Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military United States Your Rights Online

Wikileaks Receiving Gestapo Treatment? 667

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the picking-some-fights dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Wikileaks announced on Mar 21 (via its twitter account) its intentions 'to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am.' It appears that during the last 24 hours someone from the State Department/CIA decided to visit them, by 'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours. Apparently, the offending leak is a video footage of a US airstrike."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks Receiving Gestapo Treatment?

Comments Filter:
  • by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @10:58AM (#31597766) Homepage

    ...providing a service similar to what Wikileaks provides is always dangerous.

    • by uberjack (1311219) * on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:36AM (#31598362)
      That said, what is the point of announcing that you're about to reveal something seriously damning about the government, instead of just releasing? The outcome seems fairly obvious in this case.
      • by Pojut (1027544)

        ::shrug:: don't have an answer for you there.

      • by austinhook (656358) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @12:21PM (#31599160)

        A bit of suspense makes it more interesting. Also it provokes a reaction from the government, and thereby shows to what lengths they will go to suppress it. That itself then becomes news. We need to be reminded how hard the government will try to cover up their crimes, until we act to clip its talons. Otherwise we end up like China, where every government blunder is covered up.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          >>>it provokes a reaction from the government, and thereby shows to what lengths they will go to suppress it

          I'm planning to create a website documenting U.S. government (and possibly EU government) abuses. Everytime someone says, "But government is good," it's a pain to have to scramble to gather all the info & educate them.

          This way I can simply point to www.governmentabuse.com and be done with it.

      • Advertisement (Score:3, Interesting)

        by kangsterizer (1698322)

        Why do you think everyone else in ANY industry are pre-announcing what they do?
        Products, goods, actions, whatever..

        You need to create the expectation for your information to last long enough. Otherwise, its going to be on the news for 2 days and gone and forgotten even if it was rather sensationalist.

        We're at Slashdot, ever thought about Apple's marketing? It's all about that; Rumors, expectations, then a big announcement.. and actual product availability month later.
        You did not think it was related to thei

  • [citation needed] (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bartab (233395) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:00AM (#31597802)

    Seriously. Saying "we have something" is boring. Post it, or shut up.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Spyware23 (1260322)

      They said "We have something, we're going to show you then and then".

      • by krou (1027572) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:22AM (#31598156)
        Which means they're idiots. Seriously. Wikileaks is likely to be under surveillance all the time. To come out and openly say, "We have classified material, and we'll show it to you in a couple weeks' time", what the hell did they expect would happen? It'd be like Daniel Ellsberg announcing at a press conference that he's got secret documents called the Pentagon papers, and that he'll release them in a week later.
        • by vlm (69642) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @12:30PM (#31599312)

          To come out and openly say, "We have classified material, and we'll show it to you in a couple weeks' time", what the hell did they expect would happen?

          Actually, it shows profound respect for the men and women doing the fighting, that they're willing to hold a very important story for awhile to minimize any theoretical impact to the boots on the ground. And letting everyone, including the brass, know whats coming, lets them start work early on the coverup/spin or maybe even genuinely change things to improve the situation.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by gilgongo (57446)

          Which means they're idiots. Seriously.

          This gets modded as "insightful"??

          Here's a crash course in strategy vs tactics. Wikileaks isn't pulling some teenage prank solely for the purpose of seeing people in power with their pants down. In order to actually make a long-term difference to society, you need to play a long game by allowing your adversaries to respond in a way that allows you to be agile. By announcing ahead of time, Wikileaks can observe patterns of reaction which allows them to optimise the way in which they reveal the payload for ma

    • by Neil (7455)

      That struck me as really odd - publicly saying "we're going to release something that the Pentagon really doesn't want you to know in two weeks time" seems to be positively inviting attempts at suppression by the authorities.

      If they really have leaked information that they think people should know about, then surely they should just "publish and be damned" - not engage in what appears to be news management in an attempt to create a sensationalist media buzz about it?

