Pentagon 'will force WikiLeaks to comply' threat to staff.

Biggins

The backroom boys of the Pentagon are emerging as a threat to WikiLeaks and staff by they being openly being threatened in the media.

The Pentagon warned WikiLeaks last night that if website staff did not voluntarily hand over thousands of unpublished classified documents US officials would force them to comply.

“If doing the right thing is not good enough for them, then we will figure out what other alternatives we have to compel them to do the right thing,“ he said. “Let me leave it at that.”

Full story: http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/83/wwwthetimescoukttonewsw.jpg
(Supplied as a jpeg due to site being pay per view)

The pentagon is looking at ways to take out the site by quiet alternative means it appears!

wes

Well, you never know with the US, they bombed Al Jazeera before and held one of there camera men captive for years without trial and tortured him.

Hopefully, the US doesn't respond to Wikileaks in the same manner, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

Ian Beale

They know dam well if they try and take the site down or go after any of the websites staff then all the files will be released immediatly. If they have to resort to public threats they must be very worried what's in those files.

Gone Drinking

This just in..

*puts finger on ear piece*

WHO GIVES A SIHT!

Biggins

I'd start making back-up copies of everything and distributing them to alternative server locations as well as harddrive non-attached storage back-ups.

I have no doubt backroom people have come up with various methods (be it trogen, virus, etc) to attack their servers and destroy any data.

Why does it matter?

Because only light-headed fools will fail to see that if they can do this to one, they can do it to all!
If at first you don't succeed by the law, fcuk it, take them out by alternative means - the Pentagon way!

jordan..

Ian Beale wrote: »

They know dam well if they try and take the site down or go after any of the websites staff then all the files will be released immediatly. If they have to resort to public threats they must be very worried what's in those files.

Worried that we may find out who the real global terrorists are!

danniemcq

Despite the US's history given above with Al Jazerra and the camera man i don't think they'd get away with it with the publicity that the wikileaks story has gotten in the last few weeks.

these guys aren't "A-rabs" or foreign enemies i think there would be a far bigger outcry.

Cookie_Monster

if Wikileaks has all these why haven't they been released already then?

Cheap Thrills!

Twats.

Biggins

feelingstressed wrote: »

Some people are facing very, very long jail sentences if they don't comply.
Rightfully so

You can't just publish classified and secret information.

If someone has an issue with the Pentagon or wants information made public there are oversight committees for that, take your grievance through the channels

(Post now removed for some reason!)

Sorry but we are not the 51st state of America yet. "Oversight committees" ???
We do not according to our constitution, answer to them yet.

So the American Pentagon can go shove its clear threats up its own ass.
Maybe the American bullies from the Pentagon could stick to proper channels instead of issuing threats!
...Buts thats the American way isn't it?
If they don't buy/bully their way to get that they want - invade or destroy!

Fcuk off Pentagon!

Biggins

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

if Wikileaks has all these why haven't they been released already then?

They are further deeper reviewing the data they have, to remove any people that might become targets.
They stated that its taking them at least one day to review every 1000 documents.
With another 15,000+ documents that they have, the Pentagon KNOWS the days are counting down to possible release and so are issuing threats now!

Sykk

Though they have found some serious ****, publishing a lot of it was pretty bad form methinks. But then you have the one where the American helicopter killed a load of civilians..

mikemac

You are commenting on an American story

51st state?
Where did I mention Ireland and the Irish constitution?
Ireland was never mentioned in your OP so why drag Ireland into this now.

The story was about the Pentagon

I did remove the post because I've never read the Wikileaks website so I decided to have a read of it before I commented here.
I'm happy with my post though

Biggins

feelingstressed wrote: »

You are commenting on an American story
51st state?
Where did I mention Ireland and the Irish constitution?
Ireland was never mentioned in your OP so why drag Ireland into this now.

The story was about the Pentagon

So why are you rabbiting on about on that "If someone has an issue with the Pentagon or wants information made public there are oversight committees..."

Huh? Huh???

American story my arse.
Where exactly do you think the data servers are actually based - AS WELL AS the people that staff them!
OTHER foreign countries!

