Wikileaks publishes memos, reports, that sort of concrete evidence. I don't think they would officially publish their first hand reports without first trying to get some kind of confirmation through a leaked government file on them, for example.
First, the "confession" -- whosever they are trying to elicit -- has more value if given out of paranoia.
Think about it this way: you have a brief glimpse into something wrong that happened, but you don't know the full story. Let's say you know 10% of the full story.
If you come forward with the evidence, the accused party need only acknowledge or refute the 10% that you've divulged.
However if you make them think you know a whole lot more than 10%, you might end up pressuring them to give a confession that will reveal a much larger amount of the wrong deed.
Second, pressuring a government to admit wrongdoing is better PR for Wikileaks than disclosing leaked information. Wikileaks is treading on delicate territory already with their mission statement. When classified information becomes whistleblower-deserving information is a debatable topic. Because of this, Wikileaks has to manage their PR very carefully, lest they be viewed as the enemy-to-all, friend-to-none. By pressuring organizations to admit wrongdoing rather than publicly accusing them of it, it's a win-win: the information gets out, and WikiLeaks doesn't have to be in the press again for leaking "stolen" information.
Still, I think the idea of a small amateur (as far as spycraft is concerned) organization pressuring the DoD like this is insane. They're risking their own wellbeing.
If that's so, why is Africa still a mess? We have no shortage of knowledge about the scale of corruption south of the Sahara (and north of it); the problem is that those who are prepared to fight in, let's say, Nigeria and those who want to stop corruption in Nigeria are seldom the same people.
In the end, weapons are the most important weapons. If a group of people no longer care about anything but their own power, and they're armed, the thing to do is to deprive them of those arms -- not to catalog their abuses and trust in the power of words.
Africa is a perfect example of a continent where, in many countries, there is no free press and little access to the Internet. In general you'll find a strong correlation between a lack of free press and low GDP, war, oppression etc. Yeah, causation != correlation, but obviously the reason for a corrupt government to disallow the free press is to keep itself in power.
With the internet you can take on the DoD. If you know what you're doing, you can hack the DoD in such a way. Transparency all the way: look how Wikileaks are being so open on Twitter, look how we're all discussing it.
Except we never closed Gitmo, and even if we did, the public outcry is associated with that base's name alone. If the military were to rename and move it a couple miles over, the public perception wouldn't ever reach Gitmo levels at least as long as Obama is in office.
And we did it before with the School of the Americas.
It was in Panama as the "U.S. Army Caribbean Training Center" and was forced to move as a result of the Panama Canal treaty. Then they changed the name to School of the America's and focused on fighting communists (with the same tactic of training what we now call insurgents).
After the killing of nuns in South America it started to get bad press (referred to as the "School of Assassins") and eventually was forced to "close" and reopen as "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation".
Gitmo seems like it is about to undergo a similar process.
Edit: Just saw that today is the 30th anniversary of the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero. The people responsible were trained at the School of Americas.
Those loyal to truth are often the enemy of all. We all have secrets to hide. Watching a philosopher speak the other day, he said a quote from someone I can't remember, but goes something like this: Those who introspect and attempt to confront the demons within must have more courage than a soldier on the battle field.
In this case, if the "leader of the free world" is responsible for something so dramatic that this is happening, then it is of the utmost importance to share it with the world. We must do what we can to stop abuses of power.
If we can't stop them, then we must make each of us reflect on the injustice leveled on others in order that we may have what we have. At some point, we must recognize that the evils we perpetrate are not worth it. I would love to see a resurgence of conscience, that is so poorly absent from our modern society full of invisible ills, purple pills, and political shills.
I thought that too. It's one thing to think about death and another to face it. But I have faced it. 4 times I've almost died: Once I was saved from drowning, I was in two car crashes, and the last time was due to an illness. Everything went blue. My vision shrank to a pin hole and right before I passed out and collapsed, this feeling of peace came over me. I remember thinking, "This is what it is like? This is dying? It's not so bad."
Since then, I've spent more time thinking about life and death and it is through that reflection that I feel fear. I try to imagine not existing. It's hard and I come to some place of blackness which is much more terrifying than that last time I almost died, but in all fairness to soldiers, there were no bullets flying by me, bombs exploding, or adrenaline in my veins.
Interesting. I guess the way you wind up facing death changes things? I ride motorcycles, and every now and then there are moments you are sure you're going to die (though you may not be thinking 'die' in your head). You can taste the fear as it bubbles in the pit of your stomach. I haven't known anything more frightful in my life, except for possibly the time I was fully paralyzed (lungs included) for a half-minute and thought I broke my neck.
I'm not sure how you experienced your car crashes, but from your reaction I'm guessing they were the out-of-nowhere kind where you don't see it coming?
P.S. I am not a reckless rider. When you are a new rider, your instinct can flip out on you even when you are really ok, and even when you are a seasoned rider other cars and nature can conspire against you.
The first time I was swerving to miss a dog in the middle of a dirt road and the car spun out of control and nearly ended up in the water. The next day all my tires were flat from the sand and gravel that got lodged between the rubber tire and the rim. My windows were down and the inside of the car was full of sand and dirt and plants.
The second time, I fell asleep on the interstate. The sound of the tires on the dirt woke me up and when I pulled back onto the road, the car started doing 360ies until I crashed into a guard rail. I never fell asleep again and no one was hurt either time. I was really amazed both times that the car didn't flip. The second time, the people behind me saw me spinning out of control and like, 5 cars pulled in behind me. I feel really lucky, not only for myself, but for others I could have hurt.
