400'000 Wiki Leaks Iraq War

[Drisco]

Threat Level Privacy, Crime and Security Online
Previous post
WikiLeaks’ 400,000 Iraq War Documents Reveal Torture, Civilian Deaths

* By Kevin Poulsen and Kim Zetter Email Author
* October 22, 2010 |
* 5:35 pm |
* Categories: Bradley Manning, Wikileaks
*

The secret-spilling website WikiLeaks released almost 400,000 U.S. Army reports from the Iraq War on Friday, marking the largest military leak in U.S. history.

The database covers events from the Iraq War dating from 2004 through 2009, with the vast majority of entries classified at the “secret” level. WikiLeaks’ War Logs page includes a sophisticated search engine that makes it easy to browse and search through the documents. Unlike its Afghan release last July, WikiLeaks does not appear to have made the Iraq database available for bulk download as an SQL or CSV file.

News outlets who’d been provided advance copies of the massive database — including the Qatar-based Al Jazeera network, the U.K. newspaper Guardian and The New York Times — have already published detailed analysis. They’ve found previously unreported civilian death counts in the files, rampant brutality by Iraqi police and a report of a separate shooting incident involving the same Apache helicopter unit that was involved in the now-famous 2007 “Collateral Murder” video that WikiLeaks published last April. In the second incident, the unit reportedly shot and killed insurgents who were trying to surrender.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has scheduled a press conference in London on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. local time (5:00 a.m. EDT) to discuss the release.

For Wired’s take on the contents of the database, watch our sister blog, Danger Room.

Threat Level reported last month on WikiLeaks’ plans to publish the Iraq database of 392,000 documents, and the role the publication schedule played in creating internal strife at the organization.

Last week the Pentagon said it had already assembled a 120-person task force to prepare for the Iraq database dump.
If you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time … say, 8-9 months … and you saw incredible things, awful things … things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC … What would you do?’ – Bradley Manning

The Iraq release comes at a crucial time for the four-year-old WikiLeaks. In addition to suffering internal conflict, the organization has experienced technical issues and has been shaken by outside criticism and knocked off-message by a lingering sex-crime investigation of Assange in Sweden. At least half-a-dozen staffers have resigned from the organization in recent weeks, including key technical staff, according to four ex-staffers interviewed by Wired.com. A “scheduled maintenance” of the WikiLeaks website that began September 29 stretched to weeks.

The publication of the database could jolt the pending court martial case against Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. Manning, a 23-year-old former Army intelligence analyst, was arrested last May after confessing to a former hacker that he’d supplied WikiLeaks with classified videos and documents.

It was Manning’s online chats with former hacker Adrian Lamo — who turned him in to authorities, and gave the government logs of the chats — that provided the first indication that WikiLeaks possessed the Iraq database. In May, Manning told Lamo that he leaked a database of half-a-million reports from the Iraq War dated from 2004 to 2009. Though the database published by WikiLeaks on Friday has fewer documents than described by Manning, it matches his claims in every other respect, according to a record of the chats provided by Lamo to Wired.com following Manning’s arrest.

Bradley Manning (Facebook.com)

“[H]ypothetical question: if you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time… say, 8-9 months… and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do?,” Manning wrote.

“[O]r Guantanamo, Bagram, Bucca, Taji, VBC for that matter… things that would have an impact on 6.7 billion people,” he continued. “[S]ay… a database of half a million events during the iraq war… from 2004 to 2009… with reports, date time groups, lat-lon locations, casualty figures… ?” (ellipses original)

In a later exchange with Lamo, Manning said an “Iraq war event log” was among the items he’d passed to WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange.

The Iraq release follows other high-impact, U.S.-focused leaks from WikiLeaks, beginning in April with the controversial classified “Collateral Murder” video of a 2007 Army helicopter attack in Baghdad, that Manning also claimed to have leaked to the organization. The attack killed two Reuters employees and an unarmed Iraqi man who stumbled onto the scene and tried to rescue one of the wounded. The man’s two children suffered serious injuries in the hail of gunfire. WikiLeaks titled the video “Collateral Murder,” and raised $150,000 from supporters in two days following its release.

Then in July, the site published 77,000 documents from a 92,000-entry database of events from the Afghan War, similar to Friday’s Iraq database.

The Army has formally charged Manning under the Espionage Act for the “Collateral Murder” leak, and the Pentagon describes him as a “person of interest” in the Afghan War log leak, though Manning did not mention leaking a database of events from the Afghan War in his chats with Lamo. Manning is also charged with exceeding his lawful access to the Secret-level SIPRNET to collect 150,000 diplomatic cables. WikiLeaks has denied receiving those cables.

Manning’s attorney did not respond to phone calls or e-mail queries about the Iraq release. Assange doesn’t comment on sources, but he has vowed to contribute $50,000 to Manning’s legal defense fund.

Updated 18:30 EDT


Read More http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/10/wikileaks-press/#ixzz138IikB41

[Parker]

As much as I want to know the truth of the iraq war, I'm seriously against the leaking of these documents. There will be names, ranks, and events listed that can still affect the lives and welfare of troops overseas.

Until we're out of there, we don't need to be spreading the events and planning to anyone not 'in the loop'.

[Drisco]

As much as I want to know the truth of the iraq war, I'm seriously against the leaking of these documents. There will be names, ranks, and events listed that can still affect the lives and welfare of troops overseas.

Until we're out of there, we don't need to be spreading the events and planning to anyone not 'in the loop'.

So someone torturing or turning a blind eye to torturing shouldn't be punished?

Edited: I mean torturing because someone did something wrong or just because they are in jail. I have mixed feelings on whether the law should sanction torture so it can be applied in certain cases, such as terrorist acts.

