Obama Wants Allies To Go After WikiLeaks 1088
krou writes "Coming on the back of human rights groups criticizing WikiLeaks, American officials are saying that the Obama administration is pressuring allies such as Australia, Britain, and Germany to open criminal investigations against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and to try limit his ability to travel. 'It's not just our troops that are put in jeopardy by this leaking. It's UK troops, it's German troops, it's Australian troops — all of the NATO troops and foreign forces working together in Afghanistan,' said one American diplomatic official, who added that other governments should 'review whether the actions of WikiLeaks could constitute crimes under their own national-security laws.'"
And just who are these "officials"? (Score:3, Interesting)
And later, this:
Wow, who is being alienated? Who are these damn people making these claims, and why isn't The Daily Beast bothering to identify them? Cowards, the lot of 'em.
Infoquake... (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyone read the Jump 225 Trilogy by David Louis Edelman? This garbage sounds like a page right out of those books... The govt needs to keep their mouths shut and their hands off before they end up looking even stupider than they already do. Information wants to be free. If wikileaks dies, it's not like something else won't come up to replace it.
The danger came from the Pentagon's lax security. (Score:2, Interesting)
The guy runs a web site. The USA have become control freaks. The troops were not put in danger by wikileaks they were put in danger by the Pentagon's lax security.
Stenographic reporting of anonymous sources (Score:5, Interesting)
American officials say
Officials tell The Daily Beast
American officials confirmed last month
Now, the officials say,
an American diplomatic official
a Defense Department official marveled.
American officials say.
An American military official tells The Daily Beast
What Crime? (Score:5, Interesting)
For the sake of argument, let's assume that releasing these documents was morally and/or pragmatically wrong/harmful. I'm not entirely convinced of that, but I'll cede the point for this discussion.
What actual *crime* was committed in releasing these documents, that would justify a criminal investigation, limited travel, and general harassment by the government? Certainly the person with original access to the documents committed a crime in releasing them to unauthorized persons, but once that happened, what further crimes have occurred that would justify governmental interference?
Names of Afghan civilians (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:It's not even limited to "troops" (Score:3, Interesting)
Well we all know the Taliban really enjoyed killing anyone who was against them. Their favorite method in the past was public executions by gunfire in the 'ol soccer grounds. These days it's taking them into the bushes and filling their bodies full of bullets and dumping them out on the road. And if you're female, and "rise above your station" you can get anything from acid in the face, and your fingers/hands cut off along with other forms of mutilation to being killed.
Yeah, women learning. Nothing good comes from it.
Re:Good, get the pencil neck (Score:3, Interesting)
And if others ask (Score:3, Interesting)
Strange how this 'leak' was shown to to the US gov and given an ok.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/07/26/times_wikileaks_white_house_meeting [salon.com]
Now its crimes under other allies "national-security laws"?
Using foreign courts to shut down material published in the US is an interesting new tactic.
Why not just use foreign operatives to shut down leakers in foreign lands?
The Soviets and East Germans had some great missions to study.
Warm up the 'presidential finding' printer.
Re:How does (Score:4, Interesting)
Obama vs Bush:
Obama vs Cheny:
Simon.
Re:It's not even limited to "troops" (Score:1, Interesting)
Step 1: Leak the name and location of an informant.
Step 2: Oh no! Terrorist attack!
Step 3: Surprise! Informant was actually an entire squad of heavily armed Marines!
Step 4: Go back to step 1
Every step of the way our military has refused to upgrade its practices to deal with the realities of modern guerrilla warfare. This leak would be an excellent opportunity to clean up some of the taliban rabble, but it's easier to whine about it than it is to set up ambushes to kill the terrorists even though we've been given a list of addresses they're going to show up at. Enjoy another 20 years of trying to "gain ground" with trench warfare where the ground you're gaining is every bit as hostile as the ground you're leaving behind you.