      • Maybe they're hoping to demonstrate what the authorities are willing to go to. OTOH maybe they're trying to forestall some possible harassment by making an early (even a surprise announcement) that something's happening so that eyes will be on the authorities in advance.

  • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:01AM (#31597818)

    There are national security laws for a reason. If Wikileaks is going to publish sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws — and while I haven't seen the details, if this really is military video footage it might well be — then of course the security services are going to take steps, the same way they would with anyone else. Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

    • by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:07AM (#31597898) Homepage Journal
      OTOH, it's very easy for governments to simply "classify away" embarrassing secrets that are in fact no danger to national security. That's exactly the sort of thing that Wikileaks is built for. It's a national security risk only in that it risks the jobs of the people who fucked up, who may be in charge of security.
      • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:14AM (#31598018)

        There is certainly a potential problem with classifying things inappropriately, but my opposition to Wikileaks is based on three principles that are not affected by such problems:

        1. If Wikileaks is useful, we already have a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government (see my sig).
        2. Supporting an organisation that actively tries to place itself above the law is not the solution to those problems. We should fix bad laws for the good of everyone, not merely try to circumvent them.
        3. Wikileaks in particular has exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of civil disobedience/public interest whistleblower argument.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          1. Yup
          2. Wikileaks does not place itself above the law
          3. When?
          • by Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:35AM (#31598348)

            2. Wikileaks does not place itself above the law

            They do if they are publishing classified information, private information about individuals, etc. I'm not sure any jurisdiction in the world actually has absolute freedom of speech coded in law — even in the US, there have been Supreme Court cases balancing the First Amendment against other concerns with legal weight — and there are explicit exemptions in the basic constitutional or human rights legislation almost everywhere covering things like genuine national security interests.

            3. When?

            A common example is publishing the membership list of the BNP. It is particularly ironic since by outing those people, Wikileaks actually removed some protection and consequently damaged the freedom of expression of a minority political group that has been subject to dubious restrictions by mainstream politicians.

            (For the avoidance of doubt, I don't like the BNP's politics at all. I just don't like censoring them rather than beating them with rational argument any better.)

            • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

              by guspasho (941623)

              In the United States at least, "classified" binds the people responsible for maintaining its secrecy, basically people in the government. But once it's out, Wikileaks is within their legal rights to share that information. Unless of course it's protected by the DCMA.

              This whole claim that Wikileaks thinks it's above the law is bunk.

            • by Stellian (673475) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @02:42PM (#31601440)

              There are basically two types of interesting classified information that Wikileaks can leak:
                1. Classified information that should really remain classified for everyone's safety
                2. Classified information information that's actually just cover-up for government's abuses

              If they leak the first type, I expect the government to act quickly and change those atomic launch codes - if an unprofessional spy organisation like Wikileaks can find them, you can be quite sure North Korea has them for a while. I also expect the persons responsible for keeping such info secret be fired/jailed/shot, and I expect democracy to act in that direction.
              If they leak the second type, I also expect democracy to act and the abuses curbed.
              In both cases, Wikileaks has a valid reason to exist, and the mere fact they are breaking the law to do so it's not unethical - they exist precisely to point out flaws in the law or they way it's enforced.
              The primary sources for the leaks will also exercise some form of personal judgement and are much likely to release type 2 info - the percentage of people with anti-social disorders is low.

        • The civil disobedience/public interest whistleblower point, destroys your first two arguments.

          Please be more specific with your third so that I can take it in as a whole.

        • by Trails (629752) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:41AM (#31598470)

          I think the counter point is that we don't know we have a fundamental problem without people leaking things.

          Further, giving away genuine, non "CYA" national secrets that puts civilians/military personnel at risk would be a horrible blow to wikileaks. My point is that there is incentive here for wikileaks to expose only BS-type classified stuff.

          Remember, "Deep Throat" gave up classified docs to the press, he broke laws in order to protect lawfulness.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by mcgrew (92797) *

          Supporting an organisation that actively tries to place itself above the law is not the solution to those problems. We should fix bad laws for the good of everyone, not merely try to circumvent them.