I ride motorcycles too, not in a long time, but I remember times when I'd be going through a turn and hit a patch of sand or dirt and lose traction. It's quite scary. Almost went off the side of a mountain when I got my first bike and still didn't know to handle high speed tight turns. Sure knocked the invincibility out of me.
Each of those times you nearly died by accident. In combat you nearly die on purpose. Repeatedly. Can you will yourself into that fear as part of your job - regularly?
Yeah, it's totally different. I didn't choose to be in those situations and I can't imagine ever choosing to be in something immeasurably greater in risk. The experiences soldiers have and the things they see. I wish they didn't. I haven't seen anything even close to that. When that philosopher said that, I really wondered if he believed it.
Philosophy, introspection... they're imagination. War is real.
I think a lot of people don't understand, and never will understand, what's so trauamtic about combat. It's not that you could die at any moment over extended periods...I came to grips with my own mortality on the flight to my first combat deployment. It's not seeing people die, most times we weren't sure if the lack of shooting was because they were dead, out of bullets, or trying to draw us out. It's not the sickening, overwhelming, stomach churning smell of the pools of blood. It's not that you are taking another life. For me, the biggest impact was the realization that I had to do my job, perfectly, or someone else would needlessly die. And my own life relied upon another person doing their job perfectly. You don't pull the trigger to stay alive, you pull the trigger so that the people keeping you alive stay alive. You don't question if the fight needs to happen...it just is happening, and your options is you and your squad dies or the enemy and their squad dies. There's no higher purpose, no moral agenda, no feelings, no dreaming of home. Eventually, the adrenaline wears off, but you can't even tell because you're basically numb to its affects.
And when you get back, even years later, people ask you about it. And you think up a couple of cheeky stories, but don't even try to tell most people what it's like because words can't accurately communicate the experience. You just continue on enjoying things in life everyone else discards as annoyances or commonplace.
Note: It's been a few years since I got out and I'm perfectly fine, well adjusted, no related problems, no PTSD, no nightmares, minor paranoia occassionally. However, the mental experience of each person is different, and many do not come out ok.
the mental 'quiet' that comes from being absolutely terrified is probably the most interesting part of motorcycling, I think. Considering the danger, it's probably not worth it, but it is very interesting how time seems to slow down, and how I seem to become more competent in times of extreme fear.
> Those loyal to truth are often the enemy of all.
And lately especially of the US govt.
Our govt. holds secrecy of classified information above morality. I am sure CIA and other such agencies have blood on their hands, and they have done many morally questionable things in the name of 'national interest'.
For them morality is only manifested as legal limits -- the amount of stuff they can get away before being found legaly guilty of something. This means two things, they will try to influence the legislative branch to widen up the laws so they can have more 'freedom' (this happened after 9/11, Patriot Act, torture laws etc)., but it also means that they will do things that are clearly illegal if they are sure these things will never be publically released or opened. I think we are dealing with the later -- as set of things that will be hidden forever but un-exectedly got out.
Wikileaks breaks govt.'s modus operandi. At some point there will be a person working for them that will hold morility above their freedom, and professional duty ( and /put tin foil hat on possibly their life). In the past it was much easier to handle and contain such leaks, this becomes much harder with the wikileaks infrastructure.
I am not defending the government here. The truth should and will come out. I just hope wikileaks people know what they are doing and know how to protect their sources. If they compramise their whistleblowers somehow, they will lose credibility.
EDIT (type): second paragraph, 'about' changed to 'above'
Should all kinds of truth always be released? I think a bit more sophistication is necessary here. For instance, should the launch codes for our nuclear weapons be made public?
I think you're offering a bit of a straw-man here. There's a vast difference between truthful documentation of past misdeeds and disclosing information that could in the future be used to cause great harm -- the difference between, "Regime X has used chemical weapons on its own people," and, "Here's how you make mustard gas."
From what I understand, mustard gas isn't hard to make at all. ("There are several routes to this compound, none of which require sophisticated technology and/or special materials.", Federation of American Scientists: Chemical Weapons Production and Storage) The process is more or less described in Wikipedia.
I was thinking more of 'we just bombed 50 civilians in Afghanistan and we are very sorry.' kind of information.
Or 'we have captured someone in Albania today, flew him to Latvia to get tortured, but it turns out it was the wrong guy. We have let him go and we are very sorry. Our government will pay him some restitution for the harm caused.'.
Then our citizens will start to ask questions. 'How come our government is doing that?', 'Why not bring them to trial?', 'What about world court? should they hold the trial instead?', 'What are our tax dollars used for?' and other such discussions.
I think a lot of this information will not compromise national security, but it is compromising our image internationally. And I think that is why it is hidden. It is shameful and wrong. Not because it can be used to launch rockets or crack our cyber-security.
And if bringing those kinds of acts to light will reduce the chance they happen again, then it's the right thing to do.
Bombing civilians shouldn't just be a mistake you sweep under the carpet, because if it were your own civilians you'd move heaven and earth to have them honored.
Sometimes that too can be classified. I do agree that should be disclosed at some point. But a third party indiscriminately leaking such material without understand the consequences is not a good way to do it. It could very well lead to many US service members getting killed, increasing Taliban support amongst the locals, perhaps even getting innocent Afghanis or Iraqis killed, etc. A better way is to get the necessary clearance, understand what's going on, and work your way through the legal chain. There is not a time crunch right now, and without a time crunch, it's best to stay inside the system.
The moral issue is very important, but sometimes getting focussed on a single moral issue can violate even higher moral mandates.