Re:How does (Score:3, Interesting)
So having Gitmo just as bad as it was is "better" than before?
Well, no NEW Gitmos have opened; and no NEW pointless, unwinnable wars have been started; and no NEW states secrets policy is more stringent than anything that came before. So yeah, I'd say this is marginally better. Not good, but standing in place is preferable to constantly stepping backward.
Also, North Korea did their missile testing repeatedly before and we did nothing then, too. What exactly would you have us do? Yet another trillion-dollar war we can't win?
Re:How does (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think the leaked Afghanistan war documents are a 'little egg'. It's clear proof that the war is lost and there is no hope for winning. This whole fuss about the leaked documents are a diversion for other serious issue the current administration failed with: BP, the economy, watered down regulations, broken campaign promisses, etc ...
I think another /. poster said it best when admitting we just have had terrible timing with our presidents lately. Obama would have done everything to save those people in New Orleans after Katrina. And Bush would have done everything to save that oil swirling around in the gulf after New Horizons.
But hey, you know, if Obama was competent, we would never have found out about any of this! I didn't think I would have said this after Bush/Cheney, maybe we need more incompetents as HMFIC (at least as far as gov't transparency goes :P )
Re:How does (Score:3, Interesting)
In every way. Bush and Cheney should have been tried as criminals.
Re:It's not even limited to "troops" (Score:4, Interesting)
So instead of redacting names, why don't they just replace the names of the informants with the names of some Taliban fighters and start an internal war. Am I the only one who thinks spreading FUD into their ranks might be better than handing over our informants?
Well what I haven't seen (Score:3, Interesting)
Is what the public good in releasing them was. Much as I support a person's right to have information they keep private, I support the government's need to keep various things classified. Now, that right is abused sometimes (the Pentagon Papers are a good example) and in that case the data should be leaked. However as I said, I have to see a compelling reason the public needs to know, and in particular one that is more compelling than the government's need to keep it classified. It is not a black and white situation of one side is right, the other is wrong. As with so much in human interactions, there are shades of gray. You have to weigh the public's need to know vs the harm caused and so on.
Thus far I've not been shown why the public needs to know this. Nobody has shown me something in them and said "It is critical that this information be made public." All I've heard about is civilian casualties. Well duh. War is nasty business, which is why it shouldn't be done unless absolutely necessary. People die, and that includes civilians. Anyone who pretends not to know that is fooling only themselves.
So to support Wikileaks in this (especially given the attitude they cop) I need to see what it is that the public needed to know so much that it outweighed the harm.
Re:Really? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Just a thought (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps leaking everything you can get your hands on it's always the best thing to do. Just a thought.
Why don't you start it? You can publish your income, what route you take to work. Anything embarrassing in your past? Oh' post that too. While we are at it how about your address, SSN if you have one, and bank account with routing information. What if I went through your trash and published whatever I find. Next I pay people you trust for dirt and publish that too. Anything I can get my hands on to use your phrase. Those are all illegal acts but I shouldn't be prosecuted. Hey! I'm just doing what I think is right, so I can ignore any laws. Not all information should be public. It may sound like a good idea to the feeble minded and anarchists, but not all secrets need be published.
Re:How does (Score:5, Interesting)
As George Bush and Hillary Clinton both so eloquently pointed out "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." and "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. " respectively.
As Orwell put it: "If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other."
The logic is inescapable. When people take sides and start shooting at each other then they are going to start noticing who you line up with. There is no free press in war.
Re:How does (Score:5, Interesting)
You can only win a war that doesn't exist in the history books.
War was never declared. There is no clearly defined enemy. There is no victory condition. There is no exit strategy.
Afghanistan is a conflict, not a war. Calling it a war gives it undue merit (and we ourselves haven't lived up to the standards that a 'lawful' war would require).
How does the rest of the world feel about this? (Score:3, Interesting)
What is the global outlook and emotional stance towards Wikipedia vs. USA Govt? How does everybody else feel? Who does your locality empathize with the most?