          And how do you do that? The problem isn't that national security laws are bad, it's that those laws are misused and abused.

        • by DM9290 (797337) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @12:31PM (#31599324) Journal

          There is certainly a potential problem with classifying things inappropriately, but my opposition to Wikileaks is based on three principles that are not affected by such problems:

          1. If Wikileaks is useful, we already have a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government (see my sig).

          Did you just say you are opposed to Wikileaks because there is a fundamental problem of insufficient checks and balances in our government?
          Dude thats the whole reason Wikileaks exists.

          Supporting an organisation that actively tries to place itself above the law is not the solution to those problems. We should fix bad laws for the good of everyone, not merely try to circumvent them.

          That's a catch 22 situation. If we can't see what information is being suppressed we'll never know whether or not the justification for suppressing it is good or bad, and consequently whether the law is good or bad.

          Wikileaks in particular has exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of civil disobedience/public interest whistleblower argument.

          The governments of the world have exhibited a lack of good judgement about what is really in the public interest in the past, so they get little sympathy from me on any sort of national security/just shut up and trust us argument.

      • by jimwelch (309748) <jimwelchok@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:21AM (#31598136) Homepage Journal

        As always, in a "free" country, the question is who watches the watchers?
        Embarrassing vs Dangerous or both?
        Is the "reporter" out for glory or sees real criminal behavior or a political agenda?
        Who gets to decide? If they are arrested, a jury/judge gets to watch the watchers.
        The correct answer: all of the above.

      • by slimjim8094 (941042) <[slashdot3] [at] [justconnected.net]> on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:32AM (#31598312)

        Of course. But is Wikileaks the entity that gets to decide what should and shouldn't be classified? How about posting the assumed names and covers of foreign agents? Missile launch codes?

        Most of us would argue that there's a lot of classified info that, for the common good, shouldn't be classified - like the non-court mass wiretappings. But if you think governments (really, people in government) can make mistakes, then you also think Wikileaks, or people in it, can also make mistakes.

        Unless you're going to argue that nothing should be classified, which is I suppose a valid argument - but you'll have a lot of resistance.

        Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

        • by MartinSchou (1360093) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:59AM (#31598810)

          How about posting the assumed names and covers of foreign agents?

          That depends on who you ask.

          If you ask the US government if it would like to know the assumed names and covers of agents in the US, who work for North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, I think they would really like to know. But on the other hand, if you ask the US government if they would like the assumed names and covers of their agents in North Korea, Iran, Syria, Russia and China, I think they'd say no.

        • No way! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by LanMan04 (790429) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @12:00PM (#31598840)

          Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

          I disagree. That's like saying:

          "Which is worse? Someone NOT guilty of a crime being convicted, or someone guilty of a crime NOT being convicted? I, and most people, would say the latter."

          I would assume (not trying to build a strawman) that this would be your general line of thinking. I'd rather have the occasional "oops, we should have classified that" than "we're being safe and classifying everything (including stuff that's classified and shouldn't be).

          An occasional blunder to not classify something that should have been secret is less dangerous to a free society than having everything locked up (probably embarrassing things too). I have a friend who works for the DoD in an intelligence role. He once said, and I quote, "No one ever got fired for over-classifying information". That is a mindset we need to change.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Angst Badger (8636)

          Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

          That's frighteningly naive. If you create a system in which people can use the pretense of national security to commit heinous crimes, then they will as a matter of statistical certainty use it to commit heinous crimes. If it works, they will be emboldened to commit more numerous and more heinous crimes. If there is no internal regulatory mechanism to stop the cycle -- and generally, there is not, for "national security" reasons -- then you either helplessly watch as your country is imperiled by increasingl

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by unbug (1188963)

          But is Wikileaks the entity that gets to decide what should and shouldn't be classified?

          Which entity should decide this? Why would it be more qualified to do so than Wikileaks or anyone else?