They've been having funding issues lately; they might think this is a good way to get out from under that. Of course, it'll backfire if this turns out to be insignificant, a la the recent documents that they claimed were evidence of the U.S. trying to "shut them down".
I'd feel a lot more inclined to donate if they were clearer about where the money went and why they need so much for what amounts to a moderated and anonymized public file share.
It seems quite likely that they have extraordinary legal costs and that they can't afford to release new info without the safe funds for their their legal defense.
It seems high but they are not hosting this information on an easily rented server. First they have to anonymize the data but keep it as authentic as possible. Second (and this is directly from one of the operators of WikiLeaks) they have to host it in a way that it crosses at least 3 jurisdictions from them to you.
They were operating this out of their own pockets. Donations were scarce when they just asked (for years for it) but were still online. When they took away the information and asking for donations they went way up. I did not like this to but he explained it, and it made sense to me.
The one person I personally know from WikiLeaks has been online 20 minutes ago. So at least he seems to be fine.
i think they talked about this in the past. they thought it was a problem that almost nobody picked the storys up in depth so they thought about changing the release model. they talked about releasing stuff a few days earlier for the press so that they can have people digging through the (often enormous amounts of) releases to prepare articles.
Yeah, I read that in a wired article. It makes sense, and if one press organisation is going to put the time in to comb over the data then they usually need an incentive, like getting the exclusive.
When you submit something to Wikileaks, you can set an embargo date.
But this current stream of tweets is a bit dramatic. If it's just some random infrared kill shot like that old Apache hit ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/audiovideo/apachehit.mpg ), then it'll hurt Wikileaks' credibility to some degree.
It won't take much to turn this into a headline like "Wikileaks detained by US" (this is the first step...[1]). When all it is so far is unverified postings on the Wikileaks Twitter feed. Is it a publicity stunt? Paranoia? Or the real thing?
We dont know yet. My guess is somewhere between the real thing and publicity - but we should avoid jumping on bandwagons.
I might be slightly more cynical this week because of their last piece of paranoia the other week ;)
But what is paranoid about that piece the other week? The US Army describes Wikileaks as a potential danger to their operational and information security, due to moles being potentialy able to securely leak information to them. It then calls for, shall we say, further "awareness" of this potential "danger", and for submitting fabricated information, identification and prosecution of whisteblowers etc. What makes you think Wikileaks is being paranoid instead of realistic?
Please point to any news article that actually says that.
Quote from the NYT:
"Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, said the concerns the report raised were hypothetical.
“It did not point to anything that has actually happened as a result of the release,” Mr. Assange said. “It contains the analyst’s best guesses as to how the information could be used to harm the Army but no concrete examples of any real harm being done.” "
Im not sure why a news article is needed... Wikileaks themselves said:
U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks
I admit where I said attacked in the parent that was never explicitly stated; but the emphasis was heavily on the breathy kind of "OMG we were under attack" type.
Honestly I didnt see anything particularly revelatory in the document deserving of such breathless excitement :D
WikiLeaks getting in trouble is nothing new. The US Army has admitted to planning attacks on WikiLeaks in the past ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/16/army_wikileaks/ ), So far they have always managed to survice - even against damning odds.
I just hope that the information they are sitting on is indeed significant.Though, to be honest it probably is, since WikiLeaks is already popular (too popular for their own good).
The US Army has admitted to planning attacks on WikiLeaks in the past
Not true. The article you link to only contains quotes from the document Wikileaks published. That is not an admission of anything. Nor does the document actually describe planning attacks on Wikileaks: only Wikileaks' description (and subsequent mis-reporting based on that) characterizes it that way. The actual content of the document does not support that conclusion. I encourage you to read it for yourself.
"Finally cracked the encryption to US military video in which journalists, among others, are shot. Thanks to all who donated $/CPUs." http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/9412020034
This may have to do with it.
No, it's not. The amount of computing power that would be needed to break the kind of encryption we should expect them to be using would be immense. It would likely be impossible, or at least impractically expensive. This is a very interesting part of the story.
If this WAS it, then they should be shut down. I'm not saying the video shouldn't be released or that the contents should be covered up, but the encryption algorithms that pertain to DoD COMSEC are classified and I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them.
I've seen many things from Wikileaks that are classified in nature and if they think that it's ok to do that they're mistaken, IMO.
I do however applaud their efforts with respect to net censorship and scientology secrets.
Oh, exactly what was it you wanted me to say (EDITED out rude comment). I at least used DH3 - Contradiction: they should be shut down. Weak yes, but I also thought I used DH4 - Counterargument: I think they would be breaking federal law by even cracking them.
Even went so far as to agree to other point (EDITED out rude comment). Oh well, hey at least you responded with rational discussion. Oh wait you just voted down because you disagreed.
Agree (and voted up). Down voting should be about the quality of the post/argument, not whether you like the opinion. Having said that, I think you might want to revise your argument a little. Regardless of whether it is legal, is it always wrong to post classified information? If the government is found to use classification inappropriately, to hide something it might find embarrassing, it weakens the value of classification in general and weakens the trust of citizens. In such a case, it might be desirable to post such information, if one could be sure that doing so did not jeopardize people's safety, etc. Maybe there should be a special court where such materials could be examined and a determination made as to whether they had been appropriately classified, with the onus being on the government to prove that the classification was warranted.
The thing about civil disobedience is that it is disobedient, and people ought to be willing to risk the consequences in order to bring about the changes they desire. It wasn't the concept of fundamental rights that made the human rights marches and so on work in the American south in the '60s, it was the brutality of the police response to the marchers. It is the consequences, and the willingness of people to do what is right despite those consequences, that is the agent of change. So, yes, the laws in place ought to be enforced, and if they are wrong, let the law be changed. Laws should not invite or be subject to invite arbitrary application, and in this case the matter under consideration is the very nature of what can be classified and what actually constitutes national security.