Here it is much infighting, dicking around, pissing, and moaning. I am just curious as to how the USA looks from an outside perspective, either through your own eyes or through the commentary of the international media? Are folks talking about this stuff in the streets of Paris? Are kids discussing this in classrooms in England?
Russia, don't worry, I already know there that in Soviet Russia, documents leak you. Just kidding. Don't go KGB on my ass.
Re:How does (Score:4, Interesting)
And some of them own/employ mercenary companies.
Re: How does (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's not even limited to "troops" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:How does (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: How does (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you going to take up arms and march on Washington?
Didn't think so.
But here's a dangerous question for you to ponder (dangerous in the sense that when I asked it in another forum, I was accused of making death threats and being a terrorist):
How many people, armed, and descending on seats of government with the intent to kill treasonous legislators, judges, and executives, after deciding that no other recourse for their grievances was possible would it take for you to rise up and join them?
10? 100? A thousand? A million? A force larger than the standing military forces combined? How many?
Realize that to do this, you (a) have abandoned all hope in justice being available in the present government, and (b) have embraced the notion of dying on your feet for your beliefs instead of living on your knees: the liberty you might secure probably won't be your own. That's a heck of an altruistic stance to take.
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:3, Interesting)
The U.S. and its involvements (interference) in the affairs of other sovereign nations is simply not appreciated by the majority of the world and this is especially true more recently. If there is anything that threatens the U.S. national security more than anything else, it is the increased disapproval of the U.S. in the world.
I'd love to see your data for this, because as far as I can tell [worldpublicopinion.org], you're just making it up, or quoting anecdotal evidence. It's clear that world public opinion of the US has improved over the last year or two.
It's not clear from your post, but assuming you are from Europe, really, the good opinion of France and Germany is not something that matters to US public security. Just like the good opinion of the US doesn't matter to France's national security. We aren't going to attack each other.
The public opinion in Pakistan does maybe matter to national security, but we aren't going to be able to change the opinion of Islamists as long as we are 'sinners' and have things like 'music' and 'women's rights.' So I'm not too worried about that.
Then make *ALL* information on troops classified (Score:4, Interesting)
How about their credit scores? How about their social security numbers? Why isn't the theft of their identities treated as a netional security concern? Why isn't the buying and selling of their medical records, shopping history, the web pages they surf all a matter of national security?
Why is Wikileaks being targeted, but not TransUnion, Experian and Equifax? The government can't have it both ways (well yes, they can and often do), as it seems they are setting a double standard. It's OK to publish information about the troops if you're selling it to advertisers, but not OK to publish on Wikileaks?
Who's to say that the information TransUnion is selling is any less a threat than what's in those redacted documents? Imagine a soldier with a bad credit history being pressured to do something against national interests by someone claiming they can "fix" the credit history of the soldier...
Re:How does the rest of the world feel about this? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think many people in my country in Europe don't really know how to judge this, because they don't really understand what Wikileaks is and the US goverment's spin/propaganda machine is pretty dominant in the European medias. As far as I'm concerned, it is 100% clear to me that Wikileaks is a media like the press and that Julian Assange should be protected completely from persecution because he is acting as a journalist and was only disseminating information whose confidentiality was already broken. If journalists who publish confidential material are treated like terrorists, something is going in a very wrong direction, and although the law makes a difference I personally don't think it matters much whether you are formally accredited as a journalist or de facto fulfill the role of a journalist. But it seems to me that not so many people in Europe regard Assange as a journalist, partly due to the way the US government has spinned the news. Also, I doubt that many people here are aware of the fact that the US government is mainly angry about the way the documents got published.
