WikiLeaks largest classified military leak

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by hiphop

well, don´t forget "these people" are sending young men to war each and every day. "these people" are taking their cut from billions of arms sales every year. someone else does the killing for them.

will reveal double standards? that´s what i call positive thinking. what world is it you think we live in.. of course there are double standards. "these people" will get away with everything, they can command to murder anyone they fucking want as long as they don´t have dirt on their hands personally. and in the very unlikely case no one else (read: intelligence agency or mafia or hitman) does the killing for them, they bribe their way out of trouble.

yeah of course i know what world we live in, a world where double standards is the rule, and of course i know they won't be held accountable because they rarely are, but it's nice to think they could be lol

it's just now they've come out in the open and made such comments publicly and personally and blatantly revealed their true colours, i would've hoped there would be some justice, i'm not holding my breath but i can have a tiny grain of hope can't i? lol!!!

[hiphop]

Originally Posted by mama cass

yeah of course i know what world we live in, a world where double standards is the rule, and of course i know they won't be held accountable because they rarely are, but it's nice to think they could be lol

it's just now they've come out in the open and made such comments publicly and personally and blatantly revealed their true colours, i would've hoped there would be some justice, i'm not holding my breath but i can have a tiny grain of hope can't i? lol!!!

justice? well you could write a letter to the ICC expressing your concern

ICC - International Criminal Court : Home

[mobvok]

Interesting.

Originally Posted by The Guardian online chat

rszopa
Annoying as it may be, the DDoS seems to be good publicity (if anything, it adds to your credibility). So is getting kicked out of AWS. Do you agree with this statement? Were you planning for it?
Thank you for doing what you are doing.

Julian Assange:
Since 2007 we have been deliberately placing some of our servers in jurisdictions that we suspected suffered a free speech deficit inorder to separate rhetoric from reality. Amazon was one of these cases.

Give the Wikileaks team points for comprehensive planning. Joe Lieberman can reliably be counted on to be a douche.

[Moonlit_Angel]

I find it interesting that people outside the U.S. are more supportive of these leaks than those in the U.S. are. I hear people here in the States complaining a lot as of late about how we need more transparency, there's so much suspicion about what our government is really doing behind closed doors on all sorts of topics, and we always demand a "right to know" as a result. Now we're getting this information, and all of a sudden Assange is a bad person here in many people's eyes. Why the contradiction? Isn't he giving us what we wanted/demanded? And why are we so bothered by these leaks, whereas other parts of the world see them as a good thing?

So far it doesn't sound like anything truly earth-shattering has been revealed through the leaks that we've seen/heard about, but as time goes on I've no doubt that'll change. Like I said before, I understand, in the interests of national security, there are some things that need to have some secrecy about them so that any "enemies" don't find out our plans (though many times who our "enemy" is isn't clear at all, so that doesn't always work as an argument). But if something we or any other country is doing or has done has contributed to more suffering, or is illegal, or whatever, sorry, I think that should be brought into the open and the people involved should be exposed for whatever horrible things they did to others.

Angela

[mama cass]

Moonlit_Angel, there is a massive hate campaign against Assange/Wikileaks in the US which is probably influencing people - it's pretty scary to see from this side of the pond...

this doesn't appear to be the case so much over here and some of the regular press are the ones actually publishing the leaks, there are news items on the televised news, not from an anti-wikileaks perspective, but just your normal news reporting... although France is starting to get vocal against wikileaks, possibly due to its strict privacy laws, i don't know...

disturbing to hear that paypal has now banned the wikileaks acount...

in contrast though, Switzerland has rejected international pressure and is still providing wikileaks with a website...

[adam4bono]

Originally Posted by mama cass

Moonlit_Angel, there is a massive hate campaign against Assange/Wikileaks in the US which is probably influencing people - it's pretty scary to see from this side of the pond...

this doesn't appear to be the case so much over here and some of the regular press are the ones actually publishing the leaks, there are news items on the televised news, not from an anti-wikileaks perspective, but just your normal news reporting... although France is starting to get vocal against wikileaks, possibly due to its strict privacy laws, i don't know...

disturbing to hear that paypal has now banned the wikileaks acount...

in contrast though, Switzerland has rejected international pressure and is still providing wikileaks with a website...

I don't think its disturbing at all that people hate this thief. Stop stealing what doesn't belong to you! People in Europe probably overlook it because of their anti-US feelings.

[The_Pac_Mule]

So now Wikileaks is losing all its funding. Good.