[Parker]

So someone torturing or turning a blind eye to torturing shouldn't be punished?

Edited: I mean torturing because someone did something wrong or just because they are in jail. I have mixed feelings on whether the law should sanction torture so it can be applied in certain cases, such as terrorist acts.

It should be punished, yes. What I'm referring to is not the threat to those people committing crimes, but the threat to those who just did their jobs as soldiers.

For instance.

Let's say that 5 soldiers went and captured Sadam. Now, there is enough of Sadam's prior government still at large that if the names of the people responsible for his capture got out, what's to keep a cell of terrorists HERE from going after their family?

How effective would it be? If you want to terrorize someone, terrorize those who are attacking you. "If you kill me, My friends are going to murder your family, because WikiLeaks will tell me who you are"

[Drisco]

It should be punished, yes. What I'm referring to is not the threat to those people committing crimes, but the threat to those who just did their jobs as soldiers.

For instance.

Let's say that 5 soldiers went and captured Sadam. Now, there is enough of Sadam's prior government still at large that if the names of the people responsible for his capture got out, what's to keep a cell of terrorists HERE from going after their family?

How effective would it be? If you want to terrorize someone, terrorize those who are attacking you. "If you kill me, My friends are going to murder your family, because WikiLeaks will tell me who you are"


The soldiers who caught Sadam is public. They had a home coming service for them. It was in the paper. No one was hiding their names.

WikiLeaks doesn't care about that. They care about spilling government wrong doings and making it known. Aka. Torturing and killing Civilians. Now I do realize that sometimes someone will get intel wrong and they genuinely kill a civilian on accident. But going into a Jail and torturing someone just for fun, or to get revenge is not right and should be punished severely.

[Latrinsorm]

You seem to have missed the "for instance" part - the theme of the example is sound. You also seem to be confused about how the American justice system works. People aren't actually convicted in the court of public opinion, that's just an expression. If you or Wikileaks really wanted people to be punished for what they did, you would bring your evidence to the proper channels and go from there.

[Drisco]

You seem to have missed the "for instance" part - the theme of the example is sound. You also seem to be confused about how the American justice system works. People aren't actually convicted in the court of public opinion, that's just an expression. If you or Wikileaks really wanted people to be punished for what they did, you would bring your evidence to the proper channels and go from there.

No, I read and saw the "For instance" part. It was just a stupid example considering it was a real life example and nothing happened to said people.

I can't be confused because I'm not really talking about the American Justice system. I simply said that wikieaks takes an interest in finding out what the government is covering up or the dirty messes that we don't hear about and letting it be known to the public. I believe the people should be punished but I'm not saying wiki leaks helps it happen, although I bet them spreading it to the public will have some impact in some way.

[Back]

More released today. Some very interesting stuff.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/world/29cables.html?hp

[Tgo01]

I don't like this guy. What kind of ass encourages people to steal top secret information just so he can 'expose' the government on the web?

[Warriorbird]

You seem to have missed the "for instance" part - the theme of the example is sound. You also seem to be confused about how the American justice system works. People aren't actually convicted in the court of public opinion, that's just an expression. If you or Wikileaks really wanted people to be punished for what they did, you would bring your evidence to the proper channels and go from there.

There are things that can only be outed this way. My issue with Assange and Wikileaks is that they include many that aren't.

[Nilandia]

I simply said that wikieaks takes an interest in finding out what the government is covering up or the dirty messes that we don't hear about and letting it be known to the public.
That's actually not what I've heard. According to an interview I saw with someone who has met Assange and who is a self-described whistleblower, Assange has absolutely no interest in releasing the information in the interest of exposing coverups and dirty secrets. To use the term he used, Assange is all about 'self-aggrandizement.'

Gretchen

[nub]

I don't like this guy. What kind of ass encourages people to steal top secret information just so he can 'expose' the government on the web?

I guess people who want to make a difference.

[Tgo01]

What difference is he making?

[~Rocktar~]

I guess people who want to make a difference.

Or attention whoring jackasses into self aggrandizement.

[Warriorbird]

Or attention whoring jackasses into self aggrandizement.

Not that any of us on the PC know anything about that.

[Back]

Talk about killing the messenger... and I would not be surprised if someone hasn’t tried yet. It does not matter one bit who leaks or publishes this stuff.

This last round... holy shit is there one hell of a diplomatic shitstorm brewing about now. I for one am glad to see this stuff. Maybe it will change how we operate in the world.

[Tgo01]

It doesn't matter that someone is abusing their position and stealing top secret information then handing that information over to someone who publishes on the internet? Really?


Mixed records against terrorism: Saudi donors remain the chief financiers of Sunni militant groups like Al Qaeda, and the tiny Persian Gulf state of Qatar, a generous host to the American military for years, was the “worst in the region” in counterterrorism efforts, according to a State Department cable last December. Qatar’s security service was “hesitant to act against known terrorists out of concern for appearing to be aligned with the U.S. and provoking reprisals,” the cable said.

Yeah, this being leaked just might change the world. It seems this guy has gone from 'zomg human rights abuses! let's shed light onto it!' to 'zomg anything even remotely classified! let's shed light onto it!' How this guy has any credibility left among anyone at all is mind boggling.

[Parkbandit]

Do a snatch and grab and have him spend a couple of nights in Gitmo.

[Tgo01]

Do a snatch and grab and have him spend a couple of nights in Gitmo.

But then who will leak world changing information such as:


During CDA Richard Erdman's September 5 meeting
with Saudi Second Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of
Interior Prince Nayif bin Abdulaziz (reftel), John Brennan,
Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and
Counterterrorism, stressed USG condemnation of the August 28
terrorist attack on Assistant Interior Minister Prince
Mohammed bin Nayif (MbN) and strong USG support for Saudi
Arabia in combating violent extremism.