Yes, exactly. I feel I have been very bad at saying that the content should never have been classified to begin with (though due to the nature of how it was gathered it must be), and that it is the protection of our communication security which is of much greater importance in this case.
Totally agree with you on all points. Good suggestions too. This instance is a little different because they hacked a DoD communication encryption algorithm. Even if this was used to cover up something, how much other data has been sent using this method. Was the hack specific to the key used or will it work regardless? Will the hack be release in addition to the video?
It's pretty easy for our enemies to set up scanners in the field and capture streams of data to analyze later. If the hack is generic enough and the method was used enough I can see how this could be potentially VERY bad.
That being said, I think we're using very simple encryption on our UAVs video feeds. So it's probably the equivalent of locking the front door and not as big a deal as I've made it out to be.
Well, that IS what I believe. But regardless to what I believe, it is illegal to knowingly publish classified information. The ramifications of doing so with respect to hacking the encryption algorithm could possibly cause far greater damage that the release of the video itself (provided it showed something ACTUALLY classified, not this cover up stuff).
The point I'm really trying to make is that they are actively trying to acquire and release classified information, which is direct disregard for the law. If they were to "go away" I would neither be surprised, nor feel compassion.
What kind of society have we come to where it is revered to break the law in order to exact some change on our government?
The kind the founding fathers envisioned, as stated by Thomas Jefferson:
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."
> it is illegal to knowingly publish classified information
It is illegal to who? If I came upon classified DoD information, I would publish it with my own name, and let them have fun trying to figure out how to stick their laws to someone who is not their citizen. Plenty of wikileaks ppl are not Americans -- you cannot expect them to follow your laws.
> What kind of society have we come to where it is revered to break the law in order to exact some change on our government?
You know, the one where the last time the government got too uppity you decided to kill/exile the lot?
> The point I'm really trying to make is that they are actively trying to acquire and release classified information, which is direct disregard for the law. If they were to "go away" I would neither be surprised, nor feel compassion.
So you believe an ordinary citizen shouldn't break the laws against his government, but the government should be allowed to break its own laws against the citizens. At least be coherent, if they "Went away" that would mean a vast array of laws would be broken.
> Plenty of wikileaks ppl are not Americans -- you cannot expect them to follow your laws.
A more than valid point. I had not considered the community nature of the site, nor the state in which it's owners are based.
> You know, the one where the last time the government got too uppity you decided to kill/exile the lot?
I assume you're speaking of the war in Iraq. Hmmm... I see a significant difference between a citizen breaking the laws of his own country (as this is what I was referring to) and a country breaking no laws to stop a tyrant who was slaughtering his own people. Wow I'm sure this will be a popular opinion here.
> So you believe [...] the government should be allowed to break its own laws against the citizens. [...] if they "Went away" that would mean a vast array of laws would be broken.
Well, I was assuming that if the owners/maintainers of the site went to jail then the site would go away. I was not trying to say that the government should reject 1st amendment rights.
Again I was assuming 100% US citizen involvement in this. It was a bad assumption, granted.
> I assume you're speaking of the war in Iraq. Hmmm... I see a significant difference between a citizen breaking the laws of his own country (as this is what I was referring to) and a country breaking no laws to stop a tyrant who was slaughtering his own people. Wow I'm sure this will be a popular opinion here.
The law which they didn't agree to abide by in the first place. Born into a country with a law you don't agree on enforced upon you, why should you stick to it if you both disagree with it and agree to take the consequences?
You seem to be arguing that it's bad simply because it's illegal, which is both circular (it's bad because it's bad), and annoyingly naive (respect authority for no other reason than it's authoritative).
> The ramifications of doing so with respect to hacking the encryption algorithm could possibly cause far greater damage that the release of the video itself
You have a better argument here, but one I disagree with - did you miss the last decade of XP security holes? Security by obscurity isn't a strong defense. If it's weak enough for ordinary people to break, the intelligence agencies of the world who care would make mincemeat of it.
> The point I'm really trying to make is that they are actively trying to acquire and release classified information, which is direct disregard for the law. If they were to "go away"
The hypocritical point you are trying to make is that you respect the law like a good citizen, and because they don't respect the law in the same way as you do that makes them scum who are unworthy of compassion, and as a result you'll happily become like them and disgregard your support for equality and human rights laws so they can suffer, while still feeling superior to them because you abide the law, while at the same time you are not doing so.
> What kind of society have we come to where it is revered to break the law in order to exact some change on our government?
What kind of society have we come to where people are unable to consider that 'law' and 'doing the right thing' might not the same thing?
In a reply above I admit that I did not think about/realize that I was not talking about US citizens. That changes the equation entirely. I never made a moral judgment against these guys. I simply that if they are knowingly doing something that is illegal then they just might wind up in jail.
Disregard human rights? Are you serious? Wow. I read and re-read what I've written and I still don't see that. I guessing you have misunderstood something I've said, but rather point out that I was vague in some way you use diagnosis bias to infer things that I've never said. I'm betting that were interpreting "go away" differently.
I interpret "go away" as meaning security agencies, guantanamo, water boarding, detained without trial, rendition to countries where a bit of the old ultra violence can happen with plausible deniability, that kind of thing.
Not "arested, tried and sentenced". If that's what you meant then that's different - but it doesn't address whether it's right and fair for that to happen, only that you think it should happen because the current legal system says it should.
