WikiLeaks largest classified military leak

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
No, they posted other stuff beyond that, too, and certainly there is merit in debating whether or not everything that was posted deserved to be shared (did I really need to know what such and such world leader personally thought of another world leader?).

But there has been stuff that's been posted that could prove to be beneficial to us, that would help us instead of hurt us, and stuff that could soon be posted that we should know about. If, for instance, we get more information about all the crap involved in pushing for the Iraq War, I'd consider that very beneficial, we deserve to know just how much BS got shoveled at us to allow that war to go on. Not knowing that kind of information has put many people's lives in danger.

Well, I don't think any of the leaks have had any information about US policy towards Iraq prior to the invasion in 2003. Thank God that dictator and his family are no longer running that country.

Actually, not necessarily. We're getting proof, for instance, that not everyone in the Middle East is behind what some of the crazy leaders/groups are supporting (countries going nuclear, attacks against us and other nations, etc.). That can potentially weaken the power of the terrorists, once they know that all their claims have been proven to be total lies, and can benefit us, because now we see more potential allies in our midst, who might be able to help us in whatever crap is going on over there.

Well, the US government already knows this stuff. Its their private classified information. Joe Johnson does not need to know this stuff. Also, several middle eastern leaders may be less likely to share information in the future if they know its going to be suddenly exposed. Several middle eastern leaders walk a fine line between what they tell the public in their countries and what they tell the USA. Exposing such private conversations could actually strenthen terrorist in places like Yemen when people who only partially oppose the government see things they don't like. It could drive the fence sitters into the hands of the terrorist and create stonger insurgencies to overthrow important US allies in the region which would benefit Al Quada.

And the Taliban and al-Qaeda are a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. If WikiLeaks didn't expose the information, they'd have likely found out about at least some of it in some other way. You don't think they keep tabs on our moves already? You honestly think they're naive enough to not know what we've been doing or will do? That's how you work in a war, you try and figure out the other side's secrets and try and stay one step ahead of them.

If that were the case, there would be no benefit to keeping information classified.
 
You claimed there were people in THIS forum who had posted that the earth was flat. I simply asked for you to link to it. That means I'm looking for a link in THIS forum, not some other website that does not involve this forum. If someone in this forum had a conversation in a prior thread, in which they stated the earth was flat, provide the link. Understand?

No, I didn't, like I said go read the post again. You're having basic reading comprehension issues, but that makes me understand why you're having some problems discussing this issue.
 
Well, I seriously doubt your hero looked at all 250,000 documents before he copied them illegally.

You are correct, and I was wrong that the rest of those 250,000 documents were packaged off to Wikileaks based on the presumption of future crimes within. But the key point your original sentence missed that caught my attention was that Manning already saw state abuses in the documents he DID see, so that further presumption had a rational basis.

Once again, there is not one level of access to classified material. The fact that Bradley Manning successfully accessed and copied over 250,000 documents does not mean his security clearence was originally designed to allow him to view all such documents. There are technical problems with the system which may have allowed this.

Yes, there are 2.5 million people who have some access to classified material. But there are several dozen levels of security clearances.

I can see why, if you're obsessively waving the labels "private, classified" around as an all-purpose shield, that a description of the number of people with access using terms like "hundreds of thousands" and "millions" is threatening.

SIPRNet according to Google had predominately collateral Secret clearance, which is to say there were generally no access restrictions (besides NOFORN) to this information beyond just having a Secret clearance. And again- post 9/11, the US was trying to remove technical barriers to make this info more open and readable. (Bradley Manning himself had Top Secret/SCI clearance)
 
In this thread adam4bono wages a lonely war against Watergate, and the future tense.
 
I love the Watergate arguments. It shouldn't have been exposed because it removed a lying, criminal president at a time of "crisis" in Vietnam, which the Americans were responsible for orchestrating.

I suppose that this is American Exceptionalism.
 
sting.jpg
 
Well, I don't think any of the leaks have had any information about US policy towards Iraq prior to the invasion in 2003. Thank God that dictator and his family are no longer running that country.

Not yet, but who knows what else could show up in the leaks down the line?