[nub]

What difference is he making?

I guess getting people here in the states that live with their head up their ass to be exposed to how the US operates.

[~Rocktar~]

I guess getting people here in the states that live with their head up their ass to be exposed to how the US operates.

Any rational human being with a clue has no delusions that we play all nice nice around the world in politics and covert operations. After all, if you played nice, then you would be like the UN, impotent, full of hot air only good for embezling money and living off the poor world wide. After all, Seals, Delta Force, Rangers, Force Recon Marines and so on don't just train all the time.

Attributed to Winston Churchill and George Orwell "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."


No deterrent ever deters without first proving it's effectiveness.

[Warriorbird]

What difference is he making?

In this case? Revealing a bunch of the Middle East as hypocritical and ironically providing support for conflict with Iran.

There's a crazy story about a PB age American fleeing Iran that's pretty heroic.

He's also pointed out that Hillary Clinton had the UN Secretary General spied on.

China hacked Google.

We offered payouts to countries to take Guantanamo detainees.

AND

Gaddafi is doing well for himself in his old age in the ladies department.

Honestly, if I were a Republican I'm not sure I'd be complaining here.

[Tgo01]

None of that should really be all that surprising though and none of it is really going to change anything in the world. Governments have goals, desires and opinions just like people do, they also perform deals and back stab one another just like people do. The only thing this is going to accomplish, if anything, is weaken our ties with our allies.


Honestly, if I were a Republican I'm not sure I'd be complaining here.

Why's that?

[Warriorbird]

Why's that?

I guess you don't fall into the 'Hillary Clinton is the Great Satan' portion of your party. This also tends to play right into Israel jocking, a prime neocon pastime.

[TheEschaton]

I'd rather we not have backroom deals with the Saudis to invade Iran, and if exposing these State Department cables embarasses enough people/causes enough of a diplomatic scandal to do so, I'm all for it.

After all, if a government's actions don't hold up in the light of day, they shouldn't hold up in the dead of night either.

[Tgo01]

It's just not that surprising to me I guess. So Hillary had the UN Secretary General spied on, there is very little doubt in my mind that if a Republican had her position right now he probably would have done the same thing. I certainly don't think she should be demonized over it, especially since none of us should really know any of this.

I guess I'm just a firm believer in people being on a need to know basis, there's just some things we don't need to know and especially our allies/enemies don't need to know.


I'd rather we not have backroom deals with the Saudis to invade Iran, and if exposing these State Department cables embarasses enough people/causes enough of a diplomatic scandal to do so, I'm all for it.

After all, if a government's actions don't hold up in the light of day, they shouldn't hold up in the dead of night either.

Wish I could live in a fantasy world where everyone got along peacefully and would sing kumbuya by the fire at night.

[TheEschaton]

I don't live in that world, but I'm definitely working towards it. All human problems can be solved by human solutions.

[Tgo01]

Perhaps. The only problem with that theory is getting the irrational humans to behave rational for any real progress. This leaked information certainly isn't going to wake people up and say "Hey, maybe we can work out our differences."

[Back]

It doesn't matter that someone is abusing their position and stealing top secret information then handing that information over to someone who publishes on the internet? Really?

Abusing what position exactly? This is America, remember? Freedom of speech? He did not perpetrate any crime his site reveals. Yet you want to paint him as the bad guy? Do you realize how upside down that is?


Do a snatch and grab and have him spend a couple of nights in Gitmo.

I will bet anyone all my belongings that much much worse has been discussed by the people in and associated with these leaks.


Attributed to Winston Churchill and George Orwell "We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm."

You are spouting some crazy shit but this line in particular is most telling. Guess who else sleeps well at night with thugs to protect them?

[TheEschaton]

Rationality is what makes us more than animals, most of our shit is due to animal behavior and us not rising above our animal natures. It shouldn't be unreasonable to ask humanity to act rationally.

Plus, your argument is reductio ad absurdum, in that the pointing out of our irrational behavor not leading to rational behavior implies transparency is irrelevant and any plea for rationality non-functional.

-TheE-

[Delias]

It's just not that surprising to me I guess. So Hillary had the UN Secretary General spied on, there is very little doubt in my mind that if a Republican had her position right now he probably would have done the same thing. I certainly don't think she should be demonized over it, especially since none of us should really know any of this.

I guess I'm just a firm believer in people being on a need to know basis, there's just some things we don't need to know and especially our allies/enemies don't need to know.



Wish I could live in a fantasy world where everyone got along peacefully and would sing kumbuya by the fire at night.

"Need to know" is a great way to deny accountability. If my boss told me someone had to die but the reason wasn't one I needed to know, I'd tell him to fuck himself. Surrendering your need to know is the first step in surrendering your free will.

[Tgo01]

Abusing what position exactly? This is America, remember? Freedom of speech? He did not perpetrate any crime his site reveals. Yet you want to paint him as the bad guy? Do you realize how upside down that is?

I'm talking about the guy he got this information from. It's not like some idiot just left a stack of top secret papers at a bar and someone stumbled upon it and gave it to Wikileaks. The guy was in the military and used his position to gain access to top secret information for the sole purpose of handing it all over to Wikileaks. That doesn't strike you as even just a little bit wrong? Rather he should be lauded as some sort of hero?


It shouldn't be unreasonable to ask humanity to act rationally.

Not unreasonable at all. You're just fooling yourself if you think this is the right way to go about it.


Plus, your argument is reductio ad absurdum, in that the pointing out of our irrational behavor not leading to rational behavior implies transparency is irrelevant and any plea for rationality non-functional.

So you're assuming pointing out peoples irrational behavior will make them rational? It's just that simple? Hell man why aren't you president? You could have solved the worlds problems years ago.


