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

the_syco · 06-08-2010 03:09PM

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

Just a thought: if The Time of London could track them down, what would stop the Taliban from doing likewise?

Gone West · 06-08-2010 03:10PM

Overheal wrote: »

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.

Don't be ridiculous. You clearly have little to no understanding of modern cryptography.
In 10 minutes, anybody could upload a file to the internet which is basically "undecryptable" by any government.
Using consumer or free software. If you use a long enough encryption key, it could take thousands of years to brute. Even when you take into account Moores "law".

This is beyond chinese hackers, this is advanced mathematics, anybody can use it, and nobody can decrypt it, at least not for many MANY years, when the data will be irrelevant anyways.

Biggins · 06-08-2010 03:12PM

Overheal wrote: »

...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.

Nope, its not black and white.
If Wikileaks had got its act together and edited out some names first, the Pentagon would have less of a stick to PR spin on.
As it is however, they do and they are making the most of it.
Both to defend their actions and I suspect, to deflect away from whats in the previous reports, whats in the future coming ones - and to try and stop them (which will be more carefully edited by Wikileaks).

Mark200 · 06-08-2010 03:13PM

As far as I'm concerned, wikileaks aren't the organisation that they pretend to be. They clearly released the files with a viewpoint that they're trying to broadcast. This has been blatantly obvious ever since they released that military video on youtube, and they decided to give it the title "Collateral Murder". This shows it is not about allowing people to view information themselves, and allowing them to come to their own conclusions.

But anyway, that's just my opinion on the organisation and it's pretty irrelevant what their goal is when it comes to the law. Although I think the Pentagon should have been more careful when it comes to making threats about such an organisation, in my opinion they still have a duty to protect their troops on the ground who are engaging in a very tough war.

Mark200 · 06-08-2010 03:15PM

el judìo wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous. You clearly have little to no understanding of modern cryptography.
In 10 minutes, anybody could upload a file to the internet which is basically "undecryptable" by any government.
Using consumer or free software. If you use a long enough encryption key, it could take thousands of years to brute. Even when you take into account Moores "law".

This is beyond chinese hackers, this is advanced mathematics, anybody can use it, and nobody can decrypt it, at least not for many MANY years, when the data will be irrelevant anyways.

You contradicted yourself. At first you said it could take thousands of years, taking into account Moores law. And then you said it could not be decrypted "at least not for many MANY years" (which to me, anyway, implies something significantly less than "thousands"). Anyway, Overheal acknowledged it could takes YEARS, even with Moores law:

"Even if it takes them years to decrypt, they will, thansk to Moore's Law"

Biggins wrote: »

Both to defend their actions and I suspect, to deflect away from whats in the previous reports

There is nothing new in the reports that have been already released, that was not already public information. So to suggest that the US is trying to deflect attention from the already released reports is, in my opinion, completely wrong.

Biggins · 06-08-2010 03:16PM

the_syco wrote: »

Just a thought: if The Time of London could track them down, what would stop the Taliban from doing likewise?

The Times (and others the world over) has better, faster access to the internet, personal info sources, etc.
The Taliban are coping with basic phones (when possible for they know the Americans/British are listening in), foot & animal travelling distance.
Thats just one possible reason alone.
Its a case of time...

sponsoredwalk · 06-08-2010 03:19PM

Mark200 wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, wikileaks aren't the organisation that they pretend to be. They clearly released the files with a viewpoint that they're trying to broadcast. This has been blatantly obvious ever since they released that military video on youtube, and they decided to give it the title "Collateral Murder". This shows it is not about allowing people to view information themselves, and allowing them to come to their own conclusions.

But anyway, that's just my opinion on the organisation and it's pretty irrelevant what their goal is when it comes to the law. Although I think the Pentagon should have been more careful when it comes to making threats about such an organisation, in my opinion they still have a duty to protect their troops on the ground who are engaging in a very tough war.

So in other words your angry @ wikileaks because they released a near 30 minute unedited video of American soldiers killing civilians in broad daylight
that had been covered up for years & named it collateral murder?

Wow...