I find it interesting that people outside the U.S. are more supportive of these leaks than those in the U.S. are.

People in Europe probably overlook it because of their anti-US feelings.

Of course, they're all looking for something to feed their anti-U.S. sentiment.

I hear people here in the States complaining a lot as of late about how we need more transparency, there's so much suspicion about what our government is really doing behind closed doors on all sorts of topics, and we always demand a "right to know" as a result. Now we're getting this information, and all of a sudden Assange is a bad person here in many people's eyes. Why the contradiction? Isn't he giving us what we wanted/demanded? And why are we so bothered by these leaks, whereas other parts of the world see them as a good thing?

I hear those kinds of comments about demanding more government transparency very rarely. When I do, it's usually coming from people who think the government is lying and covering up EVERYTHING (JFK, 9/11, etc.) so I don't listen to them anyways. Personally, one of the many reasons I (and probably many others) am bothered by wikileaks is because all this information is coming from a guy who isn't even an American, let alone a member of our government. He's simply a self-righteous prick. He doesn't care what happens to America because of anything he releases. He's just feeding anti-American sentiment, which I really don't think the world needs more of. Which brings me to my other point, that this actually DOES bother many other countries, particularly in the Middle-East. Now we know that countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Libya don't want a nuclear Iran just as much as we do, and even support pre-emptive strikes if it comes to it. I'm sure they're all REAL happy with us now that Iran now knows this! Somebody tell me why the hell this information needed to be leaked? It's certainly reassuring for us, but now diplomatic relations all across the middle-east are going to suffer. Way to go jackass!

But if something we or any other country is doing or has done has contributed to more suffering, or is illegal, or whatever, sorry, I think that should be brought into the open and the people involved should be exposed for whatever horrible things they did to others.

So far wikileaks has yet to truly do that.

disturbing to hear that paypal has now banned the wikileaks acount...

How is that disturbing? They're engaging in illegal activies, why would they get some sort of free pass? My youtube account got deleted when I posted U2 music videos

[hiphop]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

Of course, they're all looking for something to feed their anti-U.S. sentiment.

You don´t get it. I´m European and don´t have anti-U.S. sentiments. I have anti-corruption and anti-crime sentiments. I had anti Bush-sentiments when he still was in office, and probably have anti-Palin sentiments since she confuses north with south korea. But hey, anti-U.S.? Absolutely not. Many Americans have more anti-U.S. sentiments than I do - i.e. the mothers of the young men who died in Iraq. Most Europeans have more anti-E.U. sentiments than Americans, because of the neo-liberal policies the E.U. establishes. Look at all the protests in europe. This is not anti-U.S. it has nothing to do with America, just with the corrupt European politicians cutting social and education budgets while "bailing out" the banks, deportation flights for asylum seekers etc.

If you read any of the cables, you will find out that there are as many shady actions by Europeans, Turkish or Russian politicians as by American politicians. Read the cables on Putin or Merkel.

This whole bashment absolutely reminds me of Watergate. I remember how the authors of the articles at Washington Post were getting bashed. The dirty little plots the secret services played (i.e. the one with the toilet on the airport). People who are just a tiny little bit intelligent know how corrupt, criminal thiefs of the government and its administration want to put dirt on those who expose their crimes. How they pressure newspapers to withhold publishing by threatening them with lawsuits. In the case of Watergate it didn´t help: later, the authors of Watergate got the Pulitzer prize.

Fact is that this is NOT about Assange and if he is allowed to publish this etc etc, but it is about the information in the cables. The content of cables is what should be discussed, not if Assange is allowed to publish those cables.

It´s amazing so many people on this forum are foolish enough to jump into the discussion about Assange, but completely forget to read or discuss the content of the cables. Of course, this is strategy.

On another note, most of the cables aren´t top top secret and only President, admin and NSA, CIA know about the facts. More than 1,000,000 Americans, including the army, can access the system they were stored at.

[hiphop]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

Which brings me to my other point, that this actually DOES bother many other countries, particularly in the Middle-East. Now we know that countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Libya don't want a nuclear Iran just as much as we do, and even support pre-emptive strikes if it comes to it.

Yes, and this information surprised me. It speaks FOR the U.S., not against the U.S. If the content of this cable is true, we now know that the U.S. isn´t completely lunatic (like they are with Iraq, need I remind you of the stockpiles of WMD there) and stands alone, but that the U.S. gets pressure from some of the Arab world (nice countries like Saudi Arabia, where people get their hands hacked off) to attack Iran.