"Need to know" is a great way to deny accountability. If my boss told me someone had to die but the reason wasn't one I needed to know, I'd tell him to fuck himself. Surrendering your need to know is the first step in surrendering your free will.

Couldn't think of a little less dramatic example?

[Back]

I'm talking about the guy he got this information from. It's not like some idiot just left a stack of top secret papers at a bar and someone stumbled upon it and gave it to Wikileaks. The guy was in the military and used his position to gain access to top secret information for the sole purpose of handing it all over to Wikileaks. That doesn't strike you as even just a little bit wrong? Rather he should be lauded as some sort of hero?

So let me understand you here.

Party A does something.

Party B tells other people that Party A did something.

You feel as though Party B is more wrong for telling than Party A is for doing?

[TheEschaton]

LOL, it's all typical "Don't be a rat" reactionary bullshit. People said the same thing about Vietnam vets and journalists who "dared" tell people about the dinky dau shit that went on in the bush, like the massacre of whole villages.

There is also the argument that the leak harms our national security, but again, I'd think the actions themselves harm our national security more.

[Back]

I hope this is a fucking mind bomb that wakes the right people up all over the world to what the supposed “will of the people” is really up to.

[Tgo01]

So let me understand you here.

Party A does something.

Party B tells other people that Party A did something.

You feel as though Party B is more wrong for telling than Party A is for doing?

While I sure do appreciate your desire to dance with me this is getting kind of silly.

Do you see nothing wrong with a soldier in the military abusing his position to steal secret information in order to have it distributed around the world? I guess you believe the ends justify the means.


There is also the argument that the leak harms our national security, but again, I'd think the actions themselves harm our national security more.

And now that we've pointed out their irrational behavior I guess all we have to do is sit back and watch the world change before us. Are you an anarchist by any chance?

[Back]

Do you see nothing wrong with a soldier in the military abusing his position to steal secret information in order to have it distributed around the world?

Nope. Otherwise corruption wins.

[Tgo01]

Nope. Otherwise corruption wins.

But abusing the trust bestowed upon you and stealing secrets is corru...wow you just made my head explode.

[Back]

But abusing the trust bestowed upon you and stealing secrets is corru...wow you just made my head explode.

I don’t know which is more foolish... those who think that people will keep secrets or those who think that people will not keep secrets.

[Delias]

Couldn't think of a little less dramatic example?

Why would I need to? When it comes to military action, that IS what we're generally talking about.

[Parkbandit]

"Need to know" is a great way to deny accountability. If my boss told me someone had to die but the reason wasn't one I needed to know, I'd tell him to fuck himself. Surrendering your need to know is the first step in surrendering your free will.

And then you would write a strongly worded letter about how much you loved it when your boss kicked you in the face and post it on an Internet forum.. only to delete the post a few hours later after realizing you sounded gayer than Perez Hilton at an all male burlesque show?

[Parkbandit]

While I sure do appreciate your desire to dance with me this is getting kind of silly.

You do realize it's Backlash you are responding to, right?

[Tgo01]

Why would I need to? When it comes to military action, that IS what we're generally talking about.

Only problem is very few of these leaked cables have anything at all to do with the military much less about anyone being killed.


You do realize it's Backlash you are responding to, right?

Yeah I lost my head for a minute there.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think anyone who shares these documents should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It's treason.

On the flip side, I do believe in transparency to the public. But releasing TS documents and having no idea the implications is irresponsible and dangerous to everyone.

[Warriorbird]

I think anyone who shares these documents should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It's treason.

On the flip side, I do believe in transparency to the public. But releasing TS documents and having no idea the implications is irresponsible and dangerous to everyone.

So you think the newspapers should be prosecuted? The people who see them once given out?

OR


Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, called for U.S. officials to get aggressive against WikiLeaks after the website published highly sensitive, classified diplomatic cables that reveal frank assessments of foreign leaders and the war on terror.

"I am calling on the attorney general and supporting his efforts to fully prosecute WikiLeaks and its founder for violating the Espionage Act. And I'm also calling on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to declare WikiLeaks a foreign terrorist organization," King said on WNIS radio on Sunday evening.

Not that it particularly makes it better, but none of them actually were TOP secret.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AS3WJ20101129

There's obviously an investigation already though.

[BigWorm]

I think anyone who shares these documents should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It's treason.


It's not treason. Please don't throw around words that you clearly don't understand. At worse, this is espionage, which is still pretty tenuous since we are not at war with Wikileaks and this diplomatic correspondence has little actual military intel.

[Gan]

At best it is Sedition, but even that's a stretch.

[BigWorm]

It's not really the content of the wires that is the problem here. Most of these things were understood and discussed in private. The problem is that's all out there in the light of day and the U.S. is forced to acknowledge and discuss these issues openly. The major issue here is embarrassment on the international scene for the U.S. and many of her allies. This has less to do with national security than it does with foreign standing and relations.

[Latrinsorm]

I'd rather we not have backroom deals with the Saudis to invade Iran, and if exposing these State Department cables embarasses enough people/causes enough of a diplomatic scandal to do so, I'm all for it.

After all, if a government's actions don't hold up in the light of day, they shouldn't hold up in the dead of night either.To paraphrase a Daily Show quote, it would really embarrass the politicians involved if they ever developed the capacity to feel shame. Until then you're scolding a rhinoceros - the rhinoceros is just going to keep charging your ass.
Freedom of speech?
Surrendering your need to know is the first step in surrendering your free will.You have neither unlimited freedom of speech nor unlimited free will, because each of you live in a society. We are all (ridiculously, implausibly) lucky enough to live in a particular society where we don't even have to surrender all that much. You aren't allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater for the hell of it, even if you feel such restrictions make you a SLAVE to the MAN, man.

