Wikileaks releases unredacted USA State Dept files....

[jamesdevice]

Better hope your names not on them

"WHISTLEBLOWING WEB SITE Wikileaks has suffered a major setback with a leak of fully unredacted US State Department cables including sources' details surfacing online, thanks to a blunder by its founder, Julian Assange. The leak occurred sometime after Assange shared the password of an encrypted 'insurance' file stored online with a contact believed to have been trustworthy. This individual then used the password to decrypt the collection of 250,000 US diplomatic cables, which include details that could identify US State Department sources, according to the German newspaper Der Spiegel."

Wikileaks suffers a major leak- The Inquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2105200/wikileaks-suffers-major-leak)

what a ****ing idiot

[Jane-DoH]

Generally Assange has tried to avoid releasing information that would seriously endanger national-security; releasing information that would expose misconduct and so forth without doing so.

Regardless, it's surprising how much flak he's gotten hit with. Obviously it's not about him releasing dangerous information, it's about him releasing information that makes the US and other countries look bad. Government's don't like it when their misconduct is being exposed. They already tried to frame him for sexual misconduct, recently he's suffered a major hacking-attack, evidently from the US (his website is now operating out of a Swiss server), and there has been threats made against his life.

My guess is that there are two possibilities

With all the flak Mr. Assange has been taking just for releasing non-damaging information he's figured "**** Mr. Nice-Guy -- I'm just going to release everything -- let them deal with what may come of it." Assuming this scenario is correct, I hope none of the information released isn't too damaging (and for all we know, considering the "danger" from the earlier WikiLeaks releases were hyped as to make them appear far worse than they actually were, this may actually be the case).
The US government hacked into the insurance file, then released it to justify bringing the hammer down on Mr. Assange. After all, if you can't justify cracking down on somebody for a criminal offense; frame them for something which you can. Yes, I know this makes me sound cynical beyond recovery, but it wouldn't be the first time a government's framed somebody it didn't like, and considering the desire of various governments to stamp WikiLeaks out, it wouldn't be terribly surprising to me.


Regardless, I could imagine this will probably justify the destruction of WikiLeaks, possibly the assassination of Julian Assange, maybe even various forms of internet censorship. Needless to say, this easily could be used to justify a host of "cyber security" proposals which are 90-95% dedicated to massive autonomous surveillance and datamining and 5-10% dedicated to actually protecting national infrastructure.


Robyn C.
"Never let a crisis go to waste, and should one fail to present itself: Create one"

[500N]

Jane Doh
"They already tried to frame him for sexual misconduct, recently he's suffered a major hacking-attack, evidently from the US (his website is now operating out of a Swiss server), and there has been threats made against his life."

Did you Italicize the words "(his website is now operating out of a Swiss server)" ?

Does it matter where his server is ? If it's connected to the Internet, it's available for hacking, regardless of location.
And if he happened to vacate the planet for whatever reason, I don't think it would be a great loss.
.

[Jane-DoH]

500N,

I was simply italicizing text in parantheses. All I was saying was that they knocked his server off line, and he relocated to a Swiss site.

[Roadster280]

I can't help thinking that this issue is one where those who have served and those who haven't make their respective backgrounds obvious.

I cannot conceive of a soldier/sailor/airman who would deliberately disclose classified information. It is drummed in from day 1 week 1, that such action is such a massive no-no that you may as well consider your life to be over. In the UK, it is certainly an offence against the Official Secrets Act, if not Treason. Both carry stiff penalties, especially for serving staff.

It really doesn't matter what the content is, embarrassing, private, not that big a deal, presidency-threatening, whatever. It's not something that your average Joe judges. If the bit of paper has "SECRET" stamped top & bottom, back and front, it is just that. Utterly irrelevant what's on the piece of paper.

I don't know what other Governments do, but the UK govt will go to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to recover certain classified information should it be found to be somewhere other than where it should be.

Assange needs to be give 30 years to think about this.

[500N]

Jane-DoH
Doesn't matter where he is located, if they REALLY wanted to knock it off line again they can and would.

Even though it is supposed to be separate from the US Gov't, the US does control the IP addresses for a start and that's before doing anything more underhand.

.

[middleground]

I cannot conceive of a soldier/sailor/airman who would deliberately disclose classified information.

Seriously.......were do you think most of the files came from??????
IIRC it was a US Int Corp guy who handed over most stuff.

I don't know what other Governments do, but the UK govt will go to EXTRAORDINARY lengths to recover certain classified information should it be found to be somewhere other than where it should be.

Train.....Cab.......Bar......Politicians hands.....

[Airborne Aircrew]

500N:


Doesn't matter where he is located, if they REALLY wanted to knock it off line again they can and would.

Sorry but that's not entirely true. There's many who can put up servers that the US can't bring down. They could try blocking them but imagine the furore when, (not if), they get caught censoring the internet... :ouch:

[Roadster280]

Said PFC is in a world of hurt. He's looking at a looong stretch in Leavenworth.

