WikiLeaks largest classified military leak - Page 21 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-19-2010, 11:59 AM   #401
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 04:31 AM
this link is hiphop

__________________

hiphop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 12:06 PM   #402
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiphop View Post
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.
__________________

adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 12:17 PM   #403
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
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.
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 12:25 PM   #404
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
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.
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 12:31 PM   #405
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
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:

Quote:
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.
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"?
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 12:43 PM   #406
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 08:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
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.
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2010, 04:03 PM   #407
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
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.
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2010, 11:48 AM   #408
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
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.
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2010, 04:29 PM   #409
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
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.
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 05:39 PM   #410
The Fly
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 131
Local Time: 09:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
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.
adam4bono is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2010, 08:52 PM   #411
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 06:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by adam4bono View Post
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.
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 05:58 AM   #412
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 6,293
Local Time: 03:31 AM
well well well...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/rich...ange-wikileaks


Quote:
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.
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2011, 10:04 AM   #413
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 10:31 PM
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.
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 04:03 PM   #414
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 06:31 PM
Bill Keller of the NYTimes posts an essay about his paper's interactions with Assange and Wikileaks:

Quote:
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.”

Quote:
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.”
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2011, 05:41 PM   #415
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,609
Local Time: 03:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1131 View Post
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.
Earnie Shavers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2011, 11:37 PM   #416
Blue Crack Addict
 
PhilsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: South Philadelphia
Posts: 19,218
Local Time: 10:31 PM
Assange was on 60 minutes tonight. No matter what you think, it was a fascinating interview.

60 Minutes Video - WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, Pt. 1 - CBS.com

60 Minutes Video - WikiLeaks' Julian Assange, Pt. 2 - CBS.com
PhilsFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-31-2011, 07:06 AM   #417
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 10:31 PM
The "behind the interview" footage is great, as well.
Julian Assange: The "60 Minutes" Interview - 60 Minutes Overtime - CBS News
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2011, 07:18 PM   #418
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 06:31 PM
The Obama Administration's treatment of Bradley Manning is totally disgusting and shameful:

Link
Quote:
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.
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2011, 07:22 PM   #419
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Canadiens1131's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,363
Local Time: 10:31 PM
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.
Canadiens1131 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-04-2011, 07:38 PM   #420
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,435
Local Time: 06:31 PM
Quote:
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 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.
__________________

mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×