college student why should you be expected to follow the rules of a security clearance that you don't have?
Once again unless Hillary Clinton or someone representing the State Dept is willing to go on record saying that, it's basically expecting people to just know not to discuss Wikileaks.
What else are college grads going to do when theres 9% unemployment?
..."Don't read the cables"? It says "Don't take part in disseminating them."
rj
Once again if the government wants people to know that is the policy, Hillary Clinton should go to the New York Times or CNN and say that. Why let Assange and everyone basically bait everybody into discussing it?
Just by posting that link you risk not being able to get a security clearance?
The solution is simple, don't post any links to anything associated with Wikileaks.
If they don't have a security clearance and they haven't read the security forms how exactly would they "know better"?
Basically it's like saying if you wear these shoes made in China you might sympathize with the Chinese so you can't be hired in the federal government. Why? Because some obscure law in some form that 99.9% of Americans have never seen says so.
What if you discuss Wikileaks because you don't sympathize with it?
If they are saying it's illegal to discuss it thats not the same as sympathizing with it.
Nobody is saying the government should hire Wikileaks sympathizers as that would be stupid. The problem is most people aren't going to know every obscure law regarding classified information so only individuals who have been briefed or who have clearance will know they can't discuss Wikileaks.
Now of course if you agree to protect a secret or not to discuss it then you should be held accountable.
If you can't talk about it, which makes sense. Sure you shouldn't talk about it if you can avoid it but if you actively avoid talking about something then people will question why everyone is talking about it but you.
So if it's supposed to be a secret that you work for the State Dept, in situations like these it becomes obvious who works for the State Dept or the government in general. Do you know anyone who hasn't been willing to discuss Wikileaks?
That would be kind of difficult when everyone is asking or talking about it on every channel and website.
Sure they can refrain from discussing it but then they'll obviously be the one suspected to work for the federal government. It will be like "Hey why isn't Ron talking about the State Dept leaks? He must work for the State Dept."
Ludicrous on its face, but: this sounds like we can figure out every single government official! That old "are you a cop" routine; "Read this article; then, comment on it."
Exactly.
Then those giving that order had better cite the specific laws and regulations applicable that make it a Lawful Order.
Sounds like a good question for the JAG to answer.
Good question. Is it a lawful order?
If he works for the feds and has a security clearance he absolutely must follow orders. It's the same system for civilians as it is for the military, if you get ordered not to do X then you can't do X. It does not matter why, it's because the chain of command says so.
So if they say you can't read or discuss wikileaks then you cant and shouldn't. I don't think it makes a lot of sense because it will make the people who don't talk about it stand out, but if it's a direct order "Do not discuss or read wikileaks", that has to be followed.
Just because the information is in the wild doesn't mean it has lost its classification. If you're discussing classified material (however you came to possess it), then you obviously cannot be trusted with future classified material. That's what this warning is about.
Do they take into account the internet? If the material is virtually everywhere on every website discussed by everyone, at that point if you are the only one who wont talk about it or read it then automatically everyone knows you're the one who works for the government.
Which is what makes the rule senseless.