Biggins · 06-08-2010 03:21PM

Mark200 wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, wikileaks aren't the organisation that they pretend to be. They clearly released the files with a viewpoint that they're trying to broadcast. This has been blatantly obvious ever since they released that military video on youtube, and they decided to give it the title "Collateral Murder". This shows it is not about allowing people to view information themselves, and allowing them to come to their own conclusions.

Well the cheek of them! That they might even entertain the thought of allowing themselves to come to their own conclusions about the chopper attack - and allowing us to do so too!

They must be evil people indeed. :rolleyes:

They must be in it for the oil then!
Nope - thats the USA.
They must be in it for the power?
Nope - thats the USA!
They must be in it to lie and spin more propaganda?
Nope - thats the USA!

Yea, I suspect whos the real bad folk!

Mark200 · 06-08-2010 03:24PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So in other words your angry @ wikileaks because they released a near 30 minute unedited video of American soldiers killing civilians in broad daylight
that had been covered up for years & named it collateral murder?

Wow...

The video was taken out of the wider context of the war. Mistakes were made, no doubt. But it was not as simple as "Collateral Murder" as wikileaks were trying to imply.

There's a good interview between the owner of wikileaks, Julian Assange, and Stephen Colbert about the video. I suggest for anyone who can watch it through an American proxy to do so. Foxyproxy is good for this. Anyway, here's the interview:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/270712/april-12-2010/julian-assange

Biggins wrote: »

Well the cheek of them! That they might even entertain the thought of allowing themselves to come to their own conclusions about the chopper attack - and allowing us to do so too!

They must be evil people indeed. :rolleyes:

As above, they took the video out of context and the title told people what they should think that they are seeing.

You could take ANY military video where deaths occur, and give it such a title and I can guarantee that a huge amount of people who watch such a video will feel that the killings were unjustified, or wrongs have been committed.

sponsoredwalk · 06-08-2010 03:24PM

Land of the Free

The Pentagon has banned the U.S. military from viewing anything related to WikiLeaks,
the website for whistleblowers which controversially released thousands of
classified government documents detailing the war in Afghanistan.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told the Washington Times that all four services --
the Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard -- have told their staff that the site is off-limits.
In a memo obtained by the Times, the Navy told its employees:

"There has been rumor that the information is no longer classified since it resides in the public domain. This is NOT true."

Meanwhile at the Air Warriors forum, a member by the name of "heyjoe" circulated an email
on July 27 that allegedly came from an official military channel:

Yesterday, the media released information regarding a large number of documents containing U.S. national security information posted on a publicly available website called WikiLeaks...Personnel are reminded not to confirm nor deny information contained on the website. In addition, personnel should not access the WikiLeaks website on government owned systems, in order to avoid a proliferation of potential electronic spillages (ES).

The ban appears to include public and personal usage. In a memo circulated yesterday
via another forum, the Marines Corps released this warning:

USMC Personnel (Marines/Civilians/Contractors) are hereby cautioned and
directed to NOT access the WIKILEAKS website from a personally owned,
publically owned or US Government computer system.
By willingly accessing the WIKILEAKS website for the purpose of viewing
the posted classified material - these actions constitute the unauthorized
processing, disclosure, viewing, and downloading of classified information
onto an UNAUTHORIZED computer system not approved to store classified
information. Meaning they have WILLINGLY committed a SECURITY VIOLATION.

link

sponsoredwalk · 06-08-2010 03:26PM

"Mistakes were made"

Lets see how that excuse flies when I run over a man with a camera on the footpath...

I'll use the excuse "it looked like an RPG" :rolleyes:

sponsoredwalk · 06-08-2010 03:27PM

Mark200 wrote: »

You could take ANY military video where deaths occur, and give it such a title and I can guarantee that a huge amount of people who watch such a video will feel that the killings were unjustified, or wrongs have been committed.

So in other words you feel the murder was justified, neat...

Mark200 · 06-08-2010 03:27PM

Biggins wrote: »

The Times (and others the world over) has better, faster access to the internet, personal info sources, etc.
The Taliban are coping with basic phones (when possible for they know the Americans/British are listening in), foot & animal travelling distance.
Thats just one possible reason alone.
Its a case of time...

Actually, one thing that the leaked documents DID tell us (or re-iterated) is that the Taliban are far more advanced than the stereotypical description that you just gave.