Let me spell it out.
America via the Pentagon is once again stating to others beyond their legislative borders - and the world that they/we better do what America says or they will come and get us by alternative means!

Itsdacraic

Gone Drinking wrote: »

This just in..

*puts finger on ear piece*

WHO GIVES A SIHT!

Educated people with an interest in current affairs.

mikemac

If you have access to classified documents and don't agree with them I hardly think the solution is to publish them on the internet.
And you can face jail sentences for this depending on where you are or if you can extradited.

Yes, the Pentagon has oversight committees. Most government departments do
If you have an issue with the policies are you going to get an investigation started to change things or lash up classified information for all to see?

I made a post, I explained it, then I went to Wikileaks to read some more and this means I'm rabbitting on? :rolleyes:

Biggins

feelingstressed wrote: »

If you have access to classified documents and don't agree with them I hardly think the solution is to publish them on the internet.

...In your opinion.

feelingstressed wrote: »

...And you can face jail sentences for this depending on where you are or if you can extradited.

...If we were under their legal system and/or jurisdiction!

feelingstressed wrote: »

...Yes, the Pentagon has oversight committees....

Yes, in AMERICA.
The rest of the world is NOT America so we don't answer to them or have you not kopped that bit yet?

feelingstressed wrote: »

..I made a post, I explained it, then I went to Wikileaks to read some more and this means I'm rabbitting on? :rolleyes:

You made a post - you deleted it! :rolleyes: - and your still rabbiting rubbish ...in my opinion of course!

gizmo

Yea, because nothing bad can come from having classified army intelligence material in the hands of an unaccountable body such as Wikileaks.

Oh no, wait.

the_syco

Biggins wrote: »

Full story: http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/83/wwwthetimescoukttonewsw.jpg

LoL @ the comment comparing it to TPB. TPB doesn't host anything illegal, it just points to it. WikiLeaks has classified content, taken illegally from a government server. The US don't lilke leaving people who have helped them behind. If the documents were released, I'd say a few informants may be mentioned.

losthorizon

Funny, I watch a great movie last night called Daniel Ellsberg - The Most Dangerous Man in America. The similarities with whats going on now and in the time of the Vietnam war is quite startling.

Mr Ellsberg helped bring down Nixon and end the Vietnam war. Maybe just maybe Wixileaks could help have the same effect. Although peoples attentions span is so much less now.

http://www.ellsberg.net/

Biggins

gizmo wrote: »

Yea, because nothing bad can come from having classified army intelligence material in the hands of an unaccountable body such as Wikileaks.

Oh no, wait.

Where as Army Intelligence hasn't killed many, many innocent people over as many years?

"He who has not sinned, cast the first stone?" :rolleyes:

O' wait, let me check the news reports weekly!

mikemac

Put the wrong kind of classified information on the internet and you put lives at risk.
Like lists of informants as that link showed.

I've no doubt Army Intelligence makes mistakes, wrong areas bomed and civilians killed.
How does that excuse what may happen if this new information is released and gets people killed?

Wikileaks don't own that information.
I don't know how they got classified information but it needs to be given back to its owner

Biggins

feelingstressed wrote: »

Put the wrong kind of classified information on the internet and you put lives at risk.
Like lists of informants as that link showed.

Wikileaks don't own that information.
I don't know how they got classified information but it needs to be given back to its owner

So you or the Pentagon now gets to say what's the right or wrong information?
The people can't judge for themselves or be allowed to?

...And if we try to, they issue threats!
Not legal by the law edicts - threats!

gizmo

Biggins wrote: »

Where as Army Intelligence hasn't killed many, many innocent people over as many years?

"He who has not sinned, cast the first stone?" :rolleyes:

O' wait, let me check the news reports weekly!

Yes, and two wrongs don't make a right.

Wikileaks shouldn't have that material and because of their last leak they have not only caused the death of one person but also endangered the lives of many others who worked with the Coalition/US forces over there.

pablomakaveli

Biggins wrote: »

Where as Army Intelligence hasn't killed many, many innocent people over as many years?

"He who has not sinned, cast the first stone?" :rolleyes:

O' wait, let me check the news reports weekly!

That does'nt justify putting innocent afghans at risk. The guys at wikileaks should be more responsible when releasing the information.

