Pentagon Seeking Out Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange 628
a user writes "The Pentagon is desperately seeking the 'cooperation' of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, in order to stop him from releasing over 250,000 pages of confidential foreign policy documents. The documents were allegedly provided to Assange by Bradley Manning, the same solider who leaked a video showing a US Army helicopter killing unarmed civilians and international press correspondents."
We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:5, Funny)
Could you just provide us your GPS co-ordinates? Thanks!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Could you just provide us your GPS co-ordinates? Thanks!
Better not do that. They are uncomfortably close to mine.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:5, Informative)
The things that stood out to me:
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>According to the Daily Breast
Now THAT'S my kind of newspaper. ;-) I think the Wikileaks founder should ignore the Pentagon. The leaking of video showing soldiers killing reporters, children, and other innocents is exactly what this country needs to erase the myth that government is "good" for us. Or that leaders can be trusted. Fucking bastards. They promised to end this damn war years ago, and yet here we are. The only way it will end is if, like Vietnam, we turn public opinion against the war and the government.
Keep up the good work Mr. Manning.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:5, Insightful)
The camera that the reporter was carrying was mistaken for a rocket launcher. The reporter's fate was sealed when he aimed that thing in the direction of our troops on the ground.
There were no allied troops in the area. It took about 10 minutes for US Bradley vehicles to show up after they were ordered to the site. The helicopters were just blowing people up they thought looked suspicious, on open city streets. The pilot states that there are AK-47s and rocket launchers, but in the video (purported to be higher quality than what the gunner sees), I can make no such identification.
The fate of the occupants of the van later driving by, two adults and two children, was also sealed when they saw the Reuters cameraman's driver badly injured on the sidewalk (by a previous volley of American bullets from the sky). They stopped, got out to assist, carried him to their van, and then were repeatedly blasted by another hail of bullets from the Apache pilot.
They arrested a hero whistleblower, at least for revealing this video. The government lied, and denied Reuters FOIA requests for information regarding how their reporters were killed, to continue the coverup. The pentagon probably wants to contact Assange to get a statement or any evidence about receiving '260,000 pages' (perhaps a fantasy) so they can throw Bradley in prison for life for the embarrassment, while the Apache gunner gets his GI bill to live another life (and probably become a police officer).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's false, however. There were American troops a few blocks down the street. The part in the video where the photographer leans out and snaps some shots? He was taking pics of the Bradleys sitting down the street. (they recovered the cameras and those were the last pictures taken) Of course it took 10 minutes for troops to get there. You don't just rush headfirst into a waiting potential ambush. If you didn't see the rockets/AKs, you weren't looking hard enough because I spotted at least one of eac
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not all of them are filled with high explosive. The M230 chain gun on the Apache can use either the M788 Target round (non explosive,) the M789 HEDP (Dual-purpose explosive round) or the M799 HEI (Explosive Incendiary.)
And at 30mm, you really don't need explosives to rip the human body apart.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:5, Insightful)
What video did you see?
The "group of armed man" was actually a group of around 12 guys, all in a pretty relaxed attitude, none of them was pointing their guns at anything. Only a few of them had guns. Some of them where reporters.
They fired mercilessly destroying the whole place. They stayed to check if anyone was moving, when they saw a few still alive, wounded, agonizingly crawling on the ground, the shoot them again.
Then a minivan appeared, carrying UNARMED CHILDREN AND ADULTS, to clean up the mess, help the wounded, bury the dead. They where all shot dead. They guys in the helicopter new there were kids. And they said (over the radio) "It's their own damn fault for carrying kids to a war zone".
Well, damn, that wasn't a war zone until the US military arrived. And guess what? They had no reason whatever to be there. They made up a war because they needed to sell weapons. Try defending that.
Also, you guys need a good derogatory slang for "military". In Spanish, we say "milicos de mierda". That's the only way anyone here refers to anyone even remotely linked to the murdering machine that is the military.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're commenting on the politician who sent the troops there, or the troops? There is a difference. I have no use at all for George Dubya Bush and his cronies. I thought the reasons given for invading Iraq were bullshit - and I hate the Bush administration for giving people like you ammunition to use against the military. But, if you're honest, you'll admit that the troops and the politicians are easily distinguishable. The politicians, to a man, are cowards hiding behind the guns held by the troops.