I'm certainly not losing sleep over Saddam not running things anymore, either, but I also know there are some out there who would feel differently :shrug:.

Well, the US government already knows this stuff. Its their private classified information. Joe Johnson does not need to know this stuff.

If we want to try and prove that the entire Middle East isn't out to get us, yeah, we kind of should know it. Right now there's so much fearmongering and misinformation being spread to people about that area of the world, this information can help clarify a lot of things for us. And it makes it a hell of a lot less likely for the U.S. government to drum up support for war by claiming the Middle East hates us when we have the proof that they don't (just because some in the government know that information doesn't mean they're not going to try and twist words anyway).

And perhaps the U.S. government DIDN'T know all of this beforehand. Some of it's probably new to them as well.

Also, several middle eastern leaders may be less likely to share information in the future if they know its going to be suddenly exposed. Several middle eastern leaders walk a fine line between what they tell the public in their countries and what they tell the USA. Exposing such private conversations could actually strenthen terrorist in places like Yemen when people who only partially oppose the government see things they don't like. It could drive the fence sitters into the hands of the terrorist and create stonger insurgencies to overthrow important US allies in the region which would benefit Al Quada.

Except that we didn't put the information online, some yahoo in Sweden did. So it wouldn't really make sense for the leaders in other parts of the world to be mad at us, or vice versa. It's not like our president was sitting there waving private documents going, "Hey, guys, look at this stuff I got from talking with the leader of Yemen, you won't believe it!"

That said, though, yet AGAIN, if they found out this information, it was partially due to our government not keeping it properly secured to begin with, so we are kind of at fault in some ways and we should take the blame we deserve for that. And so should the leaders of any other nation who didn't seal up their documents more tightly, Middle Eastern ones included (once more, it isn't just our side of things that's getting exposed, it's theirs, too). But we don't deserve blame for putting it online, 'cause we didn't. Assange and his buddies did.

If that were the case, there would be no benefit to keeping information classified.

Oh, there still is a benefit. While they're busy trying to crack our strategy, we have to be ahead of them and try and keep everything as secret as possible so they don't succeed. And they have to be ahead of us, and so on and so on. Sometimes this game of chess works, sometimes it doesn't. But it still never hurts for us to try. And it's still naive to expect that they won't keep trying, either.

Angela
 
You have to realize that everyone that has access to classified information does not have equal access or the same access as everyone else. There are different levels of security clearance. At least that is how it is supposed to work. The more sensitive the information, the smaller the number of people who have access to it.

Indeed, there is top secret, and up to now no top secret infos were leaked by wikileaks. So what is this about and how wide-spread are top secret clearances? How hard would it be for foreign intelligence agencys to get top secret information when, in corporate America, 265,000 employees working at nearly 2,000 contractors have access?

According to a series of articles by the Washington Post (which probably does the same damage to national security interests as wikileaks, but I recently haven´t heard any of any Washington Post journalists haunted or death-threated) published here in July 2010 (months before wikileaks pusblished any of those cables)

"it is a system in which contractors are playing an ever more important role. The Post estimates that out of 854,000 people with top-secret clearances, 265,000 are contractors. There is no better example of the government's dependency on them than at the CIA, the one place in government that exists to do things overseas that no other U.S. agency is allowed to do."

Well, the US government already knows this stuff. Its their private classified information.

It´s the classified information of the US governments private contractors. Apparently, top secret informations are not as top secret as you believe.

"Private contractors working for the CIA have recruited spies in Iraq, paid bribes for information in Afghanistan and protected CIA directors visiting world capitals. Contractors have helped snatch a suspected extremist off the streets of Italy, interrogated detainees once held at secret prisons abroad and watched over defectors holed up in the Washington suburbs. At Langley headquarters, they analyze terrorist networks. At the agency's training facility in Virginia, they are helping mold a new generation of American spies.

(...) As companies raid federal agencies of talent, the government has been left with the youngest intelligence staffs ever while more experienced employees move into the private sector. This is true at the CIA, where employees from 114 firms account for roughly a third of the workforce, or about 10,000 positions. Many of them are temporary hires, often former military or intelligence agency employees who left government service to work less and earn more while drawing a federal pension.