          Which is worse? Something not supposed to be classified NOT being leaked, or something SUPPOSED to be classified being leaked? I, and most people, would say the latter.

          Well, tolerating the former leads directly to a system where people with the power to classify things are not accountable to anyone and where nobody knows what they do. Which, in turn, always leads to all sorts of utterly horrible things. The latter seems to happen quite often recently and what horrible things that have happened because of it? I don't know about most people but I quite definitely think the

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Jeian (409916)

        This may be true; however, I can state with almost certainty that Wikileaks does not have the authority or understanding to determine what is validly classified and what is not.

    • by JDmetro (1745882) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:08AM (#31597918)
      National security is an excuse used when a government does something illegal and doesn't want anyone to know.
      And remember if you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to hide.
    • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:08AM (#31597924)

      There are national security laws for a reason.

      True, but those laws are not the highest laws of the land.

      Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

      Actually, many government officials think they are above the law and can apply state secrets laws indiscriminately and without regard for constitutionality. It has been a huge problem throughout the history of the US, because it is very difficult for the fourth estate and the judicial branch of our government to provide the proper checks to balance misuse of that power because of the secrecy involved. What Wikileaks has been doing in many (but not all) cases is protected whistleblowing, protected freedom of the press, and protected free speech that the courts most likely will rule as constitutionally protected if they ever actually make it to court.

    • by davegravy (1019182) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:09AM (#31597932)

      Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

      When national security laws are used to cover-up the immoral actions of high-level personnel, Wikileaks *IS* above the law.

      • Think again (Score:3, Insightful)

        by westlake (615356)

        When national security laws are used to cover-up the immoral actions of high-level personnel, Wikileaks *IS* above the law

        The essence of principled civil disobedience is that you accept the consequences of your actions.

        You do not proclaim yourself to be above the law.

        If only because for the first - and quite possibly the last - time in your life, your words will be taken at face value.

        Where there is no respect for law, the dissident - the inconvenient - the unwelcome - the dangerous - simply disappear. Wh

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

        When national security laws are used to cover-up the immoral actions of high-level personnel, Wikileaks *IS* above the law.

        I would argue that within the terms you have listed they are not "above the law" but ARE acting within the law. Whats more, they are in those cases, acting in a way specifically protected and sanctioned by that same law.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They are not in USA and do not have to follow our wishes. If the foreign combatants who have broken the video signal encryption for our drones have shared video with them then they should share it if they wish. They have not promised anyone that they will not show something that normal US citizens have no access to online.

      whether our defense folks like this or not is not their concern, as leakers....

    • by Jurily (900488) <jurily@NETBSDgmail.com minus bsd> on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:12AM (#31597986)

      Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

      I was told the First Amendment is above the law.

    • by MRe_nl (306212)

      There are freedom of information laws for a reason.
      If the defence departement is going to hide sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws -- and it might well be -- then of course Wikileaks are going to take steps,
      the same way they would with anyone else.
      Why anyone using/working on National Security thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

      To what extent, for the sake of national security, should individual rights and freedoms be restricted and can the restriction of civil r

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by toastar (573882)

      There are national security laws for a reason. If Wikileaks is going to publish sensitive information that is genuinely covered by those laws — and while I haven't seen the details, if this really is military video footage it might well be — then of course the security services are going to take steps, the same way they would with anyone else. Why anyone using/working on Wikileaks thinks they are above the law, I have never understood.

      How can you not understand Freedom of the Press?
      The constitution is above any other law.

      Have you read the case surrounding the pentagon papers?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagon_Papers [wikipedia.org]

      The only way this this sort of service treasonous, is if you consider the american public to be your enemy.

    • There are national security laws, and there are also exceptions to them. NYT v US [wikipedia.org] found that the release of the Pentagon Papers was protected under the First Amendment freedom of the press since they didn't actually jeopardize national security even though they were classified as such. With that precedent the Supreme Court gave us citizens (provided we're unbound by secrecy agreements) the ability to make an independent evaluation of whether it's proper to keep something secret, though we have to be willi
    • by b4dc0d3r (1268512) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @02:10PM (#31600902)

      National security laws exist for a reason, but they are often enforced for entirely different reasons.