Of some interest in this statement is that wikileaks managed to crack the encryption. No matter if they release the crack, the way they did it, or the actual footage, the US DoD should take very careful note that it has been cracked.
This in itself is probably leak-worthy, in that quite realistically, other organisations with more at stake and more resources will likely have done the same without broadcasting the fact. And the chances are that these others will use this ability with more serious consequences [than posting the footage online].
Sorry, but I don't buy it. Military encryption is designed to resist attacks done by enemy governmental agency.
They say thank you for all the $/CPU but lately I've read they were in dire need of cash to continue running the website, yet, they spent that money on cracking some alleged secret material...
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that cracking governmental material is considered an act of war, that would be pretty stupid to admit that publicly.
Sorry, but all of this sounds like kids living in a paranoid delirium or people trying to get attention (to raise money?).
I recall reading a report that was published on wiki-leaks that was by the US government about wiki leaks itself. There were some worrying things in there, the foremost of which was the summary at the top of the document, written not by the US government, but by wikileaks.
In the summary they claimed that the US was recommending trying to fire/expose anyone who posted on wiki-leaks. However, all the article really said was "If people are fired or exposed for publishing on wiki leaks, this will probably serve as a deterrant." Two very different things. The summary was full of exaggerated claims like this one that really, in my opinion, made wiki-leaks look stupid.
The point is that wikileaks has a really awesome ideal, which is to expose bad things that are secrets. However, I worry that they are trying too hard to make everything into a conspiracy theory.
We need to step back and say, "Ok, so in some movies there are conspiracy theories like the ones we're presenting. And those movies are highly entertaining because they are so ridiculous. So, do we believe this because it is true or because we want it to be true?"
In the end, I would really like to know if the US government, or any government, is shooting journalists. But only if it really is true. Otherwise we're no better than schizophrenic conspiracy theorists and it really won't make a difference.
So to tie it in, is something really up with wiki-leaks? If it is that would be good information. But I would not be surprised to find out tomorrow that these claims were highly exaggerated.
I mean probably, but if we're really talking about the wikileaks team being detained for serious business, can we realy trust that no one went and logged onto their twitter account to tell people that these weren't the droids they were looking for?
I'm going to assume they're likely fine, but a post on Twitter hardly provides complete assurance of that. Unfortunately I'm not sure there's really a provable way to deal with this problem that wouldn't compromise too much information.
i have a second source who validates that they're ok, just busy looking for bandwidth in a politically neutral state/jurisdiction. If anyone knows anyone who has that, pls let me know & i'll pass it on....
Panama and Hong Kong have several ISPs that are outside U.S. influence. You never know really. Use Tor to upload it to Youtube. See if Google helps out.
Panama outside of US influence? We invaded them not that long ago, the current political leadership there were participants in the events leading up to and following Operation Just Cause. I rather doubt that much of import happens in Panama without tacit approval of US authorities.
If the wikileaks guys are smart enough to have made it this far you can bet they've already set up a "dead man switch" torrent file somewhere that will self-tweet and self-publish the video x days from now if they fail to check in. PR stunts aren't their style- this smells like either a disinformation campaign to discredit them or a smoke screen for something else. Fortunately there's enough intelligent, vocal people watching this ordeal at this point that it can't be swept under a rug if they disappear. good luck fellas- you're leading an important charge right now.
If this is really proof of some Giant Conspiracy that's super-newsworthy, couldn't they just send it to the NYT or the like and let them publish it? The 1st amendment is pretty close to absolute, and this sounds more like a military conspiracy than national security.
What would happen is, they will call CIA first to verify the authenticity. Then CIA will threaten them and will claim this is 'classified' and if they don't immediately turn it over, heads will roll, hard drives will be shredded, offices will be closed for an indefinite time for investigation and so on. NYT will not touch this stuff with a ten foot pole.
From a more general perspective. Large news media outlets have very close and 'cosy' relationship with the government. They treasure that relationship as that gets them quick and timely access to government related news releases. That is just news that writes itself. Whatever spews out the Department Of State goes straight to the viewers/reader. All news media outlets need to do is add advertisement on top. Being cut off from that, means spending serious time and money on investigative journalism. Flying people around the world to dangerous areas, spending months on finding good leads and researching. NYT will just not take that risk.
This is not about spying on US callers. That was already known.
This is most likely about murdering civilians in a botched air strike by CIA. CIA can and will shut a place down if they believe there is classified information there. I have heard of offices being raided and all hard drives shredded.
I think your belief that big, supposedly trust-worthy newspapers like the NYT are independent and publish such things, is not warranted anymore. They only publish what suits their interests, i.e. in some specific cases they may refrain from publishing, but that is exactly what counts, sadly.
Wikileaks has gained over 5000 new followers on twitter in the last 24 hours, that's close to +25%. There is an interesting moral question to be argued, whether it would be morally right to withhold information in order to gain funding and/or publicity and/or exposure to more followers, if they were creating drama deliberately (which there is not any indication of, I think, but theoretically possible).
121 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 166 ms ] threadFirst, the "confession" -- whosever they are trying to elicit -- has more value if given out of paranoia.
Think about it this way: you have a brief glimpse into something wrong that happened, but you don't know the full story. Let's say you know 10% of the full story.
If you come forward with the evidence, the accused party need only acknowledge or refute the 10% that you've divulged.
However if you make them think you know a whole lot more than 10%, you might end up pressuring them to give a confession that will reveal a much larger amount of the wrong deed.