Here is how it usually works. Government officials and contacts blackmail journalists: "If you do not ask us before publishing X you or even your paper will be a persona non grata at the White House. If on the other hand you publish the bits we approve, you get other bits of news for free. Oh by the way, I just had lunch with your boss, editor in chief of Y, a few days ago..." Assange doesn't seem to play by this game and that's why they want to crucify him. But as I said, I don't think people in Europe are more aware of this than in the US, and the public is probably split according to their general agenda towards the US.
Re:Don't forget Red State Stupidity. (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet that's exactly what we see these Red State Citizens doing; they actively support warmongering, when they're the Americans who suffer the greatest from war.
You forget, they also like guns
War means free guns!
Re:How does (Score:5, Interesting)
I have in fact perused the data, and while it is overwhelming, I can assure you that I have yet to run across a single one with a name on it. I would like to know, exactly how many names were released, and examples. This entire thing stinks of craftily made government PR machine (the MMM included), to demonize Wikileaks. When they say it endangers troops, I call the bullshit, as they are simply using the age old tactic of misdirection of the public to focus ire at Wikileaks in order to minimize their fallout. Make no mistake, the real issue here is not Wikileaks, or that the documents were leaked (as I have explained in other posts, they tell those of us aware of the situation anything new, we always knew the war was going badly and that Pakistan is a problem) The issue is that we should not be there in the first place. If I send a squad of men to rush a machinegun next minutes before Arty is supposed to drop, and then someone says "Hey, I have information that this guy is sending guys unnecessarily to their deaths" Who is really endangering troops lives here? It is the entire military chain of command, and the politicians who are a threat to our troops well being! As I posted before, "Bottom line, Iraq and Afghanistan are literally not only unwinnable (barring decades and more of perseverance) but were and are indeed mismanaged, misunderstood, unnecessary, and even morally questionable."
Re: How does (Score:5, Interesting)
I suggest to you that 51 million Americans, armed with clubs and the odd rifle, descending on each seat of state and federal government on a few hours notice, could overthrow it. Especially with another 50 million ready in the countryside.
Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan have proven that conventional military does not do well against guerrilla forces. They have technological might, but not agility.
Re:What Crime? (Score:3, Interesting)
You make a good point. Taking a step back and looking at this as objectively as possible, it would seem all guilt of crime lays on the leaker themselves, not the "messenger". Is a citizen of another country bound to US law? I would think not, so then I would have to wonder what kind of mutual "law" his country of citizenship shares with the US, or maybe if there is an international law covering such matters?
Re:How does (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: How does (Score:2, Interesting)
You are profoundly stupid.
You don't mow people down with an air-mounted chain-gun for "being somewhere they shouldn't be". You mow them down, if they're a threat. A few people (including international journalists) standing around on a street, chatting, talking on a cell, and not threatening anyone, waving any weapons around, or in any other way making threatening gestures or actions are not a threat.
Two little children leaning halfway out of a mini-van that you DIRECTLY OPEN FIRE ON are not a threat.
A half dead man crawling to safety on his belly after you opened fire on him IS NOT A THREAT.
Several men arriving to rescue you by putting you in the back of a vehicle to go get you medical attention and also not waving any weapons around IS NOT A THREAT.
In the video, we opened fire on people who posed no immediate threat whatsoever. Then we waited for their rescuers to come pick them up and treat them. AND WE KILLED THEM.
You know who else does that? Terrorists. They blow up a deli in Israel and then they have a second set of bombs rigged to detonate a short time later -- just enough time to allow emergency responders to come and put themselves in harms way rescuing the first victims. And then the bombs go off and murder them, too.
Then, take into consideration the great effort the government took to spread false information about this and hide what really happened. They flat out lied about what occurred there, to make it seem like they were in a life or death battle.
And this is merely one documented instance that has been widely spread. There have been other lesser known instances and they few are likely representative of many more abhorrent violations.
The action was entirely indefensible.
Re:Lying for what? (Score:1, Interesting)
How is that sub program going? Ours are parked 2 minutes flight time off your coast. Enjoy!