Biggins

gizmo wrote: »

Yes, and two wrongs don't make a right.

Wikileaks shouldn't have that material and because of their last leak they have not only caused the death of one person but also endangered the lives of many others who worked with the Coalition/US forces over there.

They SHOULD have reviewed the material better and removed names - HOWEVER what is being overlooked and I suspect the American military is glad this is so, is the actions of their armies on the ground killing innocent civilians.

Many, many more, over as many years, that are exposed to have been killed, buried in those reports!

Biggins

pablomakaveli wrote: »

...The guys at wikileaks should be more responsible when releasing the information.

No argument there. See above post.

gizmo

Biggins wrote: »

They SHOULD have reviewed the material better and removed names - HOWEVER what is being overlooked and I suspect the American military is glad this is so, is the actions of their armies on the ground killing innocent civilians.

Many, many more, over as many years, that are exposed to have been killed, buried in those reports!

That's not the point you're trying to make with this thread though. You're specifically having a go at the US Military for "threatening" Wikileaks over their possession of classified documents. In this context, I say good. Wikileaks should not have this information and they have proved with their lastest leak that, legalities aside, they are not responsible enough to possess it.

eamo12

Clearly, this is the work of a mole who is being treasonous to the US forces by giving this confidential information to wikileaks who will use it as pro-taliban/anti-american propaganda. They are working the enemy - all is fair in love and war, baby.

Biggins

gizmo wrote: »

That's not the point you're trying to make with this thread though.

True, others are trying to sidetrack it to their own issue on which they can't be bothered to start their own thread!

gizmo wrote: »

...You're specifically having a go at the US Military for "threatening" Wikileaks over their possession of classified documents...

Correct. I find it objectionable that a foreign country issues threats to others if they don't get their way!
That's still called bullying. State sanctioned bullying.

gizmo wrote: »

...Wikileaks should not have this information and they have proved with their lastest leak that, legalities aside, they are not responsible enough to possess it.

They have proved that they should have reviewed the material better - but then we all learn from cock-ups.
Well most of us do, armies the world over are still killing many more innocent civilians - and guess what - trying to hide those crimes in their documents. When will we see those held accountable?

If America is so incensed about lost lives - where is the many trails of those under their actual jurisdiction that have killed many, many innocent civilians?
...But no! Lets bury the truth and crimes in nicely re-worded buried documents instead!

karma_

WikiLeaks is a fantastic organisation, and one that is badly needed in this day and age where real news is so hard to come by.

Check out the TED talk given by Julian Assange, well worth 20 minutes of anyones time.

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DZByoqBTE4

markwho

I dont trust wikileaks at all.
Its clearly run by a bond villain with ulterior motives
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/15981_Julian_Assange_2.png

meditraitor

Biggins wrote: »

So you or the Pentagon now gets to say what's the right or wrong information?

Sadly in the case of 50m or so citizens of Iraq and Afganistan this is true

gizmo

eamo12 wrote: »

Clearly, this is the work of a mole who is being treasonous to the US forces by giving this confidential information to wikileaks who will use it as pro-taliban/anti-american propaganda. They are working the enemy - all is fair in love and war, baby.

Yep, it's already been established who the mole is, how he was turned in etc...

Biggins

markwho wrote: »

I dont trust wikileaks at all.
Its clearly run by a bond villain with ulterior motives
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/15981_Julian_Assange_2.png

Actually he owns it and runs it.
Its day to day managed though by a great number of people/staff.
Their employment costs alone run into hundreds of thousands.
These are the people the Pentagon is now saying they are out to get by any way they care to use!

dlofnep

Wikileaks is an amazing project.

gizmo

Biggins wrote: »

True, others are trying to sidetrack it to their own issue on which they can't be bothered to start their own thread!

Actually I was referring to your reply in the context of the OP.

Biggins wrote: »

Correct. I find it objectionable that a foreign country issues threats to others if they don't get their way!
That's still called bullying. State sanctioned bullying.

When one or more private individuals have, in their possession, classified documents belonging to another country I think it's warranted to a certain extent. As for the outcome, that depends on where the Wikileaks servers are located. If they're in the US they could be seized whereas if they're abroad, the US government will probably put pressure on the Australian government to take action against Assange.