And as for your other point, read what I said again. I said "certain" information. I'm not going to go into what that might be, but it certainly doesn't get into politicians' hands, nor does it go anywhere near pubs, bars trains, taxis or anything else other than where it's supposed to be.

[middleground]

R280

Sorry there was an element of sarcasm with the second comment, so have no reason to read it again.

Quite familiar with looking after classified info thanks

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I recall a Foreign senior officer opposite me leaving a British Secret file on the train table whilst he went to the buffet car. He had no idea I was a Serviceman.
I reported it, naturally, but don't let's kid ourselves that this kind of thing doesn't happen, and quite often. I used to know a WO snowdrop whose team was kept quite busy. Actually, being paid to hang around in bars and strip clubs wasn't that bad a lifestyle - beats traffic duty!

p.s. the aforementioned docs can be found in about 30 seconds. Pandora's box is open.

[500N]

AA

Splitting hairs but the result is the same, whether you call it blocking or whatever.

Denial of service has already been done, however Wikileaks seems to have got a bit smarter now.

[Airborne Aircrew]

500N:

As has atdhe... :ok:

[parabellum]

They already tried to frame him for sexual misconduct,


Correct me if I am wrong Jane but I thought Assange had yet to face court on any sexual charges and was appealing against extradition to Sweden, where he would be further questioned, with just the possibility of charges being laid?

When all the sexual charges have been dealt with Assange still has to face up to the reality that he has been handling stolen property.

[rh200]

:( This is all my fault you know, I jinxed things. Just the other day I was thinking how good it was to not have heard about the creep for a while.

[Airborne Aircrew]

rh200:

Please... Have a strong word with yourself... That was uncalled for!!!! ;)

[ColinB]

What is all the fuss about? It is an old researchers' adage that that there are no secrets only lazy researchers.
The problem here is that the original source is an allegation in a press article and all that implies. It is not fact only a journalists view which may reflect his source and their agenda.
Some time ago I placed on this site a thread that gave the sequence, including code words, for the manning of Corsham in the 'Bolt from the blue scenario' which was deleted. This removal was on the grounds that the code words may be of use to someone. All of the information came from TNA files and was 50 years old.
So perhaps this is the wrong forum to expect balanced and informed judgement.

[cazatou]

Can someone please explain to me how Post 18 by Donalduck can be deemed to be a reasonable reply to post 15 by rh200?

Best I take one of my pills.

[Airborne Aircrew]

Donald is clearly quackers...:}

[rh200]

Please... Have a strong word with yourself... That was uncalled for!!!!


I'll do better and give myself a good spanking, or if I can find someone else they can do it for me:E

Post 18 Donald?:confused: did I miss a feisty repy, dam I need to check more often:sad:

[Donalduck]

You're right... Having reread my post it was a bit uncalled for... and totally quackers! I had a bit of a heart scare this week (Pericarditus) and I could swear its messing with my head.... short tempered... flying off the handle... Is this normal?

P.S. Don't worry I am not a professional pilot but rather Ground Crew so it hasn't affected my job to the extent it could have... I am just a dude who fly's dem crazy ultralight type thingys so I am double quackers...

Sorry to all... I will now shut up and try to keep the chest pain away.:(

[Jane-DoH]

Roadster280

I can't help thinking that this issue is one where those who have served and those who haven't make their respective backgrounds obvious.

I cannot conceive of a soldier/sailor/airman who would deliberately disclose classified information.

What about Bradley Manning? Not that I approve of what he did, but the fact is he was a soldier and did deliberately leak classified information.

It is drummed in from day 1 week 1, that such action is such a massive no-no that you may as well consider your life to be over. In the UK, it is certainly an offence against the Official Secrets Act, if not Treason. Both carry stiff penalties, especially for serving staff.

Yes, but

1.) Julian Assange is a civilian, not a government official or military personnel.
2.) It's not clear if the information he released will cause significant damage (and we've heard all sorts of hype about the danger of the information he's currently released).
3.) It's possible the government decrypted his insurance file and released it to frame WikiLeaks for it as to justify shutting the site down. After all, if you can't find a crisis to exploit, just make your own.


ColinB

The problem here is that the original source is an allegation in a press article and all that implies. It is not fact only a journalists view which may reflect his source and their agenda.

Correct.

[cazatou]

Jane-DoH

"Lord Haw Haw" (William Joyce) was a civilian - didn't save him from the Gallows though.

[ColinB]

"Lord Haw Haw" (William Joyce) was a civilian - didn't save him from the Gallows though.
Posting from France you may recall the Dreyfus case where if someone had have had the fortitude to blow the the whistle a terrible injustice would have been avoided.

[cazatou]

ColinB

The Dreyfus case was in Nov 1894 just 24 years since the War with the Prussians and only 20 years before a Re-united Germany invaded once again - and only 46 years before they invaded yet again in 1940.