Across the government, such workers are used in every conceivable way.

Contractors kill enemy fighters. They spy on foreign governments and eavesdrop on terrorist networks. They help craft war plans. They gather information on local factions in war zones. They are the historians, the architects, the recruiters in the nation's most secretive agencies. They staff watch centers across the Washington area. They are among the most trusted advisers to the four-star generals leading the nation's wars.

The Post's estimate of 265,000 contractors doing top-secret work was vetted by several high-ranking intelligence officials who approved of The Post's methodology. The newspaper's Top Secret America database includes 1,931 companies that perform work at the top-secret level. More than a quarter of them - 533 - came into being after 2001, and others that already existed have expanded greatly. Most are thriving even as the rest of the United States struggles with bankruptcies, unemployment and foreclosures.

The privatization of national security work has been made possible by a nine-year "gusher" of money, as Gates recently described national security spending since the 9/11 attacks.

With so much money to spend, managers do not always worry about whether they are spending it effectively.


"Someone says, 'Let's do another study,' and because no one shares information, everyone does their own study," said Elena Mastors, who headed a team studying the al-Qaeda leadership for the Defense Department. "It's about how many studies you can orchestrate, how many people you can fly all over the place. Everybody's just on a spending spree. We don't need all these people doing all this stuff."

(...) Contractor misdeeds in Iraq and Afghanistan have hurt U.S. credibility in those countries as well as in the Middle East. Abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, some of it done by contractors, helped ignite a call for vengeance against the United States that continues today. Security guards working for Blackwater added fuel to the five-year violent chaos in Iraq and became the symbol of an America run amok.

(...) Misconduct happens, too. A defense contractor formerly called MZM paid bribes for CIA contracts, sending Randy "Duke" Cunningham, who was a California congressman on the intelligence committee, to prison. Guards employed in Afghanistan by ArmorGroup North America, a private security company, were caught on camera in a lewd-partying scandal.

But contractors have also advanced the way the military fights. During the bloodiest months in Iraq, the founder of Berico Technologies, a former Army officer named Guy Filippelli, working with the National Security Agency, invented a technology that made finding the makers of roadside bombs easier and helped stanch the number of casualties from improvised explosives, according to NSA officials.

(...) Washington's corridors of power stretch in a nearly straight geographical line from the Supreme Court to the Capitol to the White House. Keep going west, across the Potomac River, and the unofficial seats of power - the private, corporate ones - become visible, especially at night. There in the Virginia suburbs are the brightly illuminated company logos of Top Secret America: Northrop Grumman, SAIC, General Dynamics. Of the 1,931 companies identified by The Post that work on top-secret contracts, about 110 of them do roughly 90 percent of the work on the corporate side of the defense-intelligence-corporate world.

To understand how these firms have come to dominate the post-9/11 era, there's no better place to start than the Herndon office of General Dynamics. One recent afternoon there, Ken Pohill was watching a series of unclassified images, the first of which showed a white truck moving across his computer monitor.

The truck was in Afghanistan, and a video camera bolted to the belly of a U.S. surveillance plane was following it. Pohill could access a dozen images that might help an intelligence analyst figure out whether the truck driver was just a truck driver or part of a network making roadside bombs to kill American soldiers.

To do this, he clicked his computer mouse. Up popped a picture of the truck driver's house, with notes about visitors. Another click. Up popped infrared video of the vehicle. Click: Analysis of an object thrown from the driver's side. Click: U-2 imagery. Click: A history of the truck's movement. Click. A Google Earth map of friendly forces. Click: A chat box with everyone else following the truck, too.

The evolution of General Dynamics was based on one simple strategy: Follow the money.

The company embraced the emerging intelligence-driven style of warfare. It developed small-target identification systems and equipment that could intercept an insurgent's cellphone and laptop communications. It found ways to sort the billions of data points collected by intelligence agencies into piles of information that a single person could analyze.

It also began gobbling up smaller companies that could help it dominate the new intelligence landscape, just as its competitors were doing. Between 2001 and 2010, the company acquired 11 firms specializing in satellites, signals and geospatial intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, technology integration and imagery.