Indeed, it is an interesting read. It´s also interesting to know that Ahmadinejad wanted free press in Iran but got slapped by another guy in those religious meetings (?) for mentioning this.

[hiphop]

"U.S. soldiers in Iraq who try to read about the Wikileaks disclosures—or read coverage of them in mainstream news sites—on unclassified networks get a page warning them that they're about to break the law.

The federal government seems to have lost its mind in a manic game of internet whack-a-mole aimed at getting the Wikileaks State Department cables thrown down the memory hole: First, Sen. Joe Lieberman successfully nudged Amazon into kicking the site off its servers. Then the Library of Congress blocked the site for all employees and users of its computer terminals. Now we learn that the State Department is warning prospective hires that if they write about Wikileaks on Twitter or Facebook, they might not get that job. And now Gawker has learned that military installations in Iraq are trying to keep soldiers from reading about Wikileaks.

A tipster wrote to tell us that "the Army's unclassified, NIPRNET network in Iraq has blocked every major news website because of the Wikileaks issue," going on to say that Foxnews.com, CNN.com, MSNBC.com, the Huffington Post, and a variety of other sites are blocked on the Army's unclassified network."

http://gawker.com/5705639/us-militar...ding-wikileaks

Hey, what was the difference between China and the U.S. when it comes to censoring? Ummm.. I can´t remember. The regime bares its teeth..

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

So now Wikileaks is losing all its funding. Good.

no, no, it's not "losing all its funding" - where did you read that? lol - i'm sure donors will find other ways of giving to wikileaks, paypal is just one convenient method, that's all

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by adam4bono

People in Europe probably overlook it because of their anti-US feelings.

lol

you should read up on it a bit more - the leaks aren't just about the US you know...

some of us value freedom of information and that kind of thing...

thought this was interesting:

Here's what Ron Paul told Fox Business yesterday:
“In a free society we're supposed to know the truth,” Paul said. “In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it.”
“This whole notion that Assange, who's an Australian, that we want to prosecute him for treason. I mean, aren't they jumping to a wild conclusion?” he added. “This is media, isn't it? I mean, why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?”

[AliEnvy]

Originally Posted by Canadiens1131

Governments are far behind the internet age, and when their dirty laundry is aired like this for all to see, you can bet heads will roll internally to get their protocals updated.

Originally Posted by AliEnvy

Isn't it more likely that the internet will be more heavily regulated and policed?

Here we go.

Originally Posted by hiphop

"U.S. soldiers in Iraq who try to read about the Wikileaks disclosures—or read coverage of them in mainstream news sites—on unclassified networks get a page warning them that they're about to break the law.

The federal government seems to have lost its mind in a manic game of internet whack-a-mole aimed at getting the Wikileaks State Department cables thrown down the memory hole: First, Sen. Joe Lieberman successfully nudged Amazon into kicking the site off its servers. Then the Library of Congress blocked the site for all employees and users of its computer terminals. Now we learn that the State Department is warning prospective hires that if they write about Wikileaks on Twitter or Facebook, they might not get that job. And now Gawker has learned that military installations in Iraq are trying to keep soldiers from reading about Wikileaks.

A tipster wrote to tell us that "the Army's unclassified, NIPRNET network in Iraq has blocked every major news website because of the Wikileaks issue," going on to say that Foxnews.com, CNN.com, MSNBC.com, the Huffington Post, and a variety of other sites are blocked on the Army's unclassified network."

U.S. Military in Iraq Tries to Intimidate Soldiers Into Not Reading Wikileaks

Hey, what was the difference between China and the U.S. when it comes to censoring? Ummm.. I can´t remember. The regime bares its teeth..

How long before the rest of us are breaking the law?

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Being a "whistleblower" and exposing wrong doing by governments and corporations is all fine and dandy.

Releasing details on secret deals and cooperation by governments, details about military operations, etc. is irresponsible and hurts diplomacy and puts lives at risk; both directly and indirectly.

I blame manning more than assange, who's nothing more than a giant douche.

I also blame the US government. How is it so easy to get these files out? I can't go to a webpage without my employer knowing what im doing. How was manning able to get this stuff out for so long?

The US government needs to do a better job of friggin IT security, and they need to prosecute manning to the fullest extent of the law available, mostly so that anyone else who might want to try and do this thinks twice.