People have complained in the past on these forums that French maps are appalling; they have however totally failed to consider the prime purpose of such maps - which is really quite simple.

The prime purpose of French Maps is to confuse the hell out of the German Army the next time they invade!!!

[taxydual]

Q. Why are French roads tree lined?

A. So the German Army can march in the shade.



I know, chapeau et pardessus............

[Roadster280]

Bradley Manning in my view has surpassed all previous similar crimes. Yes, he is a soldier, and therefore has deliberately chosen to do what he did. It's not a case of "he should have known better". He DID know he was committing treasonable crimes, and therefore did so in the full knowledge that not only has he endangered his country, but also potentially the whole world.

If just one of those 250,000 cables indicated US thinking on a particularly sensitive issue (eg "We're OK with the idea of South Korea invading the North" or "If Argentina reinvades the Falklands, we should not interfere on either side", then this alters the world, and affected governments may make choices they might otherwise have shied away from.

Additionally, Manning's disclosure of the plaintext of 250,000 signals that would have been transmitted over secure means has compromised those secure means.

He has caused inestimable damage, caused the DoD/State to incur huge cost, and is an utter disgrace to his uniform, and his country.

The weasel seems to find the spine to do the wrong thing, but not the right thing. For instance, he found the guts to punch a female officer in the face, but had difficulty with being kept in the brig in Quantico.

The man disgusts me. If he cannot be tried for treason, and face the death penalty, then he should be separately charged with disclosure of each of the 250,000 signals. Sentences to run consecutively. It doesn't really matter if it takes 6 months to read out the charges in court, or gets just a day in jail for each of his 250,000 crimes.

He hasn't just crossed the line, he's 15 miles over it, and stuck two fingers up all the way. Time for justice to be done.

Assange is another worthless turd. So Manning stole the info, and Assange decides to publish it for his own self-aggrandisement purposes. If Manning had simply given the info the Russians, he would have been a straightforward traitor, and probably dealt with accordingly. But no, Assange lets the whole world see it. So it's not just one country with the info, it's every Tom, Dick and Harry.

Secrets are secret for a reason. Someone I know tried it on with with my buddy's wife, and it wasn't exactly a hostile approach. My buddy disturbed them in the early stages before it got out of hand. I know he (the cad) did this, but he doesn't know I know. My buddy wants me to imagine it hadn't happened, for he is hoping time will heal his marriage, and it never needs to be mentioned again. I wish he'd never told me of the original deed. I can't look the cad in the eye and consider him my friend anymore. He's just a slimy turd, and always will be. Every time I see the woman, I think "whore".

Between the pair of them, Manning and Assange are despicable ****s.

I trust this clears up any confusion.

[Shack37]

Does it matter where his server is ? If it's connected to the Internet, it's available for hacking, regardless of location.
And if he happened to vacate the planet for whatever reason, I don't think it would be a great loss.


500N
No, it matters not where his server is but what IS important is that people who hold opinions like yourself are in the minority. The disappearance of some really evil people from this planet is not to be lamented, however I don't think Assange falls into this category.
Please don't confuse the embarrassment of governments/politicians with the release of documents which do not compromise the security of our frontline troops.

Secrets are secret for a reason. Someone I know tried it on with with my buddy's wife, and it wasn't exactly a hostile approach. My buddy disturbed them in the early stages before it got out of hand. I know he (the cad) did this, but he doesn't know I know. My buddy wants me to imagine it hadn't happened, for he is hoping time will heal his marriage, and it never needs to be mentioned again. I wish he'd never told me of the original deed. I can't look the cad in the eye and consider him my friend anymore. He's just a slimy turd, and always will be. Every time I see the woman, I think "whore".


I'm sure your "buddy" loves the idea of you classifying his wife as a whore. Comparing this with a national security issue speaks volumes for your mindset. Try respecting your "buddy's wishes.





Roadster
As above. Land of the free.....where would that be. All that this guy has done is make the USA's "allies" aware of what a bunch of lying treacherous Ar$$eholes they are.

[Roadster280]

And had a UK soldier done the same, that's all he would be doing. It doesn't make it right though. Manning knew better. Assange is primping his prima donna feathers.

As for my analogy, that's all it was. Of course a minor domestic situation isn't to be compared with a National Security issue. Nothing to do with mindsets. I was merely pointing out that once you become aware of something, it changes your perception; whether that be on a personal or governmental basis.

[ColinB]

Secrets are secret for a reason. Someone I know tried it on with with my buddy's wife, and it wasn't exactly a hostile approach. My buddy disturbed them in the early stages before it got out of hand. I know he (the cad) did this, but he doesn't know I know. My buddy wants me to imagine it hadn't happened, for he is hoping time will heal his marriage, and it never needs to be mentioned again. I wish he'd never told me of the original deed. I can't look the cad in the eye and consider him my friend anymore. He's just a slimy turd, and always will be. Every time I see the woman, I think "whore".

I totally agree with all you say about the despicable pair but as we are now friends would you consider sending me her telephone number as I will shortly be making a stop over in Atlanta?