Biggins · 06-08-2010 03:28PM

Mark200 wrote: »

There is nothing new in the reports that have been already released, that was not already public information.

Except they might add further confirmation/evidence to a lot of deaths that up till now have been claimed by the Pentagon as lies/spin by families of the victims.
But hey, what do they matter? What does it matter if they never learn confirm-able truth that their loved ones were indeed blown up by the Americans in a ill-planned action.

Biggins · 06-08-2010 03:29PM

Mark200 wrote: »

Actually, one thing that the leaked documents DID tell us (or re-iterated) is that the Taliban are far more advanced than the stereotypical description that you just gave.

I said it was a possible reason (I have no doubt that in some cases they are just as knowledgeable in other areas too).
I'm sure it is in some cases.

gizmo · 06-08-2010 03:30PM

Biggins wrote: »

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

No, at no point did they say they were coming at them using any means necessary. They issued the demand for them to be taken down and threatened further action if this demand was ignored. Several news outlets reported on this threat. The spokesman then hinted at the matter being taken further by the DoJ but did not elaborate on this further. These are the facts of the matter and if you wish to interpret the threat as something more sinister then that is your opinion.

Biggins wrote: »

...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.

While I'm glad you agree with this, do you not find it strange that you're defending an action which could land these people in prison? By its very nature do you not consider the act wrong or at the very least, unwise?

Biggins wrote: »

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?"

Again a lesson which has/can cost people their lives and one which, in this particular case, I don't think was worth it.

Biggins wrote: »

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?

Since we're all quoting stuff here I think I'll use the old favourite, Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. And no, the Pentagon doesn't scare me in the slightest.

Biggins wrote: »

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

If you're going to quote me then at least quote the entire piece. I was saying that you've read the article in a manner which helps prove your point without an logical reasoning as to why it does so, as I pointed out above. I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm simple not jumping to conclusions and pointing to clearer information rather than wielding the flaming American flag as a couple of people seem to be doing.

Mark200 · 06-08-2010 03:30PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

"Mistakes were made"

Lets see how that excuse flies when I run over a man with a camera on the footpath...

I'll use the excuse "it looked like an RPG" :rolleyes:

RPGs were recovered from the site. I watched every second of the video. There was no indication, for me anyway, that they were cameramen. Certainly the first impression I got were they WERE holding RPGs. Also, all media are supposed to have some sort of clear signal on top of their vehicles that they are media, and I believe that the journalists in question did not follow protocol. Again, that doesn't excuse the killings. Again, I said mistakes were made. But to imply that the people in question who fired the shots knew full well that they were shooting at journalists is just a plain lie.

Overheal · 06-08-2010 03:35PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

So in other words your angry @ wikileaks because they released a near 30 minute unedited video of American soldiers killing civilians in broad daylight
that had been covered up for years & named it collateral murder?

Wow...

If you want to drag that thread up be my f*cking guest, but your post makes it sound as if the pilots got a thrill out of thinking they were gunning down civilians. In which case you're either gravely misremembering the event or you're gravely misinformed.

Calling it Collateral Murder unquestionably places a spin on it from Frame One.

Biggins wrote: »

The Times (and others the world over) has better, faster access to the internet, personal info sources, etc.
The Taliban are coping with basic phones (when possible for they know the Americans/British are listening in), foot & animal travelling distance.
Thats just one possible reason alone.
Its a case of time...

Do we know that for sure? Or that Taliban allies havent given them better equipment? Who's to say the chinese (or anyone else for that matter) arent given them satellite hookup?

Biggins · 06-08-2010 03:36PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

"Mistakes were made"

Lets see how that excuse flies when I run over a man with a camera on the footpath...

I'll use the excuse "it looked like an RPG" :rolleyes:

Yea, how does one show a killing of a cameraman and shooting at a child in a van is simplely something taken "out of context!"

Wrong? Definitely!
A mistake? Sure!
An inquiry/anyone held accountable? NOPE - just the truth buried!

Biggins · 06-08-2010 03:37PM

Overheal wrote: »

Do we know that for sure? Or that Taliban allies havent given them better equipment? Who's to say the chinese (or anyone else for that matter) arent given them satellite hookup?

True (see post 76).
All you say is indeed possible.