This is not a question of freedom. It's a question of using that freedom in a responsible way.

[Warriorbird]

This is not a question of freedom. It's a question of using that freedom in a responsible way.

Yeah. That damn Deep Throat should've been put in prison.

Assange also isn't actually an American. While I agree that most of this information is pretty worthless I'm actually gratified that the Iran information was released. I'm glad that somebody took that effort.

[Tgo01]

Just because this guy names this 'cablegate' doesn't mean it's valid to be comparing it to Watergate and him to Deep Throat.

[Warriorbird]

Just because this guy names this 'cablegate' doesn't mean it's valid to be comparing it to Watergate and him to Deep Throat.

I agree. I was more going after Latrin's generalizing. The video release that Manning's being tried for was far more 'Deep Throat' than 99.9999% of this.

[Stanley Burrell]

Maybe we can use this as a diplomatic diversion method, if it isn't already.

[ClydeR]

Why are they communicating by cable anyway?

[ClydeR]

It's treason.

That's exactly what (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45670.html) Sarah Palin tweeted.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

That's exactly what (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45670.html) Sarah Palin tweeted.

Between the two of you who object to my use of the word "treason", I apologize for not knowing the exact legal definition. I was trying to be brief and not put up a wall of text trying to explain my feelings on it.

By treason, I meant; If it isn't already against the law, it should be, to publish government documents without going through proper channels. Doing mass dumps of data like the ones done with wikileaks are irresponsible and potentially threaten the security of the US. If you think that some hostile entity isn't datamining wikileaks right now to figure out what they can figure out, you are nuts.

Not a popular opinion I'm sure, but I wish our government activities were less public. I also wish I knew less about the private lives of elected officials. I say both of these things only because I believe we spend so much time slinging mud at both entities, the only thing the world see's is mud. We have genuinely good politicians, good government programs, but no one can see that today, IMO.

Anyway, the only profession (in general) I dislike more than lawyers is the press.

[Latrinsorm]

Yeah. That damn Deep Throat should've been put in prison.There was nothing irresponsible about Mark Felt's actions - you see generalization where there is none. The behavior in this case was irresponsible. Any similarities real or imagined to historical informants are irrelevant red herrings.

[AnticorRifling]

red herrings. The guy from A Pup Named Scooby-Doo?

[Tgo01]

The guy from A Pup Named Scooby-Doo?

I think Fred had a man crush on him.

[Back]

Hillary Clinton ordered diplomats to spy on UN: WikiLeaks docs (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/11/clinton-ordered-diplomats-spy-un/)


God this stuff is awesome. Its like a sit com of world leaders. And this is just the beginning. The article above says that there is more to come each and every day this week!

:popcorn:

[~Rocktar~]

Not that any of us on the PC know anything about that.

Look in the mirror much?



Oh, and basically, leaking classified material comes under either Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/UCMJ_LHP.html) for all military personnel or Federal laws regarding handling, dissemination and destruction of classified information and materials. In both cases, it is a Felony and very prosecutable. Espionage would be a separate crime and may or may not apply to those guilty of leaking the materials.

[Tsa`ah]

Look in the mirror much?



Oh, and basically, leaking classified material comes under either Uniform Code of Military Justice (http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/UCMJ_LHP.html) for all military personnel or Federal laws regarding handling, dissemination and destruction of classified information and materials. In both cases, it is a Felony and very prosecutable. Espionage would be a separate crime and may or may not apply to those guilty of leaking the materials.

I wasn't aware that wikileaks was a foreign government.

[Nilandia]

I'd heard on the news tonight that if WikiLeaks is cast as a 'middle-man' through which someone with clearance publicizes classified material, then they can be charged with a crime. Otherwise, there's not much chance to prosecution.

I can't verify that claim, but it does appear that WikiLeaks is in a grey legal area. It'd be hard to make anything stick.

Gretchen

[Back]

I'd heard on the news tonight that if WikiLeaks is cast as a 'middle-man' through which someone with clearance publicizes classified material, then they can be charged with a crime. Otherwise, there's not much chance to prosecution.

I can't verify that claim, but it does appear that WikiLeaks is in a grey legal area. It'd be hard to make anything stick.

Gretchen

Honestly, Gretch, who is the real culprit? The actor or the critic?

[Nilandia]

Honestly, Gretch, who is the real culprit? The actor or the critic?
I'm not laying any blame one way or another, Back. I'm just saying that even if the government wanted to go after WikiLeaks, there isn't too much legal ground to stand on. Add that to the fact the Assange is Swedish and we'd most likely have to track him down, hopefully in a country that we have an extradition treaty with.

Gretchen

[Warriorbird]

I'm not laying any blame one way or another, Back. I'm just saying that even if the government wanted to go after WikiLeaks, there isn't too much legal ground to stand on. Add that to the fact the Assange is Swedish and we'd most likely have to track him down, hopefully in a country that we have an extradition treaty with.

Gretchen

He's Australian.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Shame on him for publishing them, but go after the leaks.

[TheEschaton]

How do you go after an entity that almost entirely exists on the internet? Who the hell has jurisdiction? That's what I'd want to know.

[WRoss]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/30/wikileaks/index.html?hpt=T2


After posting thousands of secret government documents, WikiLeaks came under an electronic attack designed to make it unavailable to users, the whistle-blower website said Tuesday.

The site also experienced a distributed denial of service (DDOS) attack on Sunday, just as it was publishing the first of what it says are 250,000 secret U.S. diplomatic cables. Such attacks normally are done by flooding a website with requests for data.

"DDOS attack now exceeding 10 Gigabits a second," WikiLeaks said on Twitter.

The effects of Tuesday's electronic disruption were unclear.

Looks like someone is unleashing their cyber cannons.