[Shack37]

And had a UK soldier done the same, that's all he would be doing. It doesn't make it right though. Manning knew better. Assange is primping his prima donna feathers.


I for one, would be happy for a serving UK armed forces person to expose some of their political bosses for the liars they are. Some senior retired officers have made comments but serving 2*,3* and 4* are reluctant to risk their pensions and what remains of their careers and of course the possibility of a title or political career on retirement.

This is why so many of our frontline servicemen and women continue to lack adequate equipment for combat duties. Whistleblowing under these circumstances is not treason, it's a patriotic duty.

[Roadster280]

I'll have to disagree. Anything protectively marked is to be protected. It's that simple. I'll leave it there.

[500N]

Shack

"Please don't confuse the embarrassment of governments/politicians with the release of documents which do not compromise the security of our frontline troops."

I don't confuse the issues. He may not have named names but just like intelligence Services, the enemy will be able to put 2 and 2 together and work out what is what and who is who. It also gives more info to the enemy on the Intelligence picture and how it occurs - all potential ammunition for them to use in the future to make it harder to get this info which in turn means it may
"compromise the security of our front line troops'. Anyone is capable of seeing a pattern and using it to their own advantage.

And now the latest release of documents with names still in the cables,
well, ................... Supposedly, the password was included in a book about Wikileaks but the password was useless without the file containing the cables. And then someone found the file. So the password by itself was useless but someone put 2 and 2 together.

I'll agree with Roadster. "Between the pair of them, Manning and Assange are despicable ****s."
.

[Henry09]

Manning should not have done it, Assange is no different to any other journo out there, all of whom would sell their Grandmothers for a scoop/exclusive. Sadly Manning is a discredit to his uniform but at the end of the day all Assange did was publish the truth. What's the problem? LIve with it get on with it and in the future maybe politicians should not be such scheming lying bar stewards.

[jamesdevice]

is there a sub judice or reporting restriction law in the USA? Manning has not been to trial yet and so has not been found guilty. As this forum is owned by an American company some of the comments above, while possibly justified, could be opening a can of legal worms
1) comments prejudicial to a fair trial 2) possible libel if he's found not guilty, or not actually tried?

[jamesdevice]

The irony of it...

""A Guardian journalist has, in a previously undetected act of gross negligence or malice, and in violation of a signed security agreement with the Guardian's editor-in-chief Alan Rusbridger, disclosed top secret decryption passwords to the entire, unredacted, Wikileaks Cablegate archive," Wikileaks said."

Wikileaks accuses the guardian of leaking unredacted cables- The Inquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2105970/wikileaks-accuses-guardian-leaking-unredacted-cables)

[Gravelbelly]

...The man disgusts me. If he cannot be tried for treason, and face the death penalty,...

The US didn't give the death sentence to Robert Hanssen, Aldrich Ames, Jonathan Pollard, or the Walkers - and their crimes were far more serious.

[spyder105]

If this information is so critical why was a Private allowed access to such a broad range of secret information. I imagine some higher ups are happy to let Julian Assange or anyone else take the heat for what can only be a serious lack of common sense security on their part.

[Jane-DoH]

cazatou

"Lord Haw Haw" (William Joyce) was a civilian - didn't save him from the Gallows though.

True, but he was actually promoting foreign propaganda. This guy didn't seem to be promoting any nation's agenda.

Also, as I understand it the UK doesn't have a death penalty anymore (we do in the United States, however).


ColinB

Posting from France you may recall the Dreyfus case where if someone had have had the fortitude to blow the the whistle a terrible injustice would have been avoided.

Agreed


Roadster280

Assange decides to publish it for his own self-aggrandisement purposes.

That's not 100% certain. For all we know the US government might have done it. After all, the intelligence agencies has more than adequate capabilities to decrypt the files, then release them. Sure it would leave some sources out to dry, but it would justify bringing the hammer down on WikiLeaks and Julian Assange for good. It could even be used to justify various forms of internet censorship.

Secrets are secret for a reason.

Seems so simple, except sometimes the government misuses the classification system not to protect the nation from enemy attack, but to insulate itself from scrutiny.

In the case where the classification was only to protect the nation, you would have a much better argument

[jamesdevice]

All WikiLeaks' secret US cables are on BitTorrent in full ? The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/01/cablegate_leak_row/) "Wikileaks has accused a Guardian journalist of negligently publishing the passphrase for a database of unredacted secret US diplomatic cables in a book. The encrypted database is available on BitTorrent. The book by David Leigh, Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy, contains an excerpt explaining how he persuaded Julian Assange™ to give him the PGP passphrase, named as ACollectionOfDiplomaticHistory_Since_1966_ToThe_PresentDay#."

[TEEEJ]

Gravelbelly wrote

The US didn't give the death sentence to Robert Hanssen, Aldrich Ames, Jonathan Pollard, or the Walkers - and their crimes were far more serious.