      Based on the description, there is absolutely nothing here that qualifies for protection. If the military made a mistake and killed innocent people, this news will come out instead. If it was intentional, the only proper course is to expose it.

      The only reason "national security" would qualify as an excuse is the fear of backlash or "blowback", either from the citizens or from a foreign country, depending on who was murdered. I don't think whatever this is can top the extraordinary rendition news, or Abu Ghraib, or waterboarding, or detainee "suicides", or anything else that has come out so far. It will add a small amount of fuel to an already huge flaming hatred, at most.

      If they do reveal specifics like troop movements or secret agent names, they will be attacked in any way possible, including labeling them enemy combatants and dropping a bomb on them. So I doubt they are going to that level. I don't know what documents WikiLeaks has chosen NOT to show, but the ones they have shown were necessary for the public (or parts of the public) to know and do not put national security at risk.

      I see no reason to expect that they are going to announce something that will get them high on America's target list in advance of releasing it. I also see no reason for anyone to be surprised that the CIA wants to know what this is before anyone else sees it. That's their job, and unless they can infiltrate WL or hack some servers real quick like, the only way is the classical way - follow people, take pictures, and ask questions. Citizens may be held without charges for a limited time, and I don't see this being violated anywhere.

      In other words, it's all going as one would expect. I want to know what it is now, where before I didn't know that I wanted to know what something was. So thanks, editor, for going through 22 hours of persecution as a publicity stunt, if it helps the cause.

  • Don't do that (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:05AM (#31597862) Journal

    'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours

    Following someone for 22 hours and detaining someone for 22 hours are so incredibly different they should not be lumped together like that. It's the difference between a creepy stalker and an oppression of basic freedoms.

    Don't leave it up to my imagination how long each of those 4 actions took place. Because I'm imagining the "detaining" being about 15 seconds as they accidentally walked into each other, and then they both stepped to the side, oops still in the way, stepped to the side again, oops, and did this about 5 times.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by jdgeorge (18767)

      'following/photographing/filming/detaining' an editor for 22 hours

      Following someone for 22 hours and detaining someone for 22 hours are so incredibly different they should not be lumped together like that. It's the difference between a creepy stalker and an oppression of basic freedoms.

      Don't leave it up to my imagination how long each of those 4 actions took place. Because I'm imagining the "detaining" being about 15 seconds as they accidentally walked into each other, and then they both stepped to the side, oops still in the way, stepped to the side again, oops, and did this about 5 times.

      I'm sure this ambiguity was completely accidental. Surely the Wikileaks folks would ever sensationalize anything, or present it out of context.

    • Re:Don't do that (Score:5, Informative)

      by Nadaka (224565) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:21AM (#31598142)

      The summary is not the story. one editor was detained 22 hours and had is laptop "confiscated", another was followed internationally, their editorial meetings were bugged, and recorded.

      • another was followed internationally, their editorial meetings were bugged, and recorded.

        So, in other words, there is going to be a leak about how wikileak editorial meetings go?

    • Re:Don't do that (Score:4, Informative)

      by jdgeorge (18767) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:26AM (#31598212)

      Appears there's some interpretation/conflation by the person who submitted the Slashdot summary. What the relevant tweets says is:

      "WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation. Following/photographing/filming/detaining. "
      Then, later:
      "One related person was detained for 22 hours. Computer's seized.That's http://www.skup.no"
      and
      "We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the airstrike."
      followed by
      "We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Don't think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks."

      (see, you could have gotten all this by following the link in the summary). I've got to say, the hubris implied by that last one seriously reduced by sympathy for these guys.

  • Really? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Slash.Poop (1088395)
    A Twitter page is now the source /. is running with?
    I suppose when you put "it appears" and "apparently" you can just pass anything off as "news".
  • Don't think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks.

