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

markwho · 06-08-2010 11:28AM

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 · 06-08-2010 11:29AM

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 · 06-08-2010 11:31AM

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 · 06-08-2010 11:32AM

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 · 06-08-2010 11:34AM

Wikileaks is an amazing project.

gizmo · 06-08-2010 11:50AM

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_ · 06-08-2010 11:58AM

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_ · 06-08-2010 12:00PM

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 · 06-08-2010 12:07PM

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 · 06-08-2010 12:07PM

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_ · 06-08-2010 12:10PM

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 · 06-08-2010 12:12PM

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_ · 06-08-2010 12:15PM

Biggins wrote: »

Man ALREADY dead!

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

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

gizmo · 06-08-2010 12:26PM

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_ · 06-08-2010 12:29PM

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 · 06-08-2010 12:36PM

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 · 06-08-2010 12:42PM

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 · 06-08-2010 12:52PM

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.

06-08-2010 01:07PM

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 · 06-08-2010 01:21PM

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.

gizmo · 06-08-2010 01:56PM

Biggins wrote: »

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.

At the very basic level, as said by the Pentagon spokesperson himself, he wasn't in a position to comment on possible legal action since it was being handled by a separate department within the government. You can take the "threat" to mean they're going to do something illegal or you can just take it at face value, he was there to make the demand from the Pentagon and if it's ignored it'll be handed over to the DoJ.

Biggins wrote: »

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!

So, to clarify, the lives of the people endangered by the leaks are worth losing in order to achieve transparency by leaking the documents. This is the question I've asked several times so I just want to be clear on your position.

Biggins wrote: »

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."

Reading the article it looks like the [x] element of his name is the piece which has been redacted, why else would they refer to him as "Mohammad [x]" ?

Basically then, it boils down to one of two things, either that article is insinuating that the Afghan in question was dead for two years already OR that the report is detailing the involvement of a prominent Afghan who was sympathetic to the Coalition/government forces and who is now dead. Personally, I'd consider logic to be on the side of the latter.

Biggins · 06-08-2010 02:13PM

gizmo wrote: »

...You can take the "threat" to mean they're going to do something illegal or you can just take it at face value...

Whatever that opinion may be of "face value" is!
Clearly others by their reporting of his threats see it different to yours.

gizmo wrote: »

...So, to clarify, the lives of the people endangered by the leaks are worth losing in order to achieve transparency by leaking the documents. This is the question I've asked several times so I just want to be clear on your position...

...And I have already stated that those responsible for lives lost should be answerable to a court, be an American one or an International one (as mentioned again already).

The life's lost (reports?) are unfortunate if they happen but we should not withhold justice/truths for ever just for fear of there might be consequences on the off chance!
If we all took that position, christ, a crap load of more evil crimes/actions would be gotten away with.
...However keep using that stick to beat us into silence with, the Americans are giving it a lash anyway...

gizmo wrote: »

...Basically then, it boils down to one of two things, either that article is insinuating that the Afghan in question was dead for two years already OR that the report is detailing the involvement of a prominent Afghan who was sympathetic to the Coalition/government forces and who is now dead. Personally, I'd consider logic to be on the side of the latter.

Basically it is what it is. The American military and political departments are spinning that lives were lost due to these leaks - when in fact, one was dead already!
Opps! Just one more daily fcuk-up by them. Thankfully this time it didn't cost any more lives by them.
That makes a pleasant change!

biko · 06-08-2010 02:22PM

It's like the USA's solution to the torture photos from Abu Ghraib, they just banned camera phones in the "prisons".
The US isn't interested in anyone else's story, theirs is the only one allowed.

Biggins · 06-08-2010 02:29PM

biko wrote: »

It's like the USA's solution to the torture photos from Abu Ghraib, they just banned camera phones in the "prisons".
The US isn't interested in anyone else's story, theirs is the only one allowed.

Yep.
Such things are going on but heaven forbid we might get to know about it.
They then are worried lives are being effected! Well no schite! :rolleyes:

They weren't so worried about lives when they were actually doing their crap, sometimes killing (and in much bigger numbers!), that gets into subsequent reports!

Speak/expose those killing reports! Get threatened!

bobblepuzzle · 06-08-2010 02:31PM

Biggins wrote: »

(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!

I think your missing the point that these are American Military documents, some of which may be quite sensitive... I think they are right to censor anything which may legitmately pose a threat to their national security. Also, remember that America hasn't clamped down on this as the majority of other nations would... the Russians for example wouldn't tolerate it for a single second.

gizmo · 06-08-2010 02:32PM

Biggins wrote: »

Whatever that opinion may be of "face value" is!
Clearly others by their reporting of his threats see it different to yours.

Which is fair enough, the wording in your OP however, is completely hyperbolic and reads like they've basically said they're coming after them using any means necessary. This is clearly not the case.

Biggins wrote: »

...And I have already stated that those responsible for lives lost should be answerable to a court, be an American one or an International one (as mentioned again already).

So Julian Assange then? Bearing in mind Bradley Manning is already in custody in the US.