On Sept. 11, 2001, General Dynamics was working with nine intelligence organizations. Now it has contracts with all 16. Its employees fill the halls of the NSA and DHS. The corporation was paid hundreds of millions of dollars to set up and manage DHS's new offices in 2003, including its National Operations Center, Office of Intelligence and Analysis and Office of Security. Its employees do everything from deciding which threats to investigate to answering phones.

General Dynamics' bottom line reflects its successful transformation. It also reflects how much the U.S. government - the firm's largest customer by far - has paid the company beyond what it costs to do the work, which is, after all, the goal of every profit-making corporation.

The company reported $31.9 billion in revenue in 2009, up from $10.4 billion in 2000. Its workforce has more than doubled in that time, from 43,300 to 91,700 employees, according to the company.

Revenue from General Dynamics' intelligence- and information-related divisions, where the majority of its top-secret work is done, climbed to $10 billion in the second quarter of 2009, up from $2.4 billion in 2000, accounting for 34 percent of its overall revenue last year.


The company's profitability is on display in its Falls Church headquarters. There's a soaring, art-filled lobby, bistro meals served on china enameled with the General Dynamics logo and an auditorium with seven rows of white leather-upholstered seats, each with its own microphone and laptop docking station.

General Dynamics now has operations in every corner of the intelligence world. It helps counterintelligence operators and trains new analysts. It has a $600 million Air Force contract to intercept communications. It makes $1 billion a year keeping hackers out of U.S. computer networks and encrypting military communications. It even conducts information operations, the murky military art of trying to persuade foreigners to align their views with U.S. interests.

- note: $1 billion a year and they couldn´t stop Bradley Manning? well.... -

(...) In September 2009, General Dynamics won a $10 million contract from the U.S. Special Operations Command's psychological operations unit to create Web sites to influence foreigners' views of U.S. policy. To do that, the company hired writers, editors and designers to produce a set of daily news sites tailored to five regions of the world. They appear as regular news Web sites, with names such as "SETimes.com: The News and Views of Southeast Europe."
The first indication that they are run on behalf of the military comes at the bottom of the home page with the word "Disclaimer." Only by clicking on that do you learn that "the Southeast European Times (SET) is a Web site sponsored by the United States European Command."

In the shadow of giants such as General Dynamics are 1,814 small to midsize companies that do top-secret work. About a third of them were established after Sept. 11, 2001, to take advantage of the huge flow of taxpayer money into the private sector. Many are led by former intelligence agency officials who know exactly whom to approach for work.

Abraxas of Herndon, headed by a former CIA spy, quickly became a major CIA contractor after 9/11. Its staff even recruited midlevel managers during work hours from the CIA's cafeteria, former agency officers recall.

Other small and medium-size firms sell niche technical expertise such as engineering for low-orbit satellites or long-dwell sensors. But the vast majority have not invented anything at all. Instead, they replicate what the government's workforce already does.

A company called SGIS, founded soon after the 2001 attacks, was one of these. SGIS sold the government the services of people with specialized skills; expanding the types of teams it could put together was one key to its growth. Eventually it offered engineers, analysts and cyber-security specialists for military, space and intelligence agencies. By 2003, the company's revenue was $3.7 million. By then, SGIS had become a subcontractor for General Dynamics, working at the secret level. Satisfied with the partnership, General Dynamics helped SGIS receive a top-secret facility clearance, which opened the doors to more work.

By 2006, its revenue had multiplied tenfold, to $30.6 million, and the company had hired employees who specialized in government contracting just to help it win more contracts.

"We knew that's where we wanted to play," Girgis said in a phone interview. "There's always going to be a need to protect the homeland."

Eight years after it began, SGIS was up to revenue of $101 million, 14 offices and 675 employees. Those with top-secret clearances worked for 11 government agencies, according to The Post's database.

The company's marketing efforts had grown, too, both in size and sophistication. Its Web site, for example, showed an image of Navy sailors lined up on a battleship over the words "Proud to serve" and another image of a Navy helicopter flying near the Statue of Liberty over the words "Preserving freedom." And if it seemed hard to distinguish SGIS's work from the government's, it's because they were doing so many of the same things. SGIS employees replaced military personnel at the Pentagon's 24/7 telecommunications center. SGIS employees conducted terrorist threat analysis. SGIS employees provided help-desk support for federal computer systems.