100gSoma · 06-08-2010 03:39PM

Insurance?

Online whistle-blower WikiLeaks has posted a huge encrypted file named "Insurance" to its website, sparking speculation that those behind the organisation 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 US military documents about Afghanistan that WikiLeaks dumped onto the Web in July, and cryptographers say that the file is virtually impossible to crack - unless WikiLeaks releases the key used to encode the material.

"There's no way that anyone has any chance of figuring out what's in there," Paul Kocher, president of US-based Cryptography Research, said Thursday.

sponsoredwalk · 06-08-2010 03:40PM

Be careful now, this is actual commentary from wikileaks people & seeing as you have clear disdain from anything they say as it fules their obvious bias
you'll have to take this evidence against your statement with a grain of salt (and I'm sure that will suit you just fine).

Wikileaks said in the preface to one of their videos of the incident that
"some of the men appear to have been armed [although] the behavior of nearly everyone was relaxed"
in the introductory text of the shorter video.[16]
Fox News said that of the attack "at least one man in that group was
carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, a clearly visible weapon that
runs nearly two-thirds the length of his body".[14]
The Guardian stated "It is unclear if some of the men are armed but
Noor-Eldeen can be seen with a camera".[11]

Julian Assange said "permission to engage was given before the word "RPG" was ever used".[16]

Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com said that "the vast majority of the men were clearly unarmed".[17]
The Australian newspaper said the group was displaying "no obvious hostile action".[18]
The German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung said "Nothing in the images
suggests the victims were terrorists or insurgents".[19]

link

:rolleyes:

This has to be the lamest thing I've ever heard, that wikileaks have an obvious bias just because they named the video "collateral murder".
I mean I've never seen someone miss the point more, it's unbelievably obvious you're just an apologist for the spoils of war i.e. whatever happens on the battlefield, stays on the battlefield

Well, not for the families of those innocent reporters :mad:

sponsoredwalk · 06-08-2010 03:42PM

Mark200 wrote: »

Certainly the first impression I got were they WERE holding RPGs.

Yeah well mistaken first impressions like yours are the reason people die because of trigger happy soldiers & policemen.

Oddly enough, a lot more black people die because of this first impression syndrome.

Google the stories from the U.S. if you don't belive me...

Mark200 · 06-08-2010 03:47PM

Biggins wrote: »

Yea, how does one show a killing of a cameraman and shooting at a child in a van is simplely something taken "out of context!"

Wrong? Definitely!
A mistake? Sure!
An inquiry/anyone held accountable? NOPE - just the truth buried!

Ah yeah, I forgot that the helicopter could not only see people through the van's roof, but also had software to tell the troops the age of everyone inside....

Julian Assange even said that it's possible that a man in the group had an RPG, and another man had a rifle. There was no way for the troops to know that these were not insurgents. More care should have been taken, sure. But the troops DID NOT know they were firing at journalists. They honestly thought they were firing at insurgents, and that is evident to anyone who watches the video.

Anyway, we're going off on a bit of a tangent here. I brought up that video to back up my point that wikileaks are clearly releasing these things to put forward their point of view. As Stephen Colbert said in the interview I linked to, in reference to the title and the editing:

"That's not leaking, that's a pure editorial"

Biggins · 06-08-2010 03:47PM

gizmo wrote: »

...Several news outlets reported on this threat. The spokesman then hinted at the matter being taken further by the DoJ but did not elaborate on this further. These are the facts of the matter and if you wish to interpret the threat as something more sinister then that is your opinion.

It is and others see it that way too - including the people they are threatening.
They say so on their own site!

NO ONE would excepe tht DOJ to explain further but the DOJ CLEARLY by using C-Span (and this the world media) are stating/hinting whats possible coming next in their pocket of methods, to get that they want!

gizmo wrote: »

...While I'm glad you agree with this, do you not find it strange that you're defending an action which could land these people in prison? By its very nature do you not consider the act wrong or at the very least, unwise?