Biggins wrote: »

The life's lost (reports?) are unfortunate if they happen but we should not withhold justice/truths for ever just for fear of there might be consequences on the off chance!

Of course not, however, as I have asked previously, is entrusting the responsibility of presenting this material to an organisation as secretive as Wikileaks not in the least bit worrying?

Biggins wrote: »

Basically it is what it is. The American military and political departments are spinning that lives were lost due to these leaks - when in fact, one was dead already!
Opps! Just one more daily fcuk-up by them. Thankfully this time it didn't cost any more lives by them.
That makes a pleasant change!

No, it is not what it is. Either you've read the article and interpreted in a way which somehow proves your point or the article is talking about a different person and, as such, has no relevance to your point. If it is the former then again, fair enough, however please stop passing that off as the "truth" in this issue when it clearly far from it.

Biggins · 06-08-2010 02:43PM

Cmdr Keen wrote: »

I think your missing the point that these are American Military documents, some of which may be quite sensitive... I think they are right to censor anything which may legitimately pose a threat to their national security. Also, remember that America hasn't clamped down on this as the majority of other nations would... the Russians for example wouldn't tolerate it for a single second.

I'd say all of them are sensitive.
No, so far they have restrained themselves publicly - at least till this morning.
Now that the exposure clock of the remaining 15,000+ documents is narrowing down, the threats come out.

gizmo wrote: »

Which is fair enough, the wording in your OP however, is completely hyperbolic and reads like they've basically said they're coming after them using any means necessary. This is clearly not the case....

...in YOUR OPINION.
To repeat, others clearly differ.

gizmo wrote: »

...So Julian Assange then? Bearing in mind Bradley Manning is already in custody in the US....

...Should be held accountable equally by same rules of law, if there is thought to be an actual provable case!
You will NEVER get me to differ there with you.

gizmo wrote: »

...Of course not, however, as I have asked previously, is entrusting the responsibility of presenting this material to an organisation as secretive as Wikileaks not in the least bit worrying?

Yes, but no more worrying than those that have them already and their inept consistent failure to do anything about them and/or learn from them - except bury them as "Top Secret" - clearly for their own advantageous reasons.

Already Wikileaks has learned a lesson. It only took a month.
The Pentagon has had decades in years to learn from mistakes.
...And have they too? What have they done instead!
"They who have not sinned, cast the first stone?"

Frankly, I trust Wikileaks organisation a hell of a lot quicker than I do the Pentagon.
Judging by many, many Pentagon actions in the past, I think I'd be more justified to do so?
I know which one I'm far more scared of! Which one scares you the most?

gizmo wrote: »

...please stop passing that off as the "truth" in this issue when it clearly far from it.

...And you can prove this to the world pubic and press?

Overheal · 06-08-2010 02:49PM

Sykk wrote: »

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..

Just as a follow up to that story:

http://www.navytimes.com/news/2010/04/military_sesamestreet_grieving_041310w/

Sesame Workshop is providing tools to help grieving families. They developed “When Families Grieve” in conjunction with an advisory board of experts in helping children in their grief. Families with children share their personal experiences, including military families — the Ruoccos and Guerecas.

“How do you tell an 8-year-old and a 10-year-old their dad made it safely back from Iraq and then takes his own life?” said Marine widow Kim Ruocco, who participated in the project with her two sons.

Maj. John Ruocco, a Marine helicopter pilot, committed suicide after returning from Iraq. She and her sons talked about the “great guy” John Ruocco was, how they carry his memory with them, and how their friends helped support them after his death.

Coincidence?

Biggins wrote:

I'd say all of them are sensitive.
No, so far they have restrained themselves publicly - at least till this morning.
Now that the exposure clock of the remaining 15,000+ documents is narrowing down, the threats come out.

This is a serious security issue though. We have tens of thousands of American troops where they ought not to be but they are against an opposition that will use anything wikileaks decides to throw out that as more fuel to throw on the fire. You have to think a little harder about your right to know and the repercussions that knowledge will have thousands of miles away. It's not black and white.

sponsoredwalk · 06-08-2010 02:57PM

"Insurance"

WikiLeaks has posted a huge encrypted file named "Insurance" to its website,
sparking speculation that those behind the organization
may be prepared to release more classified information
if authorities interfere with them.
At 1.4 gigabytes, the file is 20 times larger than the batch
of 77,000 secret U.S. military documents about Afghanistan
that WikiLeaks dumped onto the Web last month,
and cryptographers say that the file is virtually impossible
to crack - unless WikiLeaks releases the key used to encode the material.
link

:eek:

This is getting crazy!

Overheal · 06-08-2010 03:01PM

They'd have to be bluffing. You know that right now theres a small legion of Russian and Chinese hackers working on that thing this very moment trying to decrypt whats inside.

Even if it takes them years to decrypt, they will, thansk to Moore's Law. no matter how strong the encryption is today.

So they've effectively either leaked untold volumes of sensitive documents, or a blu-ray rip of Iron Man 2008.

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

Comments