Hanssen, Ames, Walker and Pollard negotiated plea bargains. They escaped the death penalty in exchange for cooperating in full debriefings.

Robert Hanssen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Hanssen)

FBI — Aldrich Hazen Ames (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/aldrich-hazen-ames)

John Anthony Walker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Anthony_Walker)

Jonathan Pollard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard)

TJ

[TEEEJ]

spyder105 wrote

If this information is so critical why was a Private allowed access to such a broad range of secret information. I imagine some higher ups are happy to let Julian Assange or anyone else take the heat for what can only be a serious lack of common sense security on their part.

Manning held a Top Secret clearance. It is nothing unusual for a junior rank to have access to a wide range of classified information.

Some of the systems that Manning would have had access to.

SIPRNet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIPRNet)

Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Worldwide_Intelligence_Communications_System)

A lot of debate has gone into why he only released info upto and including Secret.

Bradley Manning Support Network » Addressing confusion about PFC Bradley Manning (http://www.bradleymanning.org/commentary/addressing-confusion-about-pfc-bradley-manning%E2%80%99s-case)

I would expect that he would have been physically unable to download onto a CD from a Top Secret system? I expect that if it was required to do so it would have involved a supervisor to sanction it under strict guidelines on the transfer of such files?

Manning simply went for the easy option of the writer option in a lower classified system. The flaw in the system was allowing people to bring in unregistered and unaccountable media into a classified workplace. Manning was downloading onto CDs under the pretence of listening to music.

TJ

[500N]

It's interesting that it seems even the papers are turning on him for the release of the cables.

[Neptunus Rex]

It seems that the latest leaks contain one that identifies an Australian Intelligence agent. It is being investigated and could lead to serious criminal charges. If that is the case, I doubt he will escape extradition to his home country.

[high spirits]

Even the Grauniad left wing bearded trendy toss pot on sky news was distancing his rag from Assange tonight. A step too far for the Grauniad, must be bad!!

[500N]

Neptunus
Good point. WILL THE gov't in Aus have the balls to do anything serious or just go through the motions and then tap him on the wrist ?

[Donalduck]

"It's interesting that it seems even the papers are turning on him for the release of the cables."

Does that have any relevance in a country where 70% of the press is owned by the Murdoch empire?
That would be like the pot calling the kettle black...

[ColinB]

It seems that the latest leaks contain one that identifies an Australian Intelligence agent

How did they find him? Is that an oxymoron, Bruce?

[500N]

"Does that have any relevance in a country where 70% of the press is owned by the Murdoch empire?
That would be like the pot calling the kettle black..."

I should have been more specific. I was talking about European Media.

[Jane-DoH]

I'm sure that WikiLeaks will be shut down, whether the government will use this to justify going after any non-mainstream outlet, I have no idea. It is possible that this could be used to justify censorship and control of the flow of information.

What I find amazing is that so few people have seriously contemplated the possibility that the government released the data to frame Assange, and then use the crisis to justify going after him.

[henry crun]

Jane: If the government had released the info to frame Assange, why isn't he now crying FOUL from the rooftops ?

If the goverment had released the info, why, as reported on the BBC, have Wikileaks said "all 251,287 of the leaked diplomatic cables are now online in a searchable format." ?

[Jane-DoH]

henry crun

Jane: If the government had released the info to frame Assange, why isn't he now crying FOUL from the rooftops ?

He did say that it was the result of a security breach... there is one guy, a Daniel Domscheit-Berg, who deleted a whole bunch of files on Bank of America and might be involved in this release here. He was a former colleague of Julian Assange, but could easily have been a mole.

R.C.
"Apologises never having been in the military I get easily confused between my tacticals and strategicals and as I age even my test**cals!" -- RansS9

[cazatou]

Jane DoH

You may feel that you would like to know certain information - you may even feel that you have a Right to know that information - but any such viewpoint on your part is irrelevant.

The sole criteria in respect of Classified Information is the "Need to Know". In that respect you have to assert your "Need to know" and on whose authority you "Need to Know". That authority would have to be in writing by someone who had clearance to issue that authorisation.

[airpolice]

There is no doubt that the release of this information will harm some good people.

However, good people are being harmed anyway.

To take just one incident, the shooting of the photographers from the helicopter. Long after the video would have been available to the US military PR machine, they were still saying that it was a lawful shoot.

Now we know different. I am not suggesting that second guessing a rotary crew who believe they are about to come under fire is ok, but would we ever have known the truth without the release, wrong as it is, of this data?

All of this after the fact information is saying more about arse covering than combat actions. I think the people screamng the loudest are those with more to hide than the troops on the ground.

If we can't trust the military press releases to be honest, how else are we going to know what's happening out there? They don't HAVE to tell us anything, they could just keep quiet for "operational security" purposes, but if they continue to lie, that's just wrong.


Until Governments are sufficiently scared of whistleblowers, they will continue to do bad things in our name. When you lose the moral high ground, you lose the war.