[Fallen]

I doubt it will stop them for long.

[Tgo01]

How do you go after an entity that almost entirely exists on the internet? Who the hell has jurisdiction? That's what I'd want to know.

What does this even mean? You can do whatever you like on the internet and no one can do anything about it? Didn't the owners of Pirate Bay recently go to jail?

[TheEschaton]

Pirate Bay is based in a certain country, isn't it? WikiLeaks is like Wikipedia, it's a contributor-heavy website with all content being provided by people in many countries anonymously. I suppose whichever country the WikiLeaks server is based in has jurisdiction, but still.

[waywardgs]

Pirate Bay is based in a certain country, isn't it? WikiLeaks is like Wikipedia, it's a contributor-heavy website with all content being provided by people in many countries anonymously. I suppose whichever country the WikiLeaks server is based in has jurisdiction, but still.

I believe this is why Julian chose Sweden to have his host servers- they have certain whistleblower protection laws there that protect the site. The site also goes to great lengths to disguise where the servers are, from what I've read. I'll have to find the article. Assange himself moves around constantly, sleeping on the couches of friends and supporters all over the world. He has a pretty interesting history, too- he was a pretty heavy-hitting hacker at one point.

Didn't Ecuador just offer him citizenship, btw?

[Tgo01]

I'm not so sure hosting the servers in Sweden will prove to be to his benefit. The Pirate Bay was hosted there and Sweden also wants Assange arrested on rape charges.

I don't think Sweden is very fond of Assange.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Apparently he's got a shitload of data on Bank of America too he's going to post. I still think he's a douche, but really the culprit is the person who gave him the shit in the first place.

[TheEschaton]

Or, yanno, the people that did the shit in the first place.

[Tgo01]

Yeah, how dare those diplomats give their opinions on other world leaders. Who do they think they are, Americans?

[TheEschaton]

If what they did isn't a big deal, what was leaked isn't a big deal. That's simple logic, nice to meet you.

[Tgo01]

Yup, 'simple' is what came to mind when I read that post.

[Tgo01]

Okay maybe that was a little uncalled for. So what exactly are you saying TheEschaton? The government shouldn't have secrets? Nobody should have secrets? What?

If your best friend was gay and he didn't want anyone to know but you think it's not a big deal if people find out would you go around telling everyone he was gay because you feel it's not a big deal even though your friend does?

[AnticorRifling]

If what they did isn't a big deal, what was leaked isn't a big deal. That's simple logic, nice to meet you.

That's retarded and you know it.

[Latrinsorm]

If what they did isn't a big deal, what was leaked isn't a big deal. That's simple logic, nice to meet you.Is that like how if you aren't doing any crimes then you shouldn't care about being surveilled?

[Nilandia]

He's Australian.
....yeah. I was remembering the Swedish authorities investigating the rape allegations and the wires got crossed.

Gretchen

[Warriorbird]

This shit is epic.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/30/wikileaks.kazakhstan/index.html

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Is that like how if you aren't doing any crimes then you shouldn't care about being surveilled?

OH SNAP

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

This shit is epic.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/11/30/wikileaks.kazakhstan/index.html

Best quote ever-


The leaked cable ends with a florid description of then Defense Minister Daniyal Akhmetov, who "appears to enjoy loosening up in the tried and true 'homo-sovieticus' style -- i.e. drinking oneself into a stupor."

[Parkbandit]

Interpol has issued an arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on sex charges.

The Australian is suspected of rape, sexual molestation and unlawful coercion in an investigation that stems from his encounters with two women during a visit to Sweden in August.

Assange has denied the allegations and insisted his sexual relations with the women were consensual.

A veteran computer hacker, Assange founded WikiLeaks in 2006. It has published almost 500,000 secret U.S. documents about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Court documents filed by the prosecutor show Assange is suspected of raping and sexually molesting a woman in the town of Enkoping, central Sweden. He's suspected of sexual molestation and unlawful coercion of the second woman, in Stockholm.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/30/interpol-issues-arrest-warrant-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange/

I seriously thought Assange was a gay drama queen... and this was mostly a cry for attention.

[TheEschaton]

Is that like how if you aren't doing any crimes then you shouldn't care about being surveilled?

I didn't say you won't care. I just said no harm is being done (by the leaker) if no harm is being done (by the doer).

If you are doing something harmful, as a government, to the point that you hide it protect yourself from people knowing about it and having the ramifications of an angry subject, then the blame lies not on the leaker for leaking the information, but on the person who actually committed said acts.

Lastly, comporting government secret actions onto the secret actions of individuals is a piss poor analogy. Trying to say the government has a "right to privacy" because individuals do is insidious, especially considering the fact that an individual's right to privacy is limited to his own home and self, and the legality of his actions. If what you're doing is external to yourself, or is illegal, your right to privacy can be, and often is, abridged.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

tl;dr version: If you're not willing to say/do it to their face, don't say/do it.

[Tgo01]

Lastly, comporting government secret actions onto the secret actions of individuals is a piss poor analogy. Trying to say the government has a "right to privacy" because individuals do is insidious

Yeah you're right. I wonder when the US will stop this insufferable practice and release all of their nuclear secrets, war secrets and undercover operations to the public so we can all be in the know.