Still, as alike as they seemed, there were crucial differences. For one, unlike in government, if an SGIS employee did a good job, he might walk into the parking lot one day and be surprised by co-workers clapping at his latest bonus: a leased, dark-blue Mercedes convertible. And he might say, as a video camera recorded him sliding into the soft leather driver's seat, "Ahhhh . . . this is spectacular."

And then there was what happened to SGIS last month, when it did the one thing the federal government can never do. It sold itself.

The new owner is a Fairfax-based company called Salient Federal Solutions, created just last year. It is a management company and a private-equity firm with lots of Washington connections that, with the purchase of SGIS, it intends to parlay into contracts.

"We have an objective," says chief executive and President Brad Antle, "to make $500 million in five years."

(...) Of all the different companies in Top Secret America, the most numerous by far are the information technology, or IT, firms. About 800 firms do nothing but IT.

Some IT companies integrate the mishmash of computer systems within one agency; others build digital links between agencies; still others have created software and hardware that can mine and analyze vast quantities of data. The government is nearly totally dependent on these firms.


Their close relationship was on display recently at the Defense Intelligence Agency's annual information technology conference in Phoenix. The agency expected the same IT firms angling for its business to pay for the entire five-day get-together, a DIA spokesman confirmed. And they did."

And once again, while some of the blame does indeed rest on the shoulders of those who exposed sensitive information, the government also deserves blame, too, for letting this information that's supposedly so sacred get out there so easily. There's some definite incompetence on the part of our government, as well as the governments of other countries, for not keeping tighter locks on this information. We're living in a technological age where pretty much ANYTHING out there is up for exposure, so for people to be so shocked that something like this would happen eventually strikes me kind of funny. It was only a matter of time, people.
 
Indeed, there is top secret, and up to now no top secret infos were leaked by wikileaks. So what is this about and how wide-spread are top secret clearances? How hard would it be for foreign intelligence agencys to get top secret information when, in corporate America, 265,000 employees working at nearly 2,000 contractors have access?

According to a series of articles by the Washington Post (which probably does the same damage to national security interests as wikileaks, but I recently haven´t heard any of any Washington Post journalists haunted or death-threated) published here in July 2010 (months before wikileaks pusblished any of those cables)

"it is a system in which contractors are playing an ever more important role. The Post estimates that out of 854,000 people with top-secret clearances, 265,000 are contractors. There is no better example of the government's dependency on them than at the CIA, the one place in government that exists to do things overseas that no other U.S. agency is allowed to do."



It´s the classified information of the US governments private contractors. Apparently, top secret informations are not as top secret as you believe.

Again, there are lots of people who have "top-secret" clearances, but that does not tell you what type of top secret clearance they have. You continue to make the same mistake in assuming that there is only one type of top secret clearance and that millions of people have it. That couldn't be further from the truth.

All of the United States top officials from President Obama to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates are deeply concerned about the information that was published by wikileaks. Wikileaks had no right to take information that was private and publish it.
 
I love the Watergate arguments. It shouldn't have been exposed because it removed a lying, criminal president at a time of "crisis" in Vietnam, which the Americans were responsible for orchestrating.

I suppose that this is American Exceptionalism.

The United States was not trying to remove an independent country from the face of the Earth. North Vietnam and their supporters were trying to do that. Following Nixons removal from office, North Vietnam invaded and annexed South Vietnam resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Thousands of South Vietnames and creating millions of refugees. The United States was no longer involved in the war at that time, but the North obviously feared what Nixon would do in response to a large scale North Vietnames invasion of South Vietnam. They had caved in previously when Nixon launched Linebacker II back in December 1972 just prior to the end of US involvement in the war in March 1973 and ceacefire which North Vietnam would later break.

Which do you think is more important, the lies in and criminal activity involved in breaking into democratic party headquarters in a election he was going to win in a landslide anyways or the illegal annexation of another country, and the slaughter and enslavement of millions of people?