Biggins wrote: »

They have proved that they should have reviewed the material better - but then we all learn from cock-ups.

Yea, which has resulted in the death of at least one person and endangered the lives of others. But hey, what's a little collateral damage in cases like this? For someone who is criticising the military so much, it's ironic that you'll defend such actions when perpetrated by a different party.

Biggins wrote: »

Well most of us do, armies the world over are still killing many more innocent civilians - and guess what - trying to hide those crimes in their documents. When will we see those held accountable?

Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of a site like Wikileaks is great in theory as I think there is some information out there which should be made public which isn't, however, classified military documents are something which really don't belong in the hands of an organisation which is itself shrouded in secrecy and has no accountability.

karma_

gizmo wrote: »

Actually I was referring to your reply in the context of the OP.


When one or more private individuals have, in their possession, classified documents belonging to another country I think it's warranted to a certain extent. As for the outcome, that depends on where the Wikileaks servers are located. If they're in the US they could be seized whereas if they're abroad, the US government will probably put pressure on the Australian government to take action against Assange.


Yea, which has resulted in the death of at least one person and endangered the lives of others. But hey, what's a little collateral damage in cases like this? For someone who is criticising the military so much, it's ironic that you'll defend such actions when perpetrated by a different party.


Don't get me wrong, I think the idea of a site like Wikileaks is great in theory as I think there is some information out there which should be made public which isn't, however, classified military documents are something which really don't belong in the hands of an organisation which is itself shrouded in secrecy and has no accountability.

“The Times of London checked what had happened to the people named in the documents and found one dead guy. He had been dead two years and it is difficult to put his blood on the hands of Julian Assange or others at Wikileaks.”

http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=29314&ew_0_a_id=365995

karma_

By the way, is it not a little Ironic to blame WikiLeaks for collateral damage when Nato has been doing exactly that in the almost 10 years since the war began?

Biggins

gizmo wrote: »

...When one or more private individuals have, in their possession, classified documents belonging to another country I think it's warranted to a certain extent....

Threats and bullying is never warranted - nor should be!

gizmo wrote: »

...As for the outcome, that depends on where the Wikileaks servers are located. If they're in the US they could be seized whereas if they're abroad, the US government will probably put pressure on the Australian government to take action against Assange.

Thank you - EXACTLY.
LEGAL means and methods. Not issuing threats to foreign people and organisations.
The legal route.
If one bothers to watch the C-span video press conference thru Wikileaks, its made very clear that they are saying/hinting they are going beyond the legal route to get their demands.

gizmo wrote: »

...Yea, which has resulted in the death of at least one person and endangered the lives of others. But hey, what's a little collateral damage in cases like this? For someone who is criticising the military so much, it's ironic that you'll defend such actions when perpetrated by a different party...

I don't and if someone - any one person or many is responsible for the death of another, legal means should be used to see justice.
This applies to anyone associated with Wikileaks too! No ifs - no buts!
You either stay within the law or go out side it. Clearly the Pentagon has decided publicly that they are making clear to others, they will do both!
- But that point has gone (deliberately, conveniently?) over the heads of a few so far! :rolleyes:

Legal means - NOT by a backroom organised, secret thug action.

gizmo wrote: »

...classified military documents are something which really don't belong in the hands of an organisation which is itself shrouded in secrecy and has no accountability.

Which is why there are many international divisions to deal with such things such as the International Courts of Justice.

gizmo

karma_ wrote: »

“The Times of London checked what had happened to the people named in the documents and found one dead guy. He had been dead two years and it is difficult to put his blood on the hands of Julian Assange or others at Wikileaks.”

http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=29314&ew_0_a_id=365995

I've tried searching for any article from The Times covering what was said at the end of that piece but have yet to find anything, do you have any other links?

karma_ wrote: »

By the way, is it not a little Ironic to blame WikiLeaks for collateral damage when Nato has been doing exactly that in the almost 10 years since the war began?

I think you missed my point, I was highlighting the fact that Biggins was chastising the military for the civilian deaths which resulted from the war (i.e. collateral damage) yet was seemingly brushing off those caused by the Wikileaks leak.

karma_

gizmo wrote: »

I've tried searching for any article from The Times covering what was said at the end of that piece but have yet to find anything, do you have any other links?