Whatever we can do to make life harder for wikileaks themselves as well is fine with me.

[Canadiens1131]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

I also blame the US government. How is it so easy to get these files out? I can't go to a webpage without my employer knowing what im doing. How was manning able to get this stuff out for so long?

The US government needs to do a better job of friggin IT security, and they need to prosecute manning to the fullest extent of the law available, mostly so that anyone else who might want to try and do this thinks twice.

I believe Manning was a low-level intelligence officer, and therefore had access to the relevant database.

None of the documents released were highly classified, nor do they really tell us much that we don't already know, nor do they directly put lives in jeopardy. They are just embarrassing for the U.S. Government and diplomatic corps, since it's the equivalent of having one's dirty laundry aired for the entire world to see, or one's diary read aloud in class.

The Apache-vs-Journalists in a van "d'oh" moment was much more scandalous than this shit, Headache.

[Canadiens1131]

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

Of course, they're all looking for something to feed their anti-U.S. sentiment.

Not really.

A lot of the diplomatic cables centre on looking at the goings-on in other governments, and Europeans are having more of a chuckle at some of their own politicians (and those of the Middle East) than at the expense of the U.S.

I think there has recently been a lot more positive U.S. sentiment out there since Obama, a seemingly more progressive leader, was elected. Recently, European sentiment has been trending more towards "don't really have time to have many sentiments towards the U.S., brb, economy collapsing".

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

I hear those kinds of comments about demanding more government transparency very rarely. When I do, it's usually coming from people who think the government is lying and covering up EVERYTHING (JFK, 9/11, etc.) so I don't listen to them anyways.

Grouping folks who want a more transparent government in with tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists is a little much there, Pac Mule.

I think you too often try to place things in a "right" or "wrong" column, and for most issues there is no A or B to sort everything into.

That kind of thinking got the U.S. into Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq: The Next Generation.

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

Personally, one of the many reasons I (and probably many others) am bothered by wikileaks is because all this information is coming from a guy who isn't even an American, let alone a member of our government. He's simply a self-righteous prick. He doesn't care what happens to America because of anything he releases. He's just feeding anti-American sentiment, which I really don't think the world needs more of. Which brings me to my other point, that this actually DOES bother many other countries, particularly in the Middle-East.

Again, you go out of your way to attack Assange (who is a bit of a twat) when the documents were leaked by Bradley Manning, a U.S. soldier.



The mistake you make here is the same error the Pentagon made when trying to "censor" a book by buying thousands of copies from Amazon.com. In this day and age, when information is "out there", it's "out there".

Whether WikiLeaks ended up hosting the cables on their own rented servers, or if it was another whistleblowing website, or your aunt Sally's internet connection; it doesn't really matter. When it's out there, it's gone, vamos, nothing you can do about it.

~

You make some good points sometimes, The_Pac_Mule, but I think you might benefit from doing some more research and broadening your perspective on an issue before diving in with guns blazing, to be honest.

[coolian2]

WikiLeaks: Kiwi beaches matters to America | Stuff.co.nz

Two Auckland beaches have been declared crucial to American security in a cable written by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The cable, written in February last year, is among today's dump by whistleblower WikiLeaks.

New Zealand's sole reference relates to the Southern Cross Cable, a fibre optic link between the US, Australia and New Zealand, via Fiji.

The cable comes ashore on Takapuna beach and is buried in a 15 kilometre link across the North Shore and via Whenuapai before diving back into the sea at the Manukau Harbour and heading out to Australia.

Clinton's cable requires embassies around the world to built a list of "critical infrastructure and key resources" aboard that could be part of a National Infrastructure Protection Plan.

"The overarching goal of the NIPP is to build a safer, more secure, and more resilient America by enhancing protection of the nation's CI/KR to prevent, deter, neutralize or mitigate the effects of deliberate efforts by terrorists to destroy, incapacitate or exploit them; and to strengthen national preparedness, timely response, and rapid recovery in the event of an attack, natural disaster or other emergency," Clinton says.

Referring to sites outside the US, she said they want to "identify these critical US foreign dependencies - foreign CI/KR that may affect systems within the US directly or indirectly".

Embassies are asked to report on the state of security around the facilities and they are told not - twice - to "consult with host governments".

New Zealand is listed as: "Southern Cross undersea cable landing, Whenuapai, New Zealand Southern Cross undersea cable landing, Takapuna."

The Fiji Southern Cross landing spot is also designated as vital to US security.

fuck. scandalous!