You could ask the same think about Clinton. Was it more important to focus on the fact that Clinton lied to a federal grand jury or to focus on the multiple international threats facing the country at the time.

Again, in both cases, it would have been better for the United States and the world if such offenses had not been exposed.
 
You are correct, and I was wrong that the rest of those 250,000 documents were packaged off to Wikileaks based on the presumption of future crimes within. But the key point your original sentence missed that caught my attention was that Manning already saw state abuses in the documents he DID see, so that further presumption had a rational basis.



I can see why, if you're obsessively waving the labels "private, classified" around as an all-purpose shield, that a description of the number of people with access using terms like "hundreds of thousands" and "millions" is threatening.

SIPRNet according to Google had predominately collateral Secret clearance, which is to say there were generally no access restrictions (besides NOFORN) to this information beyond just having a Secret clearance. And again- post 9/11, the US was trying to remove technical barriers to make this info more open and readable. (Bradley Manning himself had Top Secret/SCI clearance)

Bradley Manning saw things that HE thought were abuses in which case provided he really did have legal access to be viewing that specific information he should have communicated this to someone in a senior position. Thats the responsible thing to have done. The childish response we got though was the release of hundreds of thousands of private classified documents the vast majority of which Manning never read.

Once again, there are multiple levels of top secret security clearances. Simply having access does not mean you have access to everything.
 
No, I didn't, like I said go read the post again. You're having basic reading comprehension issues, but that makes me understand why you're having some problems discussing this issue.

Really?

Here is what you posted:

Yes and there are still those that believe the world is flat... and when they come in and express that belief I'll tell them the same thing. :shrug:

We were discussing the forum and I was saying how the name of the forum was Free Your Mind. When you say, "when they come in" I believe you are refering to this forum correct?

I simply asked you when has anyone come into this forum and said the world was "flat"?
 
Really?

Here is what you posted:



We were discussing the forum and I was saying how the name of the forum was Free Your Mind. When you say, "when they come in" I believe you are refering to this forum correct?

I simply asked you when has anyone come into this forum and said the world was "flat"?

"I'll tell them the same thing" I'll, the contraction for "I will", therefore future tense.

Like I said, simple reading comprehension.
 
Once again, there are multiple levels of top secret security clearances. Simply having access does not mean you have access to everything.

Your inability to apply this trivially true statement in any way against the argument I made about the number of people who could view these documents is laughable, particularly given that SIPRNet was specifically defined as handling collateral secret info without the restrictions you keep alluding to.
 
Your inability to apply this trivially true statement in any way against the argument I made about the number of people who could view these documents is laughable, particularly given that SIPRNet was specifically defined as handling collateral secret info without the restrictions you keep alluding to.

I'm just talking about how the system has worked for decades in general. That fact that there are multiple levels of security clearance is not trivial. Its incorrect to be suggesting that anyone with any sort of top secret clearance has access to everything.
 
I'm just talking about how the system has worked for decades in general. That fact that there are multiple levels of security clearance is not trivial. Its incorrect to be suggesting that anyone with any sort of top secret clearance has access to everything.

Am I inaccurate in believing that if you have a Top Secret clearance, you would be able to view uncompartmentalized Secret-level classified documents? If that is your claim then make it instead of hinting at it vaguely. If your argument is that otherwise cleared people may not have physical access to SIPRnet then for the Nth time I'll say the US was actively trying to make this sort of information openly accessible across government post 9/11.

Given this hilarious mishap with BVS though I'm reluctant to just take your word on anything.
 
Am I inaccurate in believing that if you have a Top Secret clearance, you would be able to view uncompartmentalized Secret-level classified documents? If that is your claim then make it instead of hinting at it vaguely. If your argument is that otherwise cleared people may not have physical access to SIPRnet then for the Nth time I'll say the US was actively trying to make this sort of information openly accessible across government post 9/11.

Given this hilarious mishap with BVS though I'm reluctant to just take your word on anything.

Wow, I can tell you must be the gentlemen of this forum. I've stated what I know in general and what has been a standard for decades. It is inaccurate to suggest that anyone with a top secret clearance has access to anything that is "top secret". There are different levels of security clearance and that point was not mentioned until I brought it up.
 