I respect the troops, for doing the dirty jobs they are sent out to do.
I have no respect for the politicians who can't figure out when and where the troops should be used.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to be a combat veteran to comment on what should be common sense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, you don't - but it helps when you know what you're talking about.
If you have never stood at the wrong end of a gun, it's near impossible to imagine being there for days, weeks, or even months.
Personally, I've only spent several hours of my life standing at the wrong ends of lethal weapons. I don't consider myself qualified to judge the actions taken by front line soldiers, day in and day out. But, at least I have a few clues about what they are going through.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can try and justify this all you want, but I'm still not sure how it is anything less than cold blooded murder.
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:4, Insightful)
Listen to the fucking audio. They were dying to murder those guys. They knew there were children in the minivan (the minivan that came by to pick up the wounded and bury the dead) and they said "it's their own fault for bringing the kids to a war zone", and proceeded to open fire on them. They killed childs, knowingly.
This is not WWII. This is not a war at all, it's an invasion. The US invaded another sovereign nation. Also, this guys are full of technology. This wasn't some guy with a shitty riffle shooting through the jungle and hitting the wrong target. The only reason most people join the military is because they are murderers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
META Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhhhh - I didn't see the same video you saw. I saw an Apache firing on a group of armed men, located in an area from which our ground troops took fire.
The thing that I find most interesting about this argument is that the predominant sides of the argument consist of the side that says, "These guys were irresponsible/criminal Rambo-types. They/we need to do better!" versus the side that says, "These were good soldiers doing the best they could in trying circumstances. Bad things happen in war."
Now, considering that the fighting in Iraq is an anti-insurgency campaign, and the U.S. military is supposed to be winning "hearts and minds," dead civilians, dead reporters, wounded/dead children foster hatred of the U.S. and undermine the mission. Therefore, the people defending those soldiers and saying that mistakes happen are essentially saying this:
"This war cannot be won."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And, your translation is probably on target. You don't win hearts and minds in an occupied territory. A nation that is only ~200 years old, is certainly not going to do much "nation building" in a region whose history goes back ~5000 years. We've shot ourselves in the foot on this one. No matter when, or how, we finally pull our last troops out of Iraq, within two decades (at the outside) Iraq will probably have a theocracy in place, AND be aligned with Iran. (Keep in mind that the US toppled a perfec
Re:META Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, considering that the fighting in Iraq is an anti-insurgency campaign, and the U.S. military is supposed to be winning "hearts and minds," dead civilians, dead reporters, wounded/dead children foster hatred of the U.S. and undermine the mission.
Exactly. If you really want to win hearts and minds, taking the risk that you might be shooting unarmed civilians is absolutely the worst thing you can do. If you want to win hearts and minds, you need to trust people, and in return show that you can be trusted. Paranoia does not win you any hearts and minds. It just breeds more hostility, more violence, and more enemies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're welcome to use the insult. Just for info, a "push-button" in the Navy is any technician who got to sit around in a nice cozy classroom for a couple years, then sewed a Petty Officer's insignia on, just for graduating. Not a terrible insult, but somewhat derogatory when used by men who had to EARN their ratings the hard way. A "shitbird" in any branch is the worthless little turd who never manages to do anything right, and is consistently more trouble than he is worth. Shitbirds are more often dis
Re:We promise we won't hurt you. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Damned shame that a veteran who has a clue feels the need to post as AC in a discussion like this, on /.
How is it that liberals seem to dominate a tech board? Did most of you graduate from Berkeley, or some such?
Whatever - I'll post my opinions however unpopular, under my own name, and let karma take care of itself. ;^)
They know not what they seek! (Score:5, Funny)
Good luck finding "Julian" as if such a man would have parted ways with his real name. He is a master of 27 languages and knows the local customs as if he recited them as his daily prayers. This is a man who possesses a near chameleon like instinct and can instantly blend into the background anywhere. Only further surpassing his ability to sink into the inky blackness are the hundreds of contacts he has made from here to hoover damn. Hell, even the rocks and streams seem to offer the man comfort if so much as he breathes a heavy sigh.
I can only laugh when the Pentagon says they want to find "Julian." Just considering the sheer number of hells they'll need to climb down to find the darkest demon who might be able to guess what "Julian" had for lunch just makes me chuckle.