Second, pressuring a government to admit wrongdoing is better PR for Wikileaks than disclosing leaked information. Wikileaks is treading on delicate territory already with their mission statement. When classified information becomes whistleblower-deserving information is a debatable topic. Because of this, Wikileaks has to manage their PR very carefully, lest they be viewed as the enemy-to-all, friend-to-none. By pressuring organizations to admit wrongdoing rather than publicly accusing them of it, it's a win-win: the information gets out, and WikiLeaks doesn't have to be in the press again for leaking "stolen" information.
For a good cause, that is. One that benefits us all.
In the end, weapons are the most important weapons. If a group of people no longer care about anything but their own power, and they're armed, the thing to do is to deprive them of those arms -- not to catalog their abuses and trust in the power of words.
The most serious breaches of security are the ones done by insiders, agents and whistle-blowers, not by hacking a network or crypto protocol.
And we're just killing people rather than bringing them in.
So, there's your Gitmo solution.
It was in Panama as the "U.S. Army Caribbean Training Center" and was forced to move as a result of the Panama Canal treaty. Then they changed the name to School of the America's and focused on fighting communists (with the same tactic of training what we now call insurgents).
After the killing of nuns in South America it started to get bad press (referred to as the "School of Assassins") and eventually was forced to "close" and reopen as "Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation".
Gitmo seems like it is about to undergo a similar process.
Edit: Just saw that today is the 30th anniversary of the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Arnulfo Romero. The people responsible were trained at the School of Americas.
There are still yearly protests there despite the name change.
In this case, if the "leader of the free world" is responsible for something so dramatic that this is happening, then it is of the utmost importance to share it with the world. We must do what we can to stop abuses of power.
If we can't stop them, then we must make each of us reflect on the injustice leveled on others in order that we may have what we have. At some point, we must recognize that the evils we perpetrate are not worth it. I would love to see a resurgence of conscience, that is so poorly absent from our modern society full of invisible ills, purple pills, and political shills.
Nice rhetoric, but I don't buy it. Methinks the author of said quote has never been a soldier.
Since then, I've spent more time thinking about life and death and it is through that reflection that I feel fear. I try to imagine not existing. It's hard and I come to some place of blackness which is much more terrifying than that last time I almost died, but in all fairness to soldiers, there were no bullets flying by me, bombs exploding, or adrenaline in my veins.
I'm not sure how you experienced your car crashes, but from your reaction I'm guessing they were the out-of-nowhere kind where you don't see it coming?
P.S. I am not a reckless rider. When you are a new rider, your instinct can flip out on you even when you are really ok, and even when you are a seasoned rider other cars and nature can conspire against you.
The second time, I fell asleep on the interstate. The sound of the tires on the dirt woke me up and when I pulled back onto the road, the car started doing 360ies until I crashed into a guard rail. I never fell asleep again and no one was hurt either time. I was really amazed both times that the car didn't flip. The second time, the people behind me saw me spinning out of control and like, 5 cars pulled in behind me. I feel really lucky, not only for myself, but for others I could have hurt.
I ride motorcycles too, not in a long time, but I remember times when I'd be going through a turn and hit a patch of sand or dirt and lose traction. It's quite scary. Almost went off the side of a mountain when I got my first bike and still didn't know to handle high speed tight turns. Sure knocked the invincibility out of me.
Isn't it a bit different?
Philosophy, introspection... they're imagination. War is real.
And when you get back, even years later, people ask you about it. And you think up a couple of cheeky stories, but don't even try to tell most people what it's like because words can't accurately communicate the experience. You just continue on enjoying things in life everyone else discards as annoyances or commonplace.
Note: It's been a few years since I got out and I'm perfectly fine, well adjusted, no related problems, no PTSD, no nightmares, minor paranoia occassionally. However, the mental experience of each person is different, and many do not come out ok.
And lately especially of the US govt.
Our govt. holds secrecy of classified information above morality. I am sure CIA and other such agencies have blood on their hands, and they have done many morally questionable things in the name of 'national interest'.
For them morality is only manifested as legal limits -- the amount of stuff they can get away before being found legaly guilty of something. This means two things, they will try to influence the legislative branch to widen up the laws so they can have more 'freedom' (this happened after 9/11, Patriot Act, torture laws etc)., but it also means that they will do things that are clearly illegal if they are sure these things will never be publically released or opened. I think we are dealing with the later -- as set of things that will be hidden forever but un-exectedly got out.
Wikileaks breaks govt.'s modus operandi. At some point there will be a person working for them that will hold morility above their freedom, and professional duty ( and /put tin foil hat on possibly their life). In the past it was much easier to handle and contain such leaks, this becomes much harder with the wikileaks infrastructure.
I am not defending the government here. The truth should and will come out. I just hope wikileaks people know what they are doing and know how to protect their sources. If they compramise their whistleblowers somehow, they will lose credibility.
EDIT (type): second paragraph, 'about' changed to 'above'
Or 'we have captured someone in Albania today, flew him to Latvia to get tortured, but it turns out it was the wrong guy. We have let him go and we are very sorry. Our government will pay him some restitution for the harm caused.'.
Then our citizens will start to ask questions. 'How come our government is doing that?', 'Why not bring them to trial?', 'What about world court? should they hold the trial instead?', 'What are our tax dollars used for?' and other such discussions.
I think a lot of this information will not compromise national security, but it is compromising our image internationally. And I think that is why it is hidden. It is shameful and wrong. Not because it can be used to launch rockets or crack our cyber-security.
Bombing civilians shouldn't just be a mistake you sweep under the carpet, because if it were your own civilians you'd move heaven and earth to have them honored.