I think you missed my point, I was highlighting the fact that Biggins was chastising the military for the civilian deaths which resulted from the war (i.e. collateral damage) yet was seemingly brushing off those caused by the Wikileaks leak.

Yes, but there is literally no evidence that WikiLeaks caused any deaths yet, not one shred. Sure there is some speculation but that's all for the moment. I'll see if I can get more info on the other link.

Biggins

gizmo wrote: »

I've tried searching for any article from The Times covering what was said at the end of that piece but have yet to find anything, do you have any other links?

Man ALREADY dead!

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/83/wwwthetimescoukttonewsw.jpg

He was killed by the Taleban two years ago after being suspected of spying for American forces. Twenty-eight other named Afghan individuals in just a few hundred files examined in detail by The Times on the site are, however, thought to be alive.

The Times exposing previous more attempted spin and lies by the American military/government who clearly had hoped we wouldn't find out these facts put forth by them.
Not the first time either, remember that they spin info to get what they want!
Hell, they did it big time previously just to invade a whole country ...and fools want us to just put our trust in them?

Folk need to fcukin' real and see the fuller picture!
Spin and lies, then more spin and lies, and if that don't work, make threats!

karma_

Biggins wrote: »

Man ALREADY dead!

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/83/wwwthetimescoukttonewsw.jpg

There we go, that's the one, thanks.

gizmo

Biggins wrote: »

Thank you - EXACTLY.
LEGAL means and methods. Not issuing threats to foreign people and organisations.
The legal route.
If one bothers to watch the C-span video press conference thru Wikileaks, its made very clear that they are saying/hinting they are going beyond the legal route to get their demands.

I watched the first section of the video, the one which seemed to deal with the possible action taken and at no point did they hint at action being taken outside of the legal route. In fact, quite the contrary, he even said he wasn't discussing that aspect, he was merely there to make the demand. He then went on to describe the other departments within the US government which could then take legal action should the initial demand not be met. To be quite honest, I think you're reading far too much into it and coming to your own conclusions.

Biggins wrote: »

Which is why there are many international divisions to deal with such things such as the International Courts of Justice.

So why didn't Wikileaks release them there and let the public know it had done so? Why instead did they release them all to the public where the information could be used by foreign bodies to do more harm?

Biggins wrote: »

Man ALREADY dead!

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/83/wwwthetimescoukttonewsw.jpg

Sorry guys but after reading that Time article it makes no mention that it was that particular Afghan who was named, merely that one of the people named was found to be dead already. The article then mentions 28 other people, named in the leaks, i.e. those who have helped coalition forces over there, as being alive. It does not say, at any point, that they were used by the US to justify the withholding of documents.

karma_

gizmo wrote: »

I watched the first section of the video, the one which seemed to deal with the possible action taken and at no point did they hint at action being taken outside of the legal route. In fact, quite the contrary, he even said he wasn't discussing that aspect, he was merely there to make the demand. He then went on to describe the other departments within the US government which could then take legal action should the initial demand not be met. To be quite honest, I think you're reading far too much into it and coming to your own conclusions.


So why didn't Wikileaks release them there and let the public know it had done so? Why instead did they release them all to the public where the information could be used by foreign bodies to do more harm?


Sorry guys but after reading that Time article it makes no mention that it was that particular Afghan who was named, merely that one of the people named was found to be dead already. The article then mentions 28 other people, named in the leaks, i.e. those who have helped coalition forces over there, as being alive. It does not say, at any point, that they were used by the US to justify the withholding of documents.

Who are you referring to? Who is this Afghan man who was supposedly killed after a leak? Can you name him or link some information to that particular incident?

Biggins

gizmo wrote: »

I watched the first section of the video,

When you get the time, watch the full 47 minute clip.
He refers to them and possible actions a number of times.

gizmo wrote: »

...I think you're reading far too much into it and coming to your own conclusions.