Funny thing is, china doesn't need nukes. They played by the rules with the USA and won. They're willing to work harder for less pay for the better of everyone. They have a unified strategy unhindered by the concerns of political correctness and human rights. Though they do run more of a risk of systemic failure from the inside, the US knocks itself down every election cycle. If china can hold together through the next 20 years, it's going to get extremely uncomfortable in the US. Expect a shift to the hard left, a revolution followed by euro style languishing.
Re: How does (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How does (Score:2, Interesting)
I hear from all of these governments and other organizations that wikileaks is most definitely endangering civilians and troops. This fact is so readily apparent that wikileaks must be shut down immediately and Assange arrested. It doesn't matter if wikileaks is attempting to be transparent to its critics by allowing them to contribute by assisting in document redaction, so dangerous is their effect.
Danger, fear, everyone is exposed, our country is in jeopardy, we're on the precipice and completely vulnerable! We're being menaced and we're in immediate peril!!!
Read that fear mongering again and feel the effect of the words. Now, once you've done that, ask: have I presented even one specific danger of wikileaks to anyone? What matters to you more, that I feel strongly about this, irrational though it may be, or that wikileaks is actually endangering people? Do we want to feel secure, or do we want to be secure?
Perhaps in this case specific answers as to how specific individuals are really being endangered is pedantic and beside the point, maybe because it's just so obvious??? (Even so, I think I'd feel better having the specifics pointed out to me nonetheless.)
Re:How does (Score:1, Interesting)
I'd prefer a leader that is willing to face death in order to change things... not one that cowers away. Not one that tries to make everyone happy so he'll get re-elected.
However, as far as the wikileaks thing goes... At least this administration is trying to handle it legally. Bush probably would have detained the guy in a foreign nation as a terrorist while insisting that torture is fine as long as it isn't within our borders. Who needs trials anyways?
It's one thing to point out bugs in an operating system. It's another thing to risk the lives of soldiers that require confidentiality. If anything, hopefully this will lead to some plugging of the confidential holes. The guy can't get in trouble here for it... but with the internet, it isn't just about our laws. That information goes everywhere!
Re:How does (Score:3, Interesting)
Please explain in detail how Obama is
is undoubtedly better than the Cheney/Bush administration
I'm not a Bush supporter, but from where I sit Obama is as bad as or worse. Most of the Bush policies that he campaigned against are still in place and in many cases embraced by the administration.
We now have a fix to the health care system that, from what I have read, is worse than the problems that needed to be corrected, and doesn't address most of the big problems. There is a reason the insurance companies endorsed the bill. I say this as someone who has to interact with the system on a daily basis recently and wouldn't necessarily mond paying more in taxes if they would fix the systemic issues in the system.
Like most consumers drunk on credit, this government continues to borrow and spend at an alarming rate, seemingly oblivious to the rising national debt that is approaching 100% of the GDP, or has exceeded it depending on how you account for entitlements.
In my opinion they ALL need to go, which is why I will not vote for a single incumbent this November.
And say what you want about Bush, but you didn't and wouldn't see Laura Bush (or Hillary Clinton for that matter) galavanting around Europe with her entourage on the taxpayer's dime in the middle of 10% unemployment. I find the do as we say, not as we do Marie Antoinette attitude of this administration to be extremely insulting. Is this an important thing in the long run? Not really, but it still pisses me off. I didn't realize we elected people so they could live a lavish lifestyle. I thought we elected people to do some fucking work and fix shit.
And I don't want to hear the "they all do it" argument. They don't all do it and even if they did it doesn't make it right.
In summary, fuck Bush, but most especially, fuck Obama. Oh, and most very specially, FUCK John McCain.
Re:How does (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, and more to the point, just because someone's name is mentioned doesn't mean they're endangered by it, and even if they are endangered by it, not necessarily incorrectly so. Sometimes people do things that put them in dangerous situations, and in cases where they perhaps should not have been doing those things in the first place, the public's need to know outweighs the natural consequence's of one's own decision.