[TheEschaton]

A fine argument for why we shouldn't have nukes, wars, or undercover operations. :)

[Latrinsorm]

I didn't say you won't care. I just said no harm is being done (by the leaker) if no harm is being done (by the doer).Fair enough: what harm is done to the person targeted for surveillance? If they are unaware of it, there must be no psychological effect. If they are aware, the worst thing would be a chilling effect, but a chilling effect on what? I suggest only criminal or otherwise nefarious behavior, and preventing that by definition is beneficial.
If you are doing something harmful, as a government, to the point that you hide it protect yourself from people knowing about it and having the ramifications of an angry subject, then the blame lies not on the leaker for leaking the information, but on the person who actually committed said acts.I think you are taking an overly charitable view of the subject. Take the case of an Egyptian politician, who admitted to an American politician that he knew Iran was funding terrorism but didn't want to say so on the record due to the delicacy of Egypt's position. It is certainly not his fault that terrorists or Iran would take such statement as legitimate provocation for reprisals, as the terrorists or Iran in that situation would not in fact have been legitimately provoked.
Lastly, comporting government secret actions onto the secret actions of individuals is a piss poor analogy. Trying to say the government has a "right to privacy" because individuals do is insidious, especially considering the fact that an individual's right to privacy is limited to his own home and self, and the legality of his actions. If what you're doing is external to yourself, or is illegal, your right to privacy can be, and often is, abridged.Quite to the contrary, I would say that to the degree that the government requires secrecy to function appropriately, the government is entitled to secrecy: it has nothing to do with the individual's supposed right to privacy. Diplomacy, because it is essentially lying on an international scale, requires significant amounts of secrecy. Diplomacy has been working pretty well for us over the past 60 years. Why mess with a good thing, especially when the messing with it accomplishes nothing but inflating the ego of some Australian guy?

[TheEschaton]

Diplomacy not based on open communication, honesty, and trust, is not diplomacy but another form of war games.

[Tgo01]

A fine argument for why we shouldn't have nukes, wars, or undercover operations. :)

I think what you meant to say was we shouldn't 'need' nukes, wars or undercover operations but the sad fact is we have those things. Not everyone wants to be our friends. Maybe when the rest of us join your utopia and want to give each other a hand job we can talk about doing away with wars and the like. But until then let's pretend to be an adult about this and realize that some secrecy is needed.

[TheEschaton]

Again, I refer you to the idea that not only am I an adult, I don't give handjobs or talk about utopia without talking about the sacrifices we humans would have to make, such as giving up primitive behaviors like secret-keeping. All human problems have human solutions.

[Parkbandit]

Again, I refer you to the idea that not only am I an adult, I don't give handjobs or talk about utopia without talking about the sacrifices we humans would have to make, such as giving up primitive behaviors like secret-keeping. All human problems have human solutions.

You are starting to sound like Backlash with every post in this thread.

Knock it off.

[Back]

You are starting to sound like Backlash with every post in this thread.

Knock it off.

Thats actually a compliment to me. Thanks!

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

There's a crazy story about a PB age American fleeing Iran that's pretty heroic.


This story being leaked actually upset me because it's not really whistleblowing and it could be seriously putting the guys family/relatives still in Iran in serious danger, not to mention the people who helped him escape.

That being said, it was nice to read the story about China being receptive to South Korea reunifying with North as long as they don't allow the US military past the current demilitarized zone. I remember have some long talks with people about North Korea and China and we all came to the conclusion that China isn't going to just throw away being an economic powerhouse to prop up some shitty ass country to its south that brings absolutely nothing to the table financially or otherwise and that the only reason they play nice with North Korea is to maintain a buffer with the US. I don't think that leak was shocking to a ton of people, but it was cool to see.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I seriously thought Assange was a gay drama queen... and this was mostly a cry for attention.

This has been news on Reddit for quite a few weeks now, according to a lot of documents he was completely cooperative and helpful with authorities after they accused him and they failed to act because they have no evidence against him. I'm cautious about it, but to a lot of people this looks like an attempt to discredit and/or imprison him.

[Parkbandit]

This has been news on Reddit for quite a few weeks now, according to a lot of documents he was completely cooperative and helpful with authorities after they accused him and they failed to act because they have no evidence against him. I'm cautious about it, but to a lot of people this looks like an attempt to discredit and/or imprison him.

Yea, I agree.

And I really did think he was gay.. which makes the charge of raping a girl even more bizarre.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

This story being leaked actually upset me because it's not really whistleblowing and it could be seriously putting the guys family/relatives still in Iran in serious danger, not to mention the people who helped him escape.

That being said, it was nice to read the story about China being receptive to South Korea reunifying with North as long as they don't allow the US military past the current demilitarized zone. I remember have some long talks with people about North Korea and China and we all came to the conclusion that China isn't going to just throw away being an economic powerhouse to prop up some shitty ass country to its south that brings absolutely nothing to the table financially or otherwise and that the only reason they play nice with North Korea is to maintain a buffer with the US. I don't think that leak was shocking to a ton of people, but it was cool to see.

I've always thought China uses NK as a pawn myself. Little risk to them to test the US resolve on issues, they can always blame it on NK. NK accepts this role because they get "big brother" intimidation factor and Kim gets to play monarch and oppress people he doesn't like, reward those he does.

My brother who's in S. Korea and works in intelligence/counter intelligence says even their "best paid" military are malnourished and ill-trained. Outside the select few uber powerful, most of the country is poverty level. He's told me stories that are unbelievably sad tales of oppression and poverty.

[Atlanteax]

A fine argument for why we shouldn't have nukes, wars, or undercover operations. :)

Maybe when human beings no longer concern themselves with stealing, raping, murdering, and other criminal act ... we can consider no longer needing nukes, wars, and special ops. The former being on the micro-scale between individuals, and the later being on the macro-scale between states.

However, malicious intent (or as benign as indifference) will always be a part of the human psyche which is driven by individual motives for self-enrichment.

[Latrinsorm]

Diplomacy not based on open communication, honesty, and trust, is not diplomacy but another form of war games.Let's take that as gospel, and make a deal: when we've gotten rid of actual wars, then we can worry about getting rid of war games. Sound reasonable?