Well the media doesn't think so as per the news wording - including The Times who also state the Pentagon has issued threats ..and Wikileaks themselves on their site (who give links/video to show this.

gizmo wrote: »

...So why didn't Wikileaks release them there and let the public know it had done so? Why instead did they release them all to the public where the information could be used by foreign bodies to do more harm?

I can only guess that the conclusion that to do just that would see many documents be buried in a tremendous deliberate mountain of paper work that would tie up some aspects for years which as a consequence would see people fall outside the time limits of statutes of limitations as regards war crimes!

gizmo wrote: »

Sorry guys but after reading that Time article it makes no mention that it was that particular Afghan who was named, merely that one of the people named was found to be dead already.

...But it was that guy that the Pentagon was using to spin to the public that lives were already lost as a subsequence of the leaks!

gizmo

karma_ wrote: »

Who are you referring to? Who is this Afghan man who was supposedly killed after a leak? Can you name him or link some information to that particular incident?

The Afghan in question was Khalifa Abdullah, the village elder who was taken from his home in Kandahar and then executed. It's the same guy mentioned in the article I originally linked to here and which has cropped up on numerous other sites since.

Biggins wrote: »

When you get the time, watch the full 47 minute clip.
He refers to them and possible actions a number of times.

Of course they're going to be vague in what actions they're going to take though, they're hardly going to give a detail plan of how they're going to approach the matter. I don't question the fact that it's classed as a "threat" however you're taking the most extreme outcome of this and criticising them for it whereas in reality it will probably be more along the lines of what I stated above.

Biggins wrote: »

I can only guess that the conclusion that to do just that would see many documents be buried in a tremendous deliberate mountain of paper work that would tie up some aspects for years which as a consequence would see people fall outside the time limits of statutes of limitations as regards war crimes!

And again I ask, is the better alternative to release them to be public and endanger the lives of countless civilians and military personnel in that country?

Biggins wrote: »

...But it was that guy that the Pentagon was using to spin to the public that lives were already lost as a subsequence of the leaks!

As I said, I don't think they're the same person. The Time article makes no reference to them and the name they give is different than the one which was used in other sources.

Biggins

gizmo wrote: »

Of course they're going to be vague in what actions they're going to take though, they're hardly going to give a detail plan of how they're going to approach the matter. I don't question the fact that it's classed as a "threat" however you're taking the most extreme outcome of this and criticising them for it whereas in reality it will probably be more along the lines of what I stated above.

And again, the oral threat made has been judged as such by many betters, including the ones it is aimed at, not just myself.

How hard is it to say "we will use all legal means" ?
Six words. No, they threaten instead! Welcome once again to an American alternative way.

gizmo wrote: »

...And again I ask, is the better alternative to release them to be public and endanger the lives of countless civilians and military personnel in that country?

Yes, clearly alone if it helps to bring pressure to bear, to expose their lies and possible stunts, to stall, be evasive, or lie their way out of justice being done!
And who put the military there in the first place?
- The same guys issuing the new threats!
And who put those innocent lives at risk originally - well the ones they, themselves haven't killed yet?
- The same guys issuing the new threats!

gizmo wrote: »

...As I said, I don't think they're the same person. The Time article makes no reference to them and the name they give is different than the one which was used in other sources.

The Times is being (more) careful with what it publishes.
This is clear when they point out as regards one report alone: "The Times has redacted the report to ensure that no individual or their relatives could be targeted."

They (wisely) are being careful what they print.
They hopefully think the reader will be educated to make out the facts - within life effecting limits.

My favourite leaked document released through wikileaks was one detailing how the american goverment was trying to find ways to take down wikileaks.
The ironing was delicious.

And anyone who says the documents shouldn't be released is a fool. America is killing thousands of innocent people around the world in illegal wars and this type of exposure is needed to try and stop it. Fuk me like, look how bad bloody sunday was for us except worse atrocities happen every single day because of america. Just look up Operation Menu if you don't think they're capable of it.

Wikileaks seem to be the only thing in the world that can scare the pentagon and because of that, I hope they keep doing what they're doing. They aren't sending threats to save informants lives so stop going on about them.

dlofnep

I know they are not stupid enough to keep them stored on a single server. That's the greatest thing about the internet. They may shut down wikileaks - but wikileaks 2.0 will replace it.