[Jane-DoH]

cazatou

You may feel that you would like to know certain information - you may even feel that you have a Right to know that information - but any such viewpoint on your part is irrelevant.

Well, I don't go around trying to procure or disseminate classified information.

Regardless, the fact remains that governments sometimes classify things that shouldn't be classified, there are a multitude of reasons why they would do this. This could be the fact that the information could reveal things that are not a danger to national security, but a danger of exposing criminality, waste, corruption, and a danger of embarrassing politicians.

For a democracy to work, it is dependent on the public knowing what the government is doing. While there are things that should be kept secret, it should only be in cases where it is vital to the preservation of the country.


airpolice

There is no doubt that the release of this information will harm some good people.

However, good people are being harmed anyway.

True, and I can't really see how much harm this release will cause in truth. The situation is being hyped far beyond its actual severity as the basis for producing a perceived crisis as to justify shutting down on WikiLeaks.

Look at this article for example which is titled "The Last Whistleblower" (http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/09/01/the-last-whistleblower/)

Here is an excerpt from this article

“Why is Washington so obsessed with Assange?”

“It is power taking its revenge. Assange has made government transparency a moral issue and made people aware that classification and secrecy serve to hide government crimes and deception. This has empowered whistleblowers.”

“Won’t there be other whistleblowers?”

“Not without Wikileaks. Formerly, whistleblowers would release documents to the media. However, whistleblowers have learned that the law that was enacted to protect them is not obeyed in the post-9/11 environment, and the media has learned that the First Amendment has lost much of its authority. It has become too dangerous for whistleblowers to step forward. Moreover, whistleblowers have learned that even the New York Times first checks with the government before the paper prints a leak. Remember, the Times sat for one year on the leak from NSA that the Bush administration was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and spying on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court. The Times published only after Bush was reelected. Wikileaks is the only way whistleblowers can get the word out.”

“You mean if the government convicts Assange it is the end of Wikileaks?”

“Yes. If Assange is convicted of spying, then ipso facto a successor would be a spy. The ability of whistleblowers to bring accountability to government is about to disappear.”

The government will do everything to shut WikiLeaks, and sites of that nature by any means necessary, including legal and extra-legal means.

To take just one incident, the shooting of the photographers from the helicopter. Long after the video would have been available to the US military PR machine, they were still saying that it was a lawful shoot.

And they will continue to do so

All of this after the fact information is saying more about arse covering than combat actions. I think the people screamng the loudest are those with more to hide than the troops on the ground.

Of course, politicians don't like the public knowing what they're doing. They depend on the public to be elected, and as a result this could compromise their electability. Politics isn't about serving the public will, it's about power, and that's all politicians want.

Rules which limit the power of government aren't in the interests of politicians, it's in the interests of the public who have to live under their rule.


R.C.
"Apologises never having been in the military I get easily confused between my tacticals and strategicals and as I age even my tes**cals!" - RansS9

[cazatou]

Jane DoH

Once again you are giving your opinion as fact - that Governments alter, ignore or falsify information.

You see the point is that only those who have possession of ALL the evidence available are in a position to assess the situation as a whole. That information can come from a great variety of sources which will include those obtained surreptitiously or anonymously. That information would need to be analysed and assessed to reach a conclusion as to the way forward.

The fact that you are not aware of any such evidence does not mean that such evidence does not exist.

[Jane-DoH]

cazatou

Once again you are giving your opinion as fact - that Governments alter, ignore or falsify information.

It's established fact that governments do this. Some more frequently than others.

[cazatou]

Jane

"Pretty much" equates to "nearly" which itself equates to "approximately - but rather less."

NB Chambers Dictionary definition - as preferred by the Moderator.

[Wrathmonk]

You see the point is that only those who have possession of ALL the evidence available are in a position to assess the situation as a whole.

Wow - now that's a statement I thought I would never see posted by you Caz!;)

[500N]

"Wikileaks is the only way whistleblowers can get the word out.”"

I think that is pushing it a bit far and giving too much credit to Wikileaks.

[jamesdevice]

Philip Agee never required Wikileaks to wreak his damage.
What is surprising is that the USA never extradited or tried him.
Philip Agee | Times Online Obituary (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article3162281.ece)

[Shack37]

"Pretty much" equates to "nearly" which itself equates to "approximately - but rather less."


Kind of a lesson on playing with words but hardly an answer.


Once again you are giving your opinion as fact - that Governments alter, ignore or falsify information.


Do you really believe it is not factual that Governments do this?

[cazatou]

Ah yes

Sorry, I forgot about Area 51 (and the Film was on the TV only the other night!!).

In Peacetime ( and even more so when British Personnel are committed on Active Service) one would expect Governments to put the best possible "Spin" on their Communiqués. In my experience of over 31 years in the RAF - many of which were spent on 32 Sqn - it is not what is said by Government Ministers (or their Officials) that makes the headlines; it is the interpretation by the Press of what they think they heard - embellished for their own purposes.