Either that or the Pentagon can just send him an email.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They know not what they seek! (Score:5, Funny)
Good luck finding "Julian" as if such a man would have parted ways with his real name.
Obviously, he is The Most Interesting Man in the World, and only drinks Dos Equis... Or something.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Julian says to the Pentagon, "Stay thirsty my friends."
Re:They know not what they seek! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
In Soviet America (Score:5, Funny)
This started over 12 hours ago (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Give him a Nobel Prize (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Give him a Nobel Prize (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree 100%
What are we afraid of? our own actions? Well then we certainly shouldn't be hiding them. We should be rethinking them.. but first we must know the truth.
Release it all.
The government has screwed over our own people for many years now. Time for a little pay back.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Give him a Nobel Prize (Score:5, Interesting)
That may be the only way to wake Americans up. If the world gets pissed at us because abused our privilege as one of the worlds most prosperous countries, and abdicated our authority to corrupt politicians as we drank Starbucks and watched American Idol, we will simply be getting what we deserve. The citizens of the US needs a wake up call before those assholes in Washington destroy this country.
Re:Give him a Nobel Prize (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't generally post on Slashdot... but couldn't resist. Post them. Now. Please. No doubt it'll hurt US relations with who-knows-who... but the truth is always the best way to create the best change. One day, this man should be nominated, and win, a Nobel Peace Prize.
And you sir should please promptly provide your name, SSN, birthday, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, place of residence, and any PINs or passwords you may use.
It could be that you will not reply with this information as requested, because your purported reverence for "truth" does not extend to disclosing information which would enable others to do you harm.
Well, welcome to the world of classified information, where if operatives get outed, they get a bullet in the back of the head. I'm not sure what's contained in the yet-to-be-released documents, and maybe indeed some or all of it is information that should be brought before the public eye. But I have a feeling (as will be evidenced by your lack of compliance with my request) that your gungho damn-the-consequences attitude to disclosure is based strictly on the supposition that you aren't going to be one of the direct sufferers if things turn out poorly.
I would like everything our government does to have oversight, but in many cases (witness protection, undercover investigation, battleplans, etc.) the correct mechanism for oversight is to create overseers (judges, internal investigators, et al.) who can answer to the public without compromising their safety and well-being by letting any hostile person have the same information. If that system fails then intentional leaks may be a justifiable recourse.
God help us if there was anything, that, say, put crazy little Kim Jong Il in a missile firing mood.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Releasing this classified information could result in people being embarrassed. Big deal, right? It could result in international relations degrading or outright collapsing. Big deal, right? It could result in operatives
Wikileaks doesn't possess these documents (Score:3, Interesting)
according to WikiLeaks' twitter feed [twitter.com]: "Allegations in Wired that we have been sent 260,000 classified US embassy cables are, as far as we can tell, incorrect."
Would Wikileaks have a reason to lie and withhold these messages, if the US govt. has the capability to find out if Manning sent them to Wikileaks? Maybe he leaked them, but to someone else, and it was simply assumed to have been to Wikileaks?
Re:Wikileaks doesn't possess these documents (Score:4, Interesting)
This guy Manning (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
Manning, 22 [...] As an intelligence specialist in the US army, Manning
I fail to see how a 22 year old guy can be an "Intelligence specialist".
(and get off my lawn BTW).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If you score high enough on the ASVAB test (IIRC 90th percentile & above), recruiters are apt to push you into Intelligence. That's what the recruiter who reviewed my test scores in high school said.
Assuming he enlisted right out of high school, he could have been assigned to an intelligence unit (or assigned intelligence duties in a line unit) for approx. four years, which is plenty of time to get enough experience to be a "specialist".
UCMJ Article 106 (Score:5, Insightful)
Much more interesting to me is what will happen with the dummy that leaked the info. Article 106 of the UCMJ defines this offense as punishable by death. This soldier knew with absolute certainty that he was committing a grave offense. A court martial is not handled like your everyday court case, no amount of money is going to save his skin.
What a Hero (Score:5, Insightful)
This is called "journalism" (Score:4, Insightful)
How to know you're doing real journalism: when the powers that be are this pissed off.
The shiny-assed poltroons of the New York Times and the Murdoch press can just fuck off. Really. Whining shits that people aren't giving them free money for rewritten press releases any more. Useless fucks.
