Wikileaks releases unredacted USA State Dept files....
Gravelbelly wrote
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
FBI — Aldrich Hazen Ames
John Anthony Walker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jonathan Pollard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TJ
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.
Robert Hanssen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FBI — Aldrich Hazen Ames
John Anthony Walker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jonathan Pollard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TJ
spyder105 wrote
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
Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
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
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.
Some of the systems that Manning would have had access to.
SIPRNet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Not telling- big brother is watching
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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...
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...
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
That would be like the pot calling the kettle black..."
I should have been more specific. I was talking about European Media.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: due south
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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." ?
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." ?
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
henry crun
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
Jane: If the government had released the info to frame Assange, why isn't he now crying FOUL from the rooftops ?
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
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by cazatou; 4th Sep 2011 at 08:56.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou
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
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"
Here is an excerpt from this article
The government will do everything to shut WikiLeaks, and sites of that nature by any means necessary, including legal and extra-legal means.
And they will continue to do so
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
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.
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.
However, good people are being harmed anyway.
Look at this article for example which is titled "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.”
“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.”
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.
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.
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
Last edited by Jane-DoH; 4th Sep 2011 at 12:41.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: New York & California
Posts: 414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cazatou
It's established fact that governments do this. Some more frequently than others.
Once again you are giving your opinion as fact - that Governments alter, ignore or falsify information.
Last edited by Jane-DoH; 5th Sep 2011 at 05:08.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jane
"Pretty much" equates to "nearly" which itself equates to "approximately - but rather less."
NB Chambers Dictionary definition - as preferred by the Moderator.
"Pretty much" equates to "nearly" which itself equates to "approximately - but rather less."
NB Chambers Dictionary definition - as preferred by the Moderator.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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.
I think that is pushing it a bit far and giving too much credit to Wikileaks.