PS This is not in any way a condemnation of the responsible Journalists who strive to present a balanced viewpoint in respect of Defence matters.

[Shack37]

Sorry but I did not see the film Area 51 referred to so I can't comment.
I also spent a part of my life in the RAF, not 31 years but enough to gain some experience.

Of course there are circumstances when a touch of "spin" may be acceptable but not unneccessary downright lies which are becoming almost a qualification for modern politicians. You may classify this as not fact but only my opinion if you wish.


it is the interpretation by the Press of what they think they heard - embellished for their own purposes.

PS This is not in any way a condemnation of the responsible Journalists who strive to present a balanced viewpoint in respect of Defence matters.


You cannot blame the press for everything, however sh1te they may be.

[Jane-DoH]

cazatou

"Pretty much" equates to "nearly" which itself equates to "approximately - but rather less."

I amended my statement


500N

I think that is pushing it a bit far and giving too much credit to Wikileaks.

Well, of course there are other ways to leak out information but the problem is if WikiLeaks is taken down, it would justify either taking similar sites down, or blocking access to them.

[500N]

Jane-DoH

"Well, of course there are other ways to leak out information but the problem is if WikiLeaks is taken down, it would justify either taking similar sites down, or blocking access to them."

Not always. Firstly, the internet is a powerful tool and forums especially. Governments can't block everyone. Multi post the same information on enough web sites the world over and if what is being leaked is of any interest, it will be promulgated world wide in 24 hours and probably picked up by the mainstream media.
You could of course also use talk back radio as another way of getting info out.

Now let's look at mainstream media and the eample provided by a previous poster which I have quoted below.

"Moreover, whistleblowers have learned that even the New York Times first checks with the government before the paper prints a leak. Remember, the Times sat for one year on the leak from NSA that the Bush administration was violating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and spying on Americans without obtaining warrants from the FISA court. The Times published only after Bush was reelected. Wikileaks is the only way whistleblowers can get the word out."

IF the NY Times thought that a competitors newspaper was going to get a scoop on the above info, I dare say it would have published it REGARDLESS of the date.

To use an example, Prince Harry on his tour of Afghanistan, all the media kept quiet about it. That was until some insignificant Aussie newspaper published the details. Then all hell broke loose and the main stream tabloids couldn't get to print fast enough.

So, the mainstream media MIGHT keep quiet but only as long as they don't think they are "missing out" on a scoop and therefore sales. Just look at the mad scramble for photos of celebs.

"Missing out" is a powerful force and if you manipulate it to your advantage, you could get the media to do the work for you. Prince Charles and Princess Diana did.

That is my HO only, others may disagree with me.

.

[Jane-DoH]

500N

Not always. Firstly, the internet is a powerful tool and forums especially. Governments can't block everyone. Multi post the same information on enough web sites the world over and if what is being leaked is of any interest, it will be promulgated world wide in 24 hours and probably picked up by the mainstream media.

As the ability to broadcast information increases, so will the government's ability to censor it. You have to keep in mind there are various methods of censorship which do not require a person constantly monitoring things.

You could of course also use talk back radio as another way of getting info out.

Not many people use radio these days

IF the NY Times thought that a competitors newspaper was going to get a scoop on the above info, I dare say it would have published it REGARDLESS of the date.

To use an example, Prince Harry on his tour of Afghanistan, all the media kept quiet about it. That was until some insignificant Aussie newspaper published the details. Then all hell broke loose and the main stream tabloids couldn't get to print fast enough.

Regardless, they newspapers only followed up after wikileaks leaked the data. The mainstream media didn't intend to publish the leak before that -- they actually seem to have sat on it.

"Missing out" is a powerful force and if you manipulate it to your advantage, you could get the media to do the work for you. Prince Charles and Princess Diana did.

True, but the fact is that until a non-mainstream media outlet published the data, the mainstream-media sat on it. If the government could block the non-mainstream media outlets, that information would have either never been released, or released such a long time from now that it would no longer be useful.

[500N]

Jane-DoH

"As the ability to broadcast information increases, so will the government's ability to censor it. You have to keep in mind there are various methods of censorship which do not require a person constantly monitoring things."

I absolutely disagree with you here. The ability of the Gov't to censor DECREASES as the ability to broadcast information increases.
Power of information is being more concentrated in the consumer / available to the consumer more than ever.

Recent examples - 1. Arab Spring uprisings - numerous Gov't have tried to censor the net (Facebook etc), mobiles, texts, SMS's etc and have failed badly.
2. London Riots - an example where a whole range of communication systems net (Facebook etc), mobiles, texts, SMS's used by consumers.

"Not many people use radio these days" Agree, but people do still listen to radio in cars, especially talk back. If consumers didn't listen, why do Politicians still go on talk back radio ?????? (They do here, not sure about the UK as I left a long time ago).