Boycott the shitty, shitty press. Tell them why. Give money to Wikileaks [wikileaks.org].
Again wikileaks needs to be totally decentralized (Score:4, Insightful)
Fully and completely. I say it in every wikileaks article here or anywhere. I always draw responses of either "it already it" or "it's fine as it is" and that is bullshit. Wikileaks is one of the most important outlets the world has, to not do everything possible to keep it that way is sheer stupidity.
Hacker Ethic (Score:3, Interesting)
The Hacker Ethic, as maintained by the CCC.
Access to computers - and anything which might teach you something about the way the world really works - should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative!
All information should be free.
Mistrust authority - promote decentralization.
Hackers should be judged by their acting, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or position.
You can create art and beauty on a computer.
Computers can change your life for the better.
Don't litter other people's data.
Make public data available, protect private data.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Interesting)
Good thing he's not a United States citizen then, or else he might be violating his social contract.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Funny)
Yup. Now he's an enemy combatant. Now about those GPS coordinates...
Re:As they should be. (Score:4, Insightful)
You don't get to make that determination yourself
Why the hell not? What, can only "experts" determine that? Funny how the experts are always government paid.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
More people die each year from car accidents in the US then every terrorist act combined yet were not spending hundreds of billions of dollars coming up with scientific ways to prevent that, and it could be done easily. Instead we spend hundreds of billions of dollars coming up with scientific ways to better kill. People are already dying - release the documents.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
With the last decade of torture and other war crimes, I wouldn't trust the Pentagon further than I could throw it.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What if the Pentagon is telling the truth and releasing these documents would cause "serious damage to national security" and people die as a result of your decision?
He will be eligible to work there?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wrong. The people haven't delegated anything for a long time. The state of "democracy" in the US is a joke. We're given a choice between sock puppet A and sock puppet B, and the same person has their hands in both of them. Then once we have chosen which sock puppet is more entertaining, the actual business of governing is then further removed from actual choice because laws are written not by our "representatives" but by special interest groups and unelected bureaucrats. When was the last time congress decl
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your own personal view on whether something should or shouldn't be classified is irrelevant. There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.
I don't know where you live, but I still live in a democracy. So while my opinion on what should/shouldn't be classified might not be the definitive one, an important one, or even a good one.. it's always a relevant one. You presumably live in a dictatorship, so I can see how you might have a different opinion on it. Of course, your opinion on everything is irrelevant, since you live in a dictatorship.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your opinion on what should and shouldn't be classified has no direct relevance to the situation, if this isn't want you want you should exercise your democratic rights by participating in the same democratic process that established the current classification processes.
This discussion we're having right now is a big part of that process. Speech is obviously a necessity in a democracy. This idea you have that democracy is sitting in isolation, calling up your representative and having a little chat with him/her is utterly ridiculous. Democracy happens by people forming opinions, and voting for people who hold those opinions. Peoples opinions are influenced by discussion. Giving your opinions to elected officials is part of the process, but it most certainly isn't the only part. Does this really have to be spelled out for you?
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
I really hope this is a troll. If so, kudos - it is very well done.
If not, I weep that there are actually people who think this way. It is instructive to understand this kind of mindset. If the democratic will says it's ok, then it must be ok. Countless atrocities committed in the name of the majority have occurred on the basis of this mode of thinking. The Holocaust comes to mind.
I think I'm going to be sick.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.
Really, did _you_ vote on it, will your vote be reaffirmed every generation or so to ensure its still what the people want ?
Perhaps you should have said, a previous generation let the powers that be keep secrets from everyone, and now we cant get them to give up their power.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every 4 and 6 years I elect representatives that ideally can adjust policy to suit the desires of current generations.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Informative)
In my opinion, though, the most interested detail is the motivation for nuclear launch codes. As you pointed out, there should be (and there is) some physical security measure in place to ensure that some random guy does not launch a nuclear missile. The purpose of the arming codes is not to prevent Joe Schmoe from starting World War 3, but to prevent the soldiers themselves from doing so without authorization. Prior to the Kennedy administration, nuclear bombs were armed when they were deployed (dropped from an airplane), and the only measure in place to prevent a pilot from doing so without orders was a single soldier standing near the plane, who was supposed to shoot the pilot in such a situation -- but the commander might issue the order to strike without authorization.