    Yeah, yeah. I know... you are legion, and you don't forget, and you don't forgive.

  • by OdoylesRule (1765008) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:18AM (#31598096)
    It's easy to decry from the position of luxury afforded by enjoyed freedoms. "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:20AM (#31598114)

    The original tweet has been removed.

    This was the original text:

    "WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am; contact press-club@sunshinepress.org 10:43 PM Mar 21st via bit.ly"

    Two possibilities: they're planning immediate release, or they decided to give up with it.

  • by tnk1 (899206) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:23AM (#31598174)

    If you are decrypting or gaining access to decrypted classified video, what do they expect is going to happen? Even if the video shows things that the government doesn't want us to see, I'd be a little disturbed if they did nothing about the breach of security. It's like saying that if a guy knocks over a bank with my money in it, it's okay for him to have done it as long as he only took the money from the mobsters who use the bank. Determining that footage "shows bad things" is not a security determination, it's a political determination. I don't want security personnel making value judgments about the data that is entrusted to their care. If it is classified, they need to find out who the leak is and deal with it.

    To be honest, while I think its a good thing that cover-up data can come out, I worry a little that throwing raw data out there with interpretations like "murder-coverup" is just as political an act as covering it up, not to mention a little sensationalistic. I mean, if its airstrike footage, it's not like they brought the aircraft camera into the room to film the alleged conspirators rubbing their hands together and saying "terminate them!". It's a grainy black and white video of someone launching a missile or a laser-guided bomb and hitting something. Maybe there is some date/time or even location data in the video. What I don't expect we will see is "TERMINATED: Abdul Sayyid al-Derka HEADSHOT +50 points" pop up on the screen.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by phayes (202222)
      Video taken from the point of view of the designating laser (if it was ground based) can be back-tracked. Even if the video is from the launcher information on the designator used can be determined & be useful in many cases. The less al-queda knows, the better.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by vlm (69642)

        Video taken from the point of view of the designating laser (if it was ground based) can be back-tracked. Even if the video is from the launcher information on the designator used can be determined & be useful in many cases. The less al-queda knows, the better.

        Which is why they wait a couple weeks before publicizing. They have either very specific or general knowledge that our guys on the ground will have rotated out of that area by the time the publicize the video. Its entirely possible the guy that leaked the video wanted to watch CNN the day its released on his day off so provided them with a demand, which they are honoring.

        If, in an alternate history, you shot an AA gun precisely straight upward from Ploesti Romania in early August of 1943, you could have t

  • by Vinegar Joe (998110) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:43AM (#31598488)

    This proves he's a war criminal/fascist dictator!

  • by russotto (537200) on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @11:46AM (#31598558) Journal

    If you've got some hot information that you know governments will try to suppress, why the heck would you give them a few weeks to do so? Just put the information out right away; then it's too late to be effectively suppressed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by R3d M3rcury (871886)

      If you've got some hot information that you know governments will try to suppress, why the heck would you give them a few weeks to do so?

      Well, a few reasons come to mind:

      1. The information may be dangerously time-sensitive to those who provided it. For example, if it is an image of a building, that means that troops may be in the area. If you give it a few weeks, the troops will be gone and it may be safe to show the footage.
      2. While I love my blogs and such, the Mainstream Media is really the way to get information out. But they need some time to get everything together. Giving them some notice means a better chance that reporters will be al
  • by Alain Williams (2972) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Wednesday March 24, 2010 @12:39PM (#31599454) Homepage
    If you are going to feel embarrassed when someone exposes things that you have done, the solution is quite simple: don't do bad things.

    It is not just the USA - look at how Israel has been caught forging British passports so that it could a Hamas leader [bbc.co.uk]. Governments do dirty deeds and then pretend that they did not. The world would be a better place if governments where run by honest, decent people - from top to bottom.

The economy depends about as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters. -- Jean-Paul Kauffmann

Working...