" Regardless, they newspapers only followed up after wikileaks leaked the data. The mainstream media didn't intend to publish the leak before that -- they actually seem to have sat on it."

Which of my examples are you referring to ? The NY Times information that they sat on or Prince Harry ? If NY Times, they published it AFTER Bush was re elected - ie they didn't want to damage his re election chances.

"True, but the fact is that until a non-mainstream media outlet published the data, the mainstream-media sat on it. If the government could block the non-mainstream media outlets, that information would have either never been released, or released such a long time from now that it would no longer be useful."

You seem to have a very strong view that the Gov't can block or censor the non-mainstream media outlets. Considering the net is NOT controlled by state borders but is readily available to people within those borders, I strongly disagree with you that they can control ANY media or communication outlet EXCEPT by possible use of the Courts and a D Notice which I think are still in use.

The only exception to the above is China which does have a very good set up on censorship AND controls the internet within China.

I await your response.

Does anyone else want to chime in with their views ????
.

[cazatou]

Shack 37

Apologies for the tardy reply - the Birthday of "She who must be obeyed".

In reply to your question - it was Sir Wiinston Churchill who stated that in wartime "truth is so precious it must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies."

That still applies - whether the "War" be Hot or Cold.

[Shack37]

In reply to your question - it was Sir Wiinston Churchill who stated that in wartime "truth is so precious it must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies."



Nearly went to the great man's funeral but didn't have the altitude for G of H duties.

I hope SWMBO had a great day.

[cazatou]

Shack37

I read his Obituary in The Times the day after his death - on the Train taking me to South Cerney to join No 1 ITS.

[Jane-DoH]

500N

I absolutely disagree with you here. The ability of the Gov't to censor DECREASES as the ability to broadcast information increases.

Not if the ability to censor increases exponentially relative to the ability to broadcast information. Do you think the government really has an internet kill-switch just because they're worried about hackers?

In the UK copyright lobbyists asked the government to create means to swiftly block websites and streaming videos. While this was to prevent copyright infringement, this could easily adapted for so called "cyber security" to provide real-time censorship.

Keep in mind censorship doesn't have to be done with an army of people anymore, with advanced automation and complex computer algorithms the capability to censor information is exponentially increasing . It's only a matter of time before this capability is further developed and implemented.


cazatou

Apologies for the tardy reply - the Birthday of "She who must be obeyed".

Your wife has the same birthday as me (Sept 6)?

it was Sir Wiinston Churchill who stated that in wartime "truth is so precious it must always be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies."

I don't know what context Churchill was saying this in, but I would assume he was talking about war. Regardless, there are many politicians who also agree that truth is so pernicious that it must be guarded with a bodyguard of lies, not because it's a matter of national survival, but because it would make them look bad, and expose corruption.

Do you think that is an acceptable application of secrecy?

Keep in mind that being that in our systems of government, people select the elected officials that will govern them, and for this to work even remotely well, the public have to know what they're doing. If government officials are allowed to use secrecy to cover up misconduct, it'd throw a monkey wrench into the entire democratic process

[500N]

Jane-DoH

"In the UK copyright lobbyists asked the government to create means to swiftly block websites and streaming videos. While this was to prevent copyright infringement, this could easily adapted for so called "cyber security" to provide real-time censorship."

And the UK Gov't has no juristiction outside of the UK so if I wanted to infringe copyright, I'd host the server outside of the UK and mirror it on 10 other sites.

And once it is catalouged in Google and all the other search engines,
then it is very hard to get rid off.

"Keep in mind censorship doesn't have to be done with an army of people anymore, with advanced automation and complex computer algorithms the capability to censor information is exponentially increasing . It's only a matter of time before this capability is further developed and implemented."

As I said, I'd host the server outside of the UK and mirror it on 10 other sites.
They can take down one but they will never be able to take down all of them
as too many "pipes" into too many countries. China seems to be the only one that does it well by limiting the number of pipes into the country.

I think we will just agree to disagree.

.

[Jane-DoH]

500N

And the UK Gov't has no juristiction outside of the UK so if I wanted to infringe copyright, I'd host the server outside of the UK and mirror it on 10 other sites.

Yes, but as it passes through the UK, it could be blocked.

And once it is catalouged in Google and all the other search engines, then it is very hard to get rid off.

Irrelevant, even in China when Google stopped censoring access to the search results, users in China still could not access the websites that pertained to Tiananmen square for example.

[500N]

Jane-DoH

Re " Yes, but as it passes through the UK, it could be blocked."

Please tell me how the UK Gov't would do that ?
.

[Jane-DoH]

500N

Are you kidding me?

[500N]

Jane

It took you 6 days to come back.

Why don't you answer the actual question instead of answering it with another question ?

I'm still waiting for your pearls of wisdom.

.

[cazatou]

500N

Perhaps you should check your Maths.

[cazatou]

Interesting to see on CEEFAX that the nice Mr Assange is threatening to sue a UK publisher for "breach of contract" for releasing drafts of his autobiography without his approval.