As for the codes being leaked...that was considered as well. The codes change frequently, some change daily (i.e. the codes that the president carries -- there are other codes, like maintenance codes), so even a leak would have a low potential for causing a problem (a pair of rogue soldiers hell bent on launching a nuke would have to get the authorization codes on the same day they are leaked).
Really, people bring up nuclear secrets (and for some reason, launch codes) whenever they want you to abandon all logical thought and stop questioning the need for broad secrecy. A lot of things that people think are secret really are not secret, or are things that were once secret but are not anymore: it used to be the case that anything related to nuclear weapons, even chemical data about the fuel, was automatically classified, but that policy was relaxed somewhat. Sure, there are things that are secret and that are better kept secret, like the locations and planned movements of US military units in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the identities of spies in foreign countries, but there is a limit and things are supposed to be declassified after a certain amount of time, with certain rare exceptions.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so.
Yes. And Hitler was elected in democratic elections as well. (I know, I know, Godwin's Law) Just because we voted on it doesn't mean it's always the best case. We generally aren't informed on what exactly we're voting on. In this specific example, we're voting on who gets to keep things secret. Which means by definition we _can't_ know what exactly we're deciding. This is exactly _why_ we need people to leak things.
There's the famous saying about preferring that a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished for a crime he did not commit. I consider this to be quite similar. I'd rather have a thousand national secrets leaked than have that one thing covered up. Just because it's not the next Holocaust doesn't mean it isn't something that needs to be released. Not enough people leaked what was happening in Nazi Germany until it was too late, likely because they were afraid of the consequences. The more tools to lessen the consequences, the better.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Informative)
And Hitler was elected in democratic elections as well.
No, he wasn't, stop spreading that BS please. Hitler was appointed by Hindenburg, then engineered the Reichstag fire, then enacted draconian laws on grounds of security, used that to rig the next election, which still didn't bring him majority. He then forced Hindenburg out, forced the new Reichstag into giving him legislative powers, effectively suspended the constitution, and then proceeded on to murder his opposition in and outside of his party, and, finally, using the "emergency" legislative powers to declare himself a Furher. Or somesuch. But he was never elected at any point of his national political career by a majority.
Re:As they should be. (Score:4, Insightful)
You've played this little switch to make it look like WikiLeaks is the custodian, the watchman...but your own logic proves otherwise. You even say that this is Pentagon information, that some secrets should be kept secret and that by just living in the US, we've agreed to that contract.
Wrong, sir. Simply wrong. I'm going to bypass most of what you said because it's simple double-speak. You frame this in a way that is cowardly. Unarmed civilians, collateral murder...both within quotes as if to say that killing unarmed people is okay, that it is a justification. I'm not going to wade into the situation of the battle, but I posit to you that we can and should do better.
The government makes mistakes and we have seen too many times that it tries to cover them up rather than owning up to them. As a country we should strive for that higher ideal. Then perhaps the need for secrets, especially of a botched military operation where civilians died, doesn't need to become a state secret.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope for intelligent responses to this post that actually acknowledge the need for some information to be protected, and for processes to protect that information, of which the government is the steward. Or, for any reasonable alternative other than any and all information should always be able to be indiscriminately leaked without fear of reprisal.
Well, I agree that some information needs to be protected.
In my opinion, most of the governments in the world use their control over information to the great detriment of their citizenry. They do this on purpose, with malice and forethought. I presume that most people who are in charge of making this happen rationalize it with thinking that they're somehow serving the greater good. In point of fact, they aren't. I can't state that emphatically enough. They are not serving any greater good, no matter wh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Not sure which asshole mod modded this redundant. This is an excellent post. Particularly "the information discredits us whether or not its secret."
If the information is embarrassing to the US, then perhaps we should stop doing things that embarrass us.
Intelligent Response (Score:3, Insightful)
Aside from the fact that the Army had no reason whatever to believe that the "unarmed civilians" featured in "Collateral Murder" were "unarmed", and the fact that he skipped out on a planned appearance at a panel today in Las Vegas, NV...
Isn't it supposed to go the other way around? You shoot at people who you know are armed and actively dangerous. You often don't have perfect information in war and going on unfounded hunches and "innocent" assumptions can cost innocent lives.