The moral issue is very important, but sometimes getting focussed on a single moral issue can violate even higher moral mandates.
http://www.damninteresting.com/ive-got-the-same-combination-...
They've been having funding issues lately; they might think this is a good way to get out from under that. Of course, it'll backfire if this turns out to be insignificant, a la the recent documents that they claimed were evidence of the U.S. trying to "shut them down".
Edit: Oops, it's apparently $600k to fully fund with salaries, and $200k to just fund operations. Still seems crazy high.
They were operating this out of their own pockets. Donations were scarce when they just asked (for years for it) but were still online. When they took away the information and asking for donations they went way up. I did not like this to but he explained it, and it made sense to me.
The one person I personally know from WikiLeaks has been online 20 minutes ago. So at least he seems to be fine.
But this current stream of tweets is a bit dramatic. If it's just some random infrared kill shot like that old Apache hit ( http://www.globalresearch.ca/audiovideo/apachehit.mpg ), then it'll hurt Wikileaks' credibility to some degree.
(unless of course your suggesting we should believe everything posted on Twitter as gospel without verification.........)
We dont know yet. My guess is somewhere between the real thing and publicity - but we should avoid jumping on bandwagons.
I might be slightly more cynical this week because of their last piece of paranoia the other week ;)
1. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1216034
But what is paranoid about that piece the other week? The US Army describes Wikileaks as a potential danger to their operational and information security, due to moles being potentialy able to securely leak information to them. It then calls for, shall we say, further "awareness" of this potential "danger", and for submitting fabricated information, identification and prosecution of whisteblowers etc. What makes you think Wikileaks is being paranoid instead of realistic?
Which, if you read the document, was not actually the case.
Quote from the NYT: "Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, said the concerns the report raised were hypothetical.
“It did not point to anything that has actually happened as a result of the release,” Mr. Assange said. “It contains the analyst’s best guesses as to how the information could be used to harm the Army but no concrete examples of any real harm being done.” "
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html?scp=1&s...
If I may say, you do seem to be quick with your assumptions, in this case.
U.S. Intelligence planned to destroy WikiLeaks
I admit where I said attacked in the parent that was never explicitly stated; but the emphasis was heavily on the breathy kind of "OMG we were under attack" type.
Honestly I didnt see anything particularly revelatory in the document deserving of such breathless excitement :D
If some major press picks up this news, then it will certainly help WikiLeaks. I pushed it through at http://techie-buzz.com/latest-news/wikileaks-pentagon-murder...
I just hope that the information they are sitting on is indeed significant.Though, to be honest it probably is, since WikiLeaks is already popular (too popular for their own good).
Not true. The article you link to only contains quotes from the document Wikileaks published. That is not an admission of anything. Nor does the document actually describe planning attacks on Wikileaks: only Wikileaks' description (and subsequent mis-reporting based on that) characterizes it that way. The actual content of the document does not support that conclusion. I encourage you to read it for yourself.
I've seen many things from Wikileaks that are classified in nature and if they think that it's ok to do that they're mistaken, IMO.
I do however applaud their efforts with respect to net censorship and scientology secrets.
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
Even went so far as to agree to other point (EDITED out rude comment). Oh well, hey at least you responded with rational discussion. Oh wait you just voted down because you disagreed.
It's pretty easy for our enemies to set up scanners in the field and capture streams of data to analyze later. If the hack is generic enough and the method was used enough I can see how this could be potentially VERY bad.
That being said, I think we're using very simple encryption on our UAVs video feeds. So it's probably the equivalent of locking the front door and not as big a deal as I've made it out to be.
The point I'm really trying to make is that they are actively trying to acquire and release classified information, which is direct disregard for the law. If they were to "go away" I would neither be surprised, nor feel compassion.
What kind of society have we come to where it is revered to break the law in order to exact some change on our government?
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
Where the "going away" part would hopefully be against the law too.
It is illegal to who? If I came upon classified DoD information, I would publish it with my own name, and let them have fun trying to figure out how to stick their laws to someone who is not their citizen. Plenty of wikileaks ppl are not Americans -- you cannot expect them to follow your laws.
> What kind of society have we come to where it is revered to break the law in order to exact some change on our government?
You know, the one where the last time the government got too uppity you decided to kill/exile the lot?
> The point I'm really trying to make is that they are actively trying to acquire and release classified information, which is direct disregard for the law. If they were to "go away" I would neither be surprised, nor feel compassion.
So you believe an ordinary citizen shouldn't break the laws against his government, but the government should be allowed to break its own laws against the citizens. At least be coherent, if they "Went away" that would mean a vast array of laws would be broken.
> Plenty of wikileaks ppl are not Americans -- you cannot expect them to follow your laws.
A more than valid point. I had not considered the community nature of the site, nor the state in which it's owners are based.
> You know, the one where the last time the government got too uppity you decided to kill/exile the lot?
I assume you're speaking of the war in Iraq. Hmmm... I see a significant difference between a citizen breaking the laws of his own country (as this is what I was referring to) and a country breaking no laws to stop a tyrant who was slaughtering his own people. Wow I'm sure this will be a popular opinion here.
> So you believe [...] the government should be allowed to break its own laws against the citizens. [...] if they "Went away" that would mean a vast array of laws would be broken.
Well, I was assuming that if the owners/maintainers of the site went to jail then the site would go away. I was not trying to say that the government should reject 1st amendment rights.
Again I was assuming 100% US citizen involvement in this. It was a bad assumption, granted.
No, I mean the American Revolution.