[mama cass]

governments don't stop at anything when it comes to strategy and own interests.... sovereignty, what's that?! lol

i don't know why but it got me thinking on Diego Garcia just now... it's late, i'm tired and my mind is drifting...

[mama cass]

that was it... a lot of the leaks are things we know about already, but sometimes they do fill in some gaps and make you go "aha!"

The Diego Garcia depopulation controversy pertains to the expulsion of those inhabitants qualifying as indigenous from the island of Diego Garcia and the other islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT), beginning in 1968 and concluding on 27 April 1973 with the evacuation of Peros Banhos atoll.[1] These people were known at the time as the ‘’Ilois’’; today they are known as ‘’Chagos Islanders’’, or ‘’Chagossians’’.
Some Chagossians and human rights advocates have claimed that the Chagossian right of occupation was violated by the British Foreign Office as a result of the 1966 agreement[2] between the UK and US to provide an unpopulated island for a US military base, and that additional compensation[3] and a right of return[4] be provided.
Legal action to claim compensation and the right of abode in the Chagos began in April 1973 when 280 islanders, represented by a Mauritian attorney, petitioned the Government of Mauritius to distribute the £650,000 compensation provided in 1972 by the British government for distribution by the Mauritian Government (it was not distributed until 1977).[5] In October 1974, after receiving no assistance from the Mauritian Government, a Mr. Saminaden and Mr. Michel Vincatassin presented the British High Commissioner to Mauritius with a petition detailing the lack of support the islanders had received from the Mauritian government, noting that 40 islanders had died since arriving on Mauritius, and asking for the UK Government to work on their behalf with the Mauritian Government, or to return the Ilois to the Chagos.[6]
From this initial petitioning grew a series of presentations and lawsuits culminating in the 27 March 1982 agreement among the British Government, the Mauritian Government, and the Islanders (numbering 1,419 adults and 160 minors),[7] which was intended to settle all islander claims for the sum of £4 millions in cash from the British Government and £1 million in land from the Mauritius Government.[8]
Beginning in 1983, a new series of compensation claims were made against the British Government by an Ilois group called the Chagos Refugee Group, located on Mauritius. The founders and officers formed the core of inhabitants who, beginning in 1999, brought three lawsuits to British Courts - in 1999,[9] 2002,[10] and 2006[4] - and one to an American Court in 2001,[11] all requesting additional compensation and the right of abode in the Chagos. The U.S. case and two of these three British cases were defeated on appeal, the other was not appealed[9] by the British Government.
In 2005, these same litigants filed a brief with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which was brought before that court in 2008 following the final defeat of the final British lawsuit before the House of Lords, and that case remains in litigation as of August 2010.
The British government has consistently denied any illegalities in the expulsion. Even so, various officials (including the Foreign Minister) have apologised to the Chagossians for long-ago wrongdoing,[12] while still disputing that the deportees have a right to be repatriated at this time. On April 1, 2010, the British Cabinet announced the creation of the world’s largest Marine Protected Area (MPA) which consists of most of the Chagos Archipelago, homeland of the Chagossians.[13] The MPA will prohibit extractive industry of all kinds, including commercial fishing and oil and gas exploration. Some Chagossians have claimed that this MPA was created to prevent the islanders from returning to the islands.[14][15][16] The UK Government claims that the restrictions of the MPA will be modified pending the decision of the ECHR.[17]

and BINGO!

On December 1, 2010, a leaked US Embassy London diplomatic cable [18] exposed British and US intentions in creating the marine nature reserve. The cable relays exchanges between US Political Counselor Richard Mills and British Director of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Colin Roberts, in which Roberts "asserted that establishing a marine park would, in effect, put paid to resettlement claims of the archipelago’s former residents." Richard Mills concludes:
Establishing a marine reserve might, indeed, as the FCO’s Roberts stated, be the most effective long-term way to prevent any of the Chagos Islands’ former inhabitants or their descendants from resettling in the [British Indian Ocean Territory].
The cable (reference ID "09LONDON1156") was classified as confidential and "no foreigners", and leaked as part of the Cablegate cache.

[Vincent Vega]

Nice! I'm all for MPAs. We need them, and we need more. Only .1 percent of all waters are protected from fishing, yet more than 75 percent of all fish species of interest to human consumption or vital to marine biodiversity are at the brink of extinction.

It might still be justified on ecological and species-related grounds, but nonetheless it's quite a shame.