In free and democratic societies, an individual deciding on his or her own to leak classified information is a subversion of that very democratic process. In the US, we have collectively decided, as a society, that some information should be kept secret, even from The People, and we have empowered and entrusted the government with the power to do so. When an individual, on his or her own, decides that some secret information should be leaked -- no matter the reason -- they subvert that process. It is nowhere near akin to leaking sensitive information from totalitarian or repressive regimes, or even from corporate entities. Some might assert that information is overclassified, or classified such as to hide wrongdoing or illegal or questionably behavior. Fine, but: 1. You don't get to make that determination yourself. However...
Correct, the people who may have "classified it such as to hide [possible] wrongdoing or illegal or questionably [sic] behavior" make that determination. You are simply saying that is how it is, but is is not ought. Is that how it ought to be?
2. ...if you do, this kind of decision is a moral/ethical one which must necessarily be tempered with consequences. I.e., if, in a free and democratic society, you really believe that a piece of classified information should be released, and you're going to unilaterally decide to do release it because of your own personal beliefs or convictions, you should be willing to pay your society's consequences for it.
People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences (unless they stupidly out themselves, as Manning did). This creates an unhealthy environment for any kind of legitimately protected or sensitive information -- indeed, the rule of law -- in a democratic society.
Your own personal view on whether something should or shouldn't be classified is irrelevant. There are well-known and established processes that govern classification.
Just about the only thing WikiLeaks believes should be protected from leaking is negative information about WikiLeaks itself.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I hope for intelligent responses to this post that actually acknowledge the need for some information to be protected, and for processes to protect that information, of which the government is the steward. Or, for any reasonable alternative other than any and all information should always be able to be indiscriminately leaked without fear of reprisal.
Clearly our nuclear la
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be no consequences
No, they leak to WikiLeaks because they believe (mostly accurately) that there will be consequences.
Whistle-blowers are not a protected class. If you work for an organization that is breaking the law (particularly if that organization is a government agency) and you blow the whistle on their illegal activities, you should fully expect to be fired. That's the reality of the situation.
And if by some miracle y
Re:As they should be. (Score:4, Insightful)
Leaking a video and foreign policy documents does not constitute "treason."
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Specifically, the new intelligence groups created by Bush/Chaney that were outside the regular chain of command should be investigated. If I remember correctly, th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way releasing classified information on foreign policy gives aid and comfort to a nation's enemies is if it exposes some egregious wrongdoing on the part of the nation having its information leaked, in which case moral obligation to expose unlawful practices comes into play
I don't think that this is the case (not that I'm implying the U.S. military isn't innocent or anything). I think this is a case of some pissed-off loser wanting to exact some sort of revenge against his superiors for the slight
Re:As they should be. (Score:4, Insightful)
The only way releasing classified information on foreign policy gives aid and comfort to a nation's enemies is if it exposes some egregious wrongdoing on the part of the nation having its information leaked, in which case moral obligation to expose unlawful practices comes into play
Really? There are no other ways releasing documents could do that? It couldn't for example have details of spies within enemy groups, or details of surveillance techniques, or details about the resolution of spy satellites and their orbits. There are lots of very damaging things that could be here that have no moral problems associated with them at all.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
You're kidding right? Explosions are flashy, they get a lot of attention and everybody sees it. The last thing that a group interested in keeping their activities under wraps would want is for everybody to start looking at them because a critic just turned into a fireball.
Poisonings, "muggings gone wrong", character assassinations, etc. are all much more subtle ways to go about silencing a nuisance. They want a resolution where they can, reasonably, act just as surprised as everyone else. I'd be much more suspicious if he died of a sudden heart attack, or was murdered by an apparent Islamic terrorist than if he went out in a blaze of improbability.
Treason is lying to the american public about WMDs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
I find it astonishing how willingly people will swallow bullshit handwaving out of the desire to avoid conscious guilt.
Let's get the facts straight: The civilians didn't have a rocket launcher. It has been shown that the initial reports were clearly fabricated lies. It shows us a policy of prioritizing military propaganda over professional thoroughness. As such, we have no reason at all to believe their other claims and can only draw conclusion from the raw material we have.
Everyone knows camera's come with rocket launchers (Score:4, Insightful)
Afterall, why wouldn't you add a rocket launcher to a camera? You know you would if you could.
And the 8 million civilians killed in Vietnam alone were all legitimate targets because you liberate a country by doing a holocaust.