Minor nitpick: you mean consistent.
The law which they didn't agree to abide by in the first place. Born into a country with a law you don't agree on enforced upon you, why should you stick to it if you both disagree with it and agree to take the consequences?
You seem to be arguing that it's bad simply because it's illegal, which is both circular (it's bad because it's bad), and annoyingly naive (respect authority for no other reason than it's authoritative).
> The ramifications of doing so with respect to hacking the encryption algorithm could possibly cause far greater damage that the release of the video itself
You have a better argument here, but one I disagree with - did you miss the last decade of XP security holes? Security by obscurity isn't a strong defense. If it's weak enough for ordinary people to break, the intelligence agencies of the world who care would make mincemeat of it.
> The point I'm really trying to make is that they are actively trying to acquire and release classified information, which is direct disregard for the law. If they were to "go away"
The hypocritical point you are trying to make is that you respect the law like a good citizen, and because they don't respect the law in the same way as you do that makes them scum who are unworthy of compassion, and as a result you'll happily become like them and disgregard your support for equality and human rights laws so they can suffer, while still feeling superior to them because you abide the law, while at the same time you are not doing so.
> What kind of society have we come to where it is revered to break the law in order to exact some change on our government?
What kind of society have we come to where people are unable to consider that 'law' and 'doing the right thing' might not the same thing?
Disregard human rights? Are you serious? Wow. I read and re-read what I've written and I still don't see that. I guessing you have misunderstood something I've said, but rather point out that I was vague in some way you use diagnosis bias to infer things that I've never said. I'm betting that were interpreting "go away" differently.
Not "arested, tried and sentenced". If that's what you meant then that's different - but it doesn't address whether it's right and fair for that to happen, only that you think it should happen because the current legal system says it should.
This in itself is probably leak-worthy, in that quite realistically, other organisations with more at stake and more resources will likely have done the same without broadcasting the fact. And the chances are that these others will use this ability with more serious consequences [than posting the footage online].
Sorry, but I don't buy it. Military encryption is designed to resist attacks done by enemy governmental agency.
They say thank you for all the $/CPU but lately I've read they were in dire need of cash to continue running the website, yet, they spent that money on cracking some alleged secret material...
Oh, and I'm pretty sure that cracking governmental material is considered an act of war, that would be pretty stupid to admit that publicly.
Sorry, but all of this sounds like kids living in a paranoid delirium or people trying to get attention (to raise money?).
In the summary they claimed that the US was recommending trying to fire/expose anyone who posted on wiki-leaks. However, all the article really said was "If people are fired or exposed for publishing on wiki leaks, this will probably serve as a deterrant." Two very different things. The summary was full of exaggerated claims like this one that really, in my opinion, made wiki-leaks look stupid.
The point is that wikileaks has a really awesome ideal, which is to expose bad things that are secrets. However, I worry that they are trying too hard to make everything into a conspiracy theory.
We need to step back and say, "Ok, so in some movies there are conspiracy theories like the ones we're presenting. And those movies are highly entertaining because they are so ridiculous. So, do we believe this because it is true or because we want it to be true?"
In the end, I would really like to know if the US government, or any government, is shooting journalists. But only if it really is true. Otherwise we're no better than schizophrenic conspiracy theorists and it really won't make a difference.
So to tie it in, is something really up with wiki-leaks? If it is that would be good information. But I would not be surprised to find out tomorrow that these claims were highly exaggerated.
http://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/10993931099
I mean probably, but if we're really talking about the wikileaks team being detained for serious business, can we realy trust that no one went and logged onto their twitter account to tell people that these weren't the droids they were looking for?
I'm going to assume they're likely fine, but a post on Twitter hardly provides complete assurance of that. Unfortunately I'm not sure there's really a provable way to deal with this problem that wouldn't compromise too much information.
John Connor: Max.
The Terminator: [impersonating John's voice] Hey Janelle, what's wrong with Wolfie? I can hear him barking.
T-1000 impersonating Janelle: Wolfie's fine, honey, Wolfie's just fine. Where are you?
The Terminator: [hangs up the phone] Your foster parents are dead.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0103064/quotes?qt0416763
It sounds like there'd be some risk involved..
Or host it in a country that likes to irritate the US government. Iran comes to mind. Venezuela would surely be open to it as well.
If Osama Bin Laden can find hosting there is no reason why a group of clever engineers can't as well.
This is the internet, after all.
What would happen is, they will call CIA first to verify the authenticity. Then CIA will threaten them and will claim this is 'classified' and if they don't immediately turn it over, heads will roll, hard drives will be shredded, offices will be closed for an indefinite time for investigation and so on. NYT will not touch this stuff with a ten foot pole.
From a more general perspective. Large news media outlets have very close and 'cosy' relationship with the government. They treasure that relationship as that gets them quick and timely access to government related news releases. That is just news that writes itself. Whatever spews out the Department Of State goes straight to the viewers/reader. All news media outlets need to do is add advertisement on top. Being cut off from that, means spending serious time and money on investigative journalism. Flying people around the world to dangerous areas, spending months on finding good leads and researching. NYT will just not take that risk.
"Bush Lets U.S. Spy on Callers Without Courts" http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html
This is most likely about murdering civilians in a botched air strike by CIA. CIA can and will shut a place down if they believe there is classified information there. I have heard of offices being raided and all hard drives shredded.
I think your belief that big, supposedly trust-worthy newspapers like the NYT are independent and publish such things, is not warranted anymore. They only publish what suits their interests, i.e. in some specific cases they may refrain from publishing, but that is exactly what counts, sadly.