Wow, I can tell you must be the gentlemen of this forum. I've stated what I know in general and what has been a standard for decades. It is inaccurate to suggest that anyone with a top secret clearance has access to anything that is "top secret". There are different levels of security clearance and that point was not mentioned until I brought it up.

I don't want to keep going in circles when we've reached the point of just restating our objections. I think your 3rd and 4th sentences are wrong, (and clearly you think otherwise) but I'm happy letting others read our back and forth and decide for themselves.
 
well well well... :up:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/ric...n/25/bradley-manning-julian-assange-wikileaks


No link between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, say military sources
NBC News reports no collusion between Bradley Manning and Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, according to military sources

US military sources tell NBC they see no link between Bradley Manning (left) and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

US investigators have been unable to find evidence directly linking WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, the army private suspected of passing on confidential documents to the whistleblowing website, according to a report last night.

Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News's chief Pentagon correspondent, reported sources inside the US military as saying they could detect no contact between Manning and Assange.

According to NBC News:

The officials say that while investigators have determined that Manning had allegedly unlawfully downloaded tens of thousands of documents onto his own computer and passed them to an unauthorized person, there is apparently no evidence he passed the files directly to Assange, or had any direct contact with the controversial WikiLeaks figure.

If accurate, then US authorities have no realistic chance of successfully prosecuting or extraditing Assange for the leak of thousands of classified documents.

NBC also reported that the commander of Manning's military jail at the Quantico US Marine base exceeded his authority in placing the private on suicide watch last week, and that army lawyers had the restrictions removed:

Military officials said Brig Commander James Averhart did not have the authority to place Manning on suicide watch for two days last week, and that only medical personnel are allowed to make that call.

The official said that after Manning had allegedly failed to follow orders from his Marine guards. Averhart declared Manning a "suicide risk." Manning was then placed on suicide watch, which meant he was confined to his cell, stripped of most of his clothing and deprived of his reading glasses — anything that Manning could use to harm himself. At the urging of US Army lawyers, Averhart lifted the suicide watch.

Manning remains in solitary confinement in his cell for 23 hours each day, with only one hour for exercise and one hour watching television.

Manning's treatment has attracted criticism from human rights watchdog Amnesty International, which describes his conditions as "inhumane":

Manning is classed as a "maximum custody" detainee, despite having no history of violence or disciplinary offences in custody. This means he is shackled at the hands and legs during all visits and denied opportunities to work, which would allow him to leave his cell.

ABC's Jake Tapper raised questions about Manning's treatment during Monday's press briefing with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs:

Jake Tapper, ABC: A quick question about Bradley Manning, suspected of leaking information. Is the administration satisfied that he's being kept in conditions that are appropriate for his accused crime and that visitors to Bradley Manning are treated as any visitors to any prison are treated?

Robert Gibbs: I haven't, you know, truthfully, Jake, have not heard a lot of discussion on that inside of here. I'm happy to take a look at something. In terms of a specific question about that, I think that I would direct you to the authorities that are holding him.
 
I look at it this way: the internet has forever changed how we, as individuals, think about and handle our privacy and most personal information. Now, with Wikileaks and this watershed moment in politics and technology, nation-states are going to have to grapple with the 21st-century.

People who heap blame on Assange or this one site are completely missing the point. It's over, too late to go back. Al-Jazeera has launched a site where whistleblowers can submit files containing sensitive information through very strong encryption.

About the Transparency Unit | Al Jazeera Transparency Unit

Many other media outlets will follow suit.
 
Bill Keller of the NYTimes posts an essay about his paper's interactions with Assange and Wikileaks:

In fact, leaks of classified material — sometimes authorized — are part of the way business is conducted in Washington, as one wing of the bureaucracy tries to one-up another or officials try to shift blame or claim credit or advance or confound a particular policy. For further evidence that our government is highly selective in its approach to secrets, look no further than Bob Woodward’s all-but-authorized accounts of the innermost deliberations of our government.