The US does not do introspection. They are right they must be because else they would be wrong and that does not fit with the American way of thinking.
Re:As they should be. (Score:4, Insightful)
When you have an Apache helicopter, everything looks like a rocket launcher.
Watching the full video myself, I'm left with the impression that the pilot and/or gunner failed to adequately assess the situation and jumped to conclusions as to the nature of the object being held. Getting into a "firing-style position" i.e. crouching behind a corner with a large rounded object pointed out at a helicopter is a good way to get that person antsy and trigger-happy.
I'm not condoning the event, I think that military should have a strict liability in civilian casualties. Namely, if a civilian dies as a result of your fire, then you're screwed, it doesn't matter what conditions surround the matter.
Re:As they should be. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you trying to claim that the people he gave the information to, who NEVER ASKED HIM FOR IT, should also be screwed?
No, if you'll read my post, I didn't claim that, but...
If so, what if he happened to have emailed the info to you? ...
Oh, I don't knpw...let me think: I probably wouldn't post it to the internet and protect the identity of the person who emailed it to me at all costs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You could say some information should be kept secret ( like military strategies , etc ... ) , but if they can be leaked , they will be leaked , and the chances are it's going to be leaked not to the general public , but to someone with less then good intentions.
That is also an interesting point. If it's on wikileaks, everybody knows its public knowledge and plans can be changed accordingly.
I still think that wikileaks has a bit of a duty to try to filter out stuff that's obviously going to get someone killed if it's publicly known.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
When did 'we' decide this?
You don't have clearance to know that.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Informative)
Do you recall the story that broke soon after the video, regarding a house that special forces stormed on bad intel, in which various people were killed, including two women that the soldiers apparently arranged deceptively so that they could claim in their report that they were previously killed in an "honor killing?" The incident that the commanding general of SOCOM had to fork over a wad of cash and apologize for? If there had been a video of that, with black-clad soldiers going "Oh shit! I think these people were just civilians!" and then digging out their rounds from the bodies, tying them up, artfully arranging them, and discussing their cover story, how do you think that would have gone over? Instead of everyone forgetting in a few weeks, we'd still be watching the congressional hearings on CSPAN.
Regarding the guncam video, do you find the destruction of the van, and the attack on the building with missiles while apparent bystanders walk by to be equally unavoidable as the deaths of the journalists? I am a little surprised that the video didn't at least make you wonder at all about the wisdom of the RoE they were operating under. You don't have to demonize the pilots and gunners personally to find fault in the incident. The military's reports found that the crewmen did make the right call in every case, and summarily declared all 20+ men killed in the various attacks "AIF" (Anti-Iraq Forces), so you can't write everything off as a tragic mistake; it was tragic official policy.
Even if all of these things are rendered "unavoidable" by our political need for near-airtight force protection (like the dozens of unarmed civilians killed at Afghan road checkpoints), many people are not aware that they occur. If everyone knew exactly what went on in Iraq and Afghanistan, they might not support the military missions there (or future hypothetical invasions) so much; war reporting certainly had that effect during Vietnam. If no one ever gets outraged, what motivation is there to avoid these entanglements, or even to try harder to avoid civilian casualties in the conflicts we are already fighting?
I can only imagine that all the random milita members on the streets with rifles and RPGs that day didn't realize that the helicopters ~1km away were or could be targeting them. I agree that the Reuters stringers took a foolish risk, and that the initial incident is not indefensible. Maybe "AIF" ambushes are always that ridiculously nonchalant. Everything that happens afterward, though...
Also keep in mind that the only reason anyone (any American) ever cared about this incident was that it was subsequently discovered that two of the "AIF" were Reuters stringers. Imagine how many incidents there must have been where people who didn't work for a major Western news organization were creatively classified as insurgents. I'm sure that some of them weren't pointing giant telephoto lenses at the Bradley convoy down the block, and would be harder to blame for their own demises.
Re:As they should be. (Score:5, Insightful)
And what if You were driving your daughters somewhere through your hometown and came upon what to you looked like an explosion with dying people crawling to safety?
To Americans it's the 'warzone' but to people that live there it is 'home'.
Re:Love the guardian (Score:5, Insightful)
Another 5000 name death list as used in 1965 Indonesia?
The names crossed off as killed or captured?