I'm not saying that in general it's people's own problem, obviously it has to be approached with care when lives are at stake. But at the same time, it is not correct to say in general that the safety of individuals always trumps transparency, particularly if those individuals were acting in a way that depends specifically upon not being held to account.
Full circle (Score:3, Interesting)
So you have now your own samizdat ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samizdat [wikipedia.org] ). Just like in good old times...
Re: How does (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't know how many of the readers of Slashdot actually live in the US, but the "News" that the average Joe sixpack gets (not including Fox, MSNBC, CBN, which is Nothing but outright propaganda) is utterly devoid of anything relevant. The network broadcast news starts out with stuff that we all heard before, filtered and devoid of detail, followed up with a weather or traffic related disaster and ending with "filler", like an old lady of 100 who bowls a perfect game, etc. You end up learning nothing new and only get to see what the network sponsors want. NPR really isn't much better, if you live in the US you have to watch foreign news to get any real information. IMHO there is nothing even approaching a free press here, anytime somebody dares to tell the real truth they get slapped down, demonized and portrayed as a fool/drunk/pedophile/you name it, remember Dan Rather and the G W Bush service record! In the meantime the loyal minions of the Mocha Messiah are planning to cut our meager Social Security benefits (that we paid for) so that they can keep pouring trillions of dollars into these utterly futile, stupid, BULLSHIT wars! Remember these same parasitic, career politicians aren't part of the Social security system (not that they need it, they're all millionaires). This whole Wikileaks thing is an embarrassment to Brown Bush, and it also serves as a welcome distraction from all the true and diabolical evil that the Gummermint is doing.
Re: How does (Score:3, Interesting)
Looking at your reference I note that at most half are not from other first world nations (taking wild ass guesses for 'Europe' and 'Americas' but assuming Asia and Africa are mostly third world immigrants).
Actually, USA is one of the biggest contributors to immigration in Sweden. Guess not everyone is blind around there in USA after all.
Care to comment on how much of Sweden's social system is funded by rapidly depleting Oil reserves?
And Finland? And Denmark? And France? And Iceland? Do they also base their social system in "rapidly depleting Oil reserves"? What about waking up?
Further both Sweden and the United States of America are mixed economies (just mixed differently). Neither is pure capitalism or socialism. IMHO social-democracy has had so many definitions over the last 100 years a to lose all real meaning (like 'Liberal' in the USA).
I agree Sweden is not pure Socialism, but wise up mate, USA is pure Capitalism.
People vote with their feet. Are there more Sweeds in America or Americans in Sweden?
Actually the number is practically the same. So it seems the people has voted already. Your comments are almost ridiculous of how un-informed they are.
"War Is a Racket" (Score:5, Interesting)
Everyone should read War is a Racket [wikipedia.org], written by Marine Major General Smedley Butler [wikipedia.org] in the early 1930s:
Re:"War Is a Racket" (Score:5, Interesting)
An excellent read indeed, wish I had mod points. Smedley Butler is touted as a hero in Marine Corps boot camp. That's not inaccurate - he is a hero. He is one of the most decorated men in US Military history, with two Medals of Honor and a Brevet. What most Marines are not taught in boot camp is this side of him - when he started criticizing the motives behind the wars he was in (Philippines, Boxer Reb., Banana Wars) and was one of the first ones to talk about the Military Industrial Complex. Nor do they mention that he was essentially "in line" to be Commandant of the Marine Corps.. once again, until he started pointing out the collusion between Government and Big Business.
He truly is a forgotten hero.
Re:"War Is a Racket" (Score:3, Interesting)
I think his role in punking the Business Plot [wikipedia.org], the fascist coup planned to usurp FDR, would be an excellent lesson for anyone in America's armed forces.
Though these days the Christianists in the Air Force need the lesson probably more than Marines do.