Again, the hasty action without better review was wrong. No argument there either.
They clearly have learned their lesson and this is very obvious by they now taking their time to go thorough the 15,000 documents deeper.
If the Pentagon know this and thus name s will be taken out where appropriate - what are they still so scared of what remain in those reports and issuing threats to Wikileak staff?
There is more to this than the Pentagon is telling - clearly!

gizmo wrote: »

...Since we're all quoting stuff here I think I'll use the old favourite, Better the devil you know than the devil you don't. And no, the Pentagon doesn't scare me in the slightest.

And whats the worst thing that scares the devil?
People speaking the truth perhaps?

You might not be scared pf the Pentagon but by gawd, many others are - and with historical record justification.

Mark200 · 06-08-2010 03:52PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Yeah well mistaken first impressions like yours are the reason people die because of trigger happy soldiers & policemen.

How many times do I have to say it before it gets into your head? MISTAKES WERE MADE. There's a huge difference between mistakes being made, and something being "collateral murder".

In reference to your insane quote (which I was hoping you'd bring up):

Julian Assange said "permission to engage was given before the word "RPG" was ever used"

So damn what if the word "RPG" was never used? The permission to engage was given only when it seemed that the group was armed (and as I've said already, two of the group members WERE armed). That sentence is just another piece of spin from Assange.

You really don't understand the point I'm making.

I care about death. I care that these journalists died. But there's no doubt that this organisation is not just 'leaking', but they're trying to use this stuff to spread a VIEWPOINT. IE propaganda.

sponsoredwalk · 06-08-2010 03:55PM

What kind of propaganda? I think you have to dig a little deeper than the fear of human beings expressing an obvious bias that is pivotal to human nature

Can you go any deeper than the superficial surface fear of humans expressing a view or not?

Biggins · 06-08-2010 03:57PM

Mark200 wrote: »

Ah yeah, I forgot that the helicopter could not only see people through the van's roof, but also had software to tell the troops the age of everyone inside....

Julian Assange even said that it's possible that a man in the group had an RPG, and another man had a rifle. There was no way for the troops to know that these were not insurgents. More care should have been taken, sure. But the troops DID NOT know they were firing at journalists. They honestly thought they were firing at insurgents, and that is evident to anyone who watches the video.

Anyway, we're going off on a bit of a tangent here. I brought up that video to back up my point that wikileaks are clearly releasing these things to put forward their point of view. As Stephen Colbert said in the interview I linked to, in reference to the title and the editing:

"That's not leaking, that's a pure editorial"

When there are truths, I agree with them - even if they are not in my favour.

They flying in their 2 choppers made a ruddy huge mistake.
If either one bothered to see into the van while they were moving around in a circular motion looking at it, they might have spotted a child.
Hell, they might have even spotted a weapon sticking out.
Did they in either case? Nope.
The van pulled up, someone got out to check a body on the ground, they opened fire on them and the van!

As for Stephen Colbert, whats a comedian doing poorly assessing the video - and what station is paying him again?
Another point: the background, previous incidents that lead to the videoed shooting/blowing up, were mentioned again and again by radio operators alone.
Giving the viewer/listener ample opportunity to assess what led to the current events - if they bothered to actually listen and use their head.

Mark200 · 06-08-2010 03:59PM

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

What kind of propaganda? I think you have to dig a little deeper than the fear of human beings expressing an obvious bias that is pivotal to human nature

Can you go any deeper than the superficial surface fear of humans expressing a view or not?

"Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience"

There's nothing wrong (in general) with releasing information to promote a cause or viewpoint, but you should be aware that that is exactly what wikileaks is doing. The problem I have with them is that they try to give the impression that they're just leaking whatever they have and giving YOU the freedom to decide for yourself. That's just not true. They attempt to influence your opinion.

Mark200 · 06-08-2010 04:04PM

Biggins wrote: »

The van pulled up, someone got out to check a body on the ground, they opened fire on them and the van!

Ok, so if you were in a war. You believed you had just shot at and injured enemy combatants. Then a van comes up (presumably from fellow enemy combatants) and they try to take the others away with them.... you wouldn't shoot? With the full belief that the van is full of enemy combatants?

Biggins wrote: »

As for Stephen Colbert, whats a comedian doing poorly assessing the video - and what station is paying him again?

He's a well established political pundit, who just happens to use satire to get his point across. However, the part of the interview where they talked just about the video he was being very serious and very much out of character.

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

Comments