Direct color revolution support, not washed by pro democracy foundations?
Black sights in countries where people where promised never again?
Enough for this generations Daniel Ellsberg?
or a huge list of faith based contractors doing very bad things on endless sole source contracts?
How about Bush, then? (Score:3, Insightful)
How about Bush, then? Outing an agent in cover for political reasons. Why isn't he being taken to task? Because that would embarrass the US. That's why they have all these confidential/classified documents: not because of safety of their people or their operations, but because they would be embarrassed if they got read.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obama himself has threatened to arrest the wikileaker: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fM59bbp0Wsw [youtube.com]
I watched your video: Obama does NOT threaten to arrest the wikileaker in the video. If that isn't what you meant to imply you should make it more clear.
Just to be clear, I am an Obama supporter, but I also disagree with some of the things that he does. But let's have a debate that is focused on the facts and reasoned opinion, not innuendo.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When are people going to realize that the differences between Republicans and Democrats exist only in rhetoric?
When are people such as yourself going to realize that assuming that if neither party doesn't agree with a certain view, that doesn't mean they're "both the same". Have you REALLY not being paying that much attention?
If the rather large differences between the two parties aren't what you care about, fine. But don't ignore the differences just because you don't care about them.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's easier to say they're identical than to expend time thinking.
MOD PARENT WRONG (Score:5, Informative)
I watched the whole video. It doesn't mention wikileaks, the wikileaks founder, or anything surrounding this case at all. The video is about an entirely different leak (of which almost no details are given), and Obama doesn't even threaten to arrest that guy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I looked at the link you posted. It did not show Obama threatening to arrest the wikileaker. In fact, it shows Obama signing a law that is meant to protect journalists' rights. Perhaps you meant another link that actually showed what you said it would.
But in this case, the wikileaker would be Manning, the guy who swore an oath to abide by the Constitution and follow orders. The video of the killings was edited to remove scenes where the gunship did not shoot at confirmed hostile forces that was actively sho
Re:Here comes the court case Judges please be fair (Score:5, Informative)
Er, this was thoroughly explained at the time of the original article - his passport was 'confiscated' because it was old and damaged and wouldn't pass through the bloody readers. It was returned 15 minutes later, and he was informed THAT passport would need to be cancelled. That is, he'd have to go to the post office at some point and request a new one. NOT that his right to a passport had been removed altogether.
No conspiracy there, just customs informing him his old and tattered passport needed replacing. Happens all the time to regular travelers.
Re:Unarmed civilians? (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? Didn't you know that the war in Iraq was won in 2003? Or maybe you've forgotten Preseident Bush's speech declaring victory on a certain aircraft carrier about a certain mission whose goals were considered accomplished? [bbc.co.uk] He very clearly stated that is was the "end of major combat operations."
While I'm being facetious here, the point is that you claiming that "war is war" is directly contradictory to the official government stance, which is that the operations in Iraq are a police action. Does the killing of unarmed civilians sound like a valid police action to you? Does that sound like something that will win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis? I'll admit that yes, even in police actions sometimes mistakes can be made but there should be an investigation and if warranted, a trial, not a cover-up.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That is the wrong question. According to the Geneva Convention, the question is, "How did those helicopter pilots know that none of those people were civilians?"
Re:Unarmed civilians? (Score:4, Insightful)
War is war. When you are in the wrong place at the wrong time, you die. It comes with the territory.
The problem with that view of this "war" is that anywhere can be the wrong place, and any time can be the wrong time. So you are talking about a world where summary execution is always acceptable, so long as it is done by a US soldier.
Did YOU watch the video? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well did you? Or did you watch wikileaks carefully edited short version?
The US troops who were being shot at and who arrived on the scene moments after the Apache attack found AK's and RPG's and photographed them in situ.
And they shot the van because according to the rules of engagement giving aid to an insurgent made you a target. War isn't a video game, they didn't have a hit box pop up showing there were children in the van. It was a bad call but understandable in the context.
And yes comparing this to WW
Re:Censorship in times of war (Score:4, Insightful)
It used to be common to engage in pretty wide-ranging censorship of the media for fixed, relatively short periods, while a war was being conducted, such as during World War I. But to do that requires that wars actually end within a few years. If we institute similar censorship for the "War on Terror", when will we conclude that the war ended and censorship can be lifted? My guess is never.