The government surely cheapens secrecy by deploying it so promiscuously. According to the Pentagon, about 500,000 people have clearance to use the database from which the secret cables were pilfered. Weighing in on the WikiLeaks controversy in The Guardian, Max Frankel remarked that secrets shared with such a legion of “cleared” officials, including low-level army clerks, “are not secret.” Governments, he wrote, “must decide that the random rubber-stamping of millions of papers and computer files each year does not a security system make.”
:whistle:
I’m a little puzzled by the complaint that most of the embassy traffic we disclosed did not profoundly change our understanding of how the world works. Ninety-nine percent of what we read or hear on the news does not profoundly change our understanding of how the world works. News mostly advances by inches and feet, not in great leaps. The value of these documents — and I believe they have immense value — is not that they expose some deep, unsuspected perfidy in high places or that they upend your whole view of the world. For those who pay close attention to foreign policy, these documents provide texture, nuance and drama. They deepen and correct your understanding of how things unfold; they raise or lower your estimation of world leaders. For those who do not follow these subjects as closely, the stories are an opportunity to learn more. If a project like this makes readers pay attention, think harder, understand more clearly what is being done in their name, then we have performed a public service. And that does not count the impact of these revelations on the people most touched by them. WikiLeaks cables in which American diplomats recount the extravagant corruption of Tunisia’s rulers helped fuel a popular uprising that has overthrown the government.

....

The idea that the mere publication of such a wholesale collection of secrets will make other countries less willing to do business with our diplomats seems to me questionable. Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates called this concern “overwrought.” Foreign governments cooperate with us, he pointed out, not because they necessarily love us, not because they trust us to keep their secrets, but because they need us. It may be that for a time diplomats will choose their words more carefully or circulate their views more narrowly, but WikiLeaks has not repealed the laws of self-interest. A few weeks after we began publishing articles about the embassy cables, David Sanger, our chief Washington correspondent, told me: “At least so far, the evidence that foreign leaders are no longer talking to American diplomats is scarce. I’ve heard about nervous jokes at the beginning of meetings, along the lines of ‘When will I be reading about this conversation?’ But the conversations are happening. . . . American diplomacy has hardly screeched to a halt.”
 
I look at it this way: the internet has forever changed how we, as individuals, think about and handle our privacy and most personal information. Now, with Wikileaks and this watershed moment in politics and technology, nation-states are going to have to grapple with the 21st-century.

People who heap blame on Assange or this one site are completely missing the point. It's over, too late to go back. Al-Jazeera has launched a site where whistleblowers can submit files containing sensitive information through very strong encryption.

About the Transparency Unit | Al Jazeera Transparency Unit

Many other media outlets will follow suit.

And of course, leaking will become a part of the game.

I know an International Relations expert/lecturer, specialising in the Middle East, with a pretty interesting background before education. On the question of where these 'PaliLeaks' possibly came from, he thought - and he explained why - that them coming from the US would make the most, complete sense.
 
The Obama Administration's treatment of Bradley Manning is totally disgusting and shameful:

Link
This treatment is even more degrading considering that PFC Manning is being monitored -- both by direct observation and by video -- at all times. The defense was informed by Brig officials that the decision to strip PFC Manning of all his clothing was made without consulting any of the Brig's mental health providers.

I don't care if you think Manning should jailed for the rest of his life, there is absolutely no excuse for this sort of punishment, even if he's convicted.
 
I was waiting for an update on how they were doing with that whole, "Hold PFC Manning without charges / sleep deprivation / torture" thing.

Between Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and PFC Manning, I think the US Military would have trouble running a banana stand without finding some way to break UN Human Rights conventions.

The ultimate test of September 11th was seeing if the U.S. really held the moral high ground in the world, and it's pretty obvious from the events following that they have none. Very disappointed with that the country has become.
 
Between Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and PFC Manning, I think the US Military would have trouble running a banana stand without finding some way to break UN Human Rights conventions.

:lol:

The case of Bradley Manning and the recent Mubarak situation have really soured me on the traditional "freedom and democracy" rhetoric American politicians employ. It's gone from casual "oh you hypocritical politicians" to real anger. I read a really good point- none of this is nuanced by political considerations like one might argue certain Obama issues were. No one would have voted against him if he treated Manning humanely before trial.

They just want to fuck with this guy.
 
Back
Top Bottom