[Atlanteax]

I found this to be an interesting snippett from STRATFOR's examination of the posted cables on Wikileaks:


Perusing the collection of U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks, we came across what we at STRATFOR consider a gem of recent history. Gerard Araud, now the French permanent representative to the United Nations, briefed several U.S. officials in late February 2007 on the difference between the purpose of NATO in 2007 and during the Cold War. Recounting an adage, he said that during the Cold War, NATO was supposed “to keep Germans down, the Russians out and the Americans in.” But in 2007, NATO’s purpose was “for the newer European and Baltic members, given their fear of Russia, ‘rational or not’ — to keep the Americans in.” Araud added: “For other members, NATO provides a way to meet their defense — without having to pay for it.”

The assessment of NATO’s contemporary role by a high-ranking French official from 2007 resonates very much in November 2010. On Tuesday, there were a number of events that reminded STRATFOR just how worried Central and Eastern Europeans are about their security. The Wall Street Journal reported that Russia had moved ground-based tactical nuclear warheads to its borders with NATO member states sometime in the spring. Quoted in the same article, Lithuanian Foreign Minister Audronius Azubalis said, “Being a NATO member, of course, someone could say, ‘Don’t worry.’ But when you’re living in the neighborhood, you should always be more cautious.”

Was refreshing to see that kind of frank assessment from the French.

[~Rocktar~]

I found this to be an interesting snippett from STRATFOR's examination of the posted cables on Wikileaks:



Was refreshing to see that kind of frank assessment from the French.

And the primary reason we should send them a fucking bill. They get to sit on their fat European asses with their socialist states and do so on the backs of the evil capitalist Americans. Meanwhile, they take every chance they can to insult and berate us about how enlightened they are and how barbaric we are.

We should pull out and let them deal with it on their own. We have our own problems to deal with. Ignore the world, no, let the rest of the world start to clean up their own messes, yes.

[Tsa`ah]

And the primary reason we should send them a fucking bill. They get to sit on their fat European asses with their socialist states and do so on the backs of the evil capitalist Americans. Meanwhile, they take every chance they can to insult and berate us about how enlightened they are and how barbaric we are.

We should pull out and let them deal with it on their own. We have our own problems to deal with. Ignore the world, no, let the rest of the world start to clean up their own messes, yes.

By comparison, we're the fat folk. That aside, send them a bill for what exactly? We're a member of NATO ... we're not the whole of NATO.

[~Rocktar~]

By comparison, we're the fat folk. That aside, send them a bill for what exactly? We're a member of NATO ... we're not the whole of NATO.

60 years of defense. Are you really this dense? Don't answer that, you are. They pay token costs for their national defense in comparison of what they have received. This is also the same with Japan.

Here is some info to show just how much is spent by who.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/default.asp

[Tsa`ah]

60 years of defense. Are you really this dense? Don't answer that, you are. They pay token costs for their national defense in comparison of what they have received. This is also the same with Japan.

Here is some info to show just how much is spent by who.

http://www.strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/databases/armies/default.asp

Your sources are about as credible as your statements.

[~Rocktar~]

Your sources are about as credible as your statements.

And orders of magnitude greater than your spewings.

[Nilandia]

I was forwarded these today and thought they might be interesting reads. I haven't checked to see if they were accurate, and one is from the very conservative WorldNetDaily.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=236345
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

Gretchen

[Tsa`ah]

400'000 Wiki Leaks Iraq... 12-01-2010 07:52 PM Regardless of the credibility of his sources, you cannot honestly believe the rest of NATO spends anything close to what the US does on defense.

Anything close to what the US spends on what ... US defense? Certainly not. We spend more to "defend" ourselves than any other nation on the planet.

However, I'm not so "patriotic" as to assume that we spend more on NATO than anyone else. You can easily find out how much is contributed by member states by visiting the NATO page. The US, UK, Germany, and France make up the bulk of NATO contributions ... and most of our contributions aren't necessarily monetary. They're in the form of man power, which only makes sense considering the bulk of NATO operations are in areas (Afghanistan) that we have started conflicts.

Sorry, Rocktard's sources and assumptions are idiotic ... and saying as much insults idiots every where.

[~Rocktar~]

Anything close to what the US spends on what ... US defense? Certainly not. We spend more to "defend" ourselves than any other nation on the planet.

However, I'm not so "patriotic" as to assume that we spend more on NATO than anyone else. You can easily find out how much is contributed by member states by visiting the NATO page. The US, UK, Germany, and France make up the bulk of NATO contributions ... and most of our contributions aren't necessarily monetary. They're in the form of man power, which only makes sense considering the bulk of NATO operations are in areas (Afghanistan) that we have started conflicts.

Sorry, Rocktard's sources and assumptions are idiotic ... and saying as much insults idiots every where.

You are both a moron and wrong. We out spend everyone in NATO, and we do it to protect others, not ourselves.

Just a few of those NATO operations on behalf of others:
Korean Conflict
Bosnian/Kosovo Conflict
Vietnam


Just because I said it, I quoted other sources of some value and it disagrees with what you imagine in your fevered, oxygen starved, Liberal brain, doesn't mean it is wrong. The only idiot here is you. Grab onto your ears, pull hard until you hear the popping sound, wipe the shit off your face and ass and take a look around at reality, I know you can't see it right now with your head so deeply up your ass.

[TheEschaton]

Bosnia/Kosovo was a humanitarian war that the right roundly criticized Clinton for getting involved in. Korea and Vietnam were conflicts in which we mired ourselves and basically ruined those countries through decade-long war. I don't see how you can say the Korean war and Vietnam were operations we undertook to "protect others" instead of being for our own political gain.

[Warriorbird]

Bosnia/Kosovo was a humanitarian war that the right roundly criticized Clinton for getting involved in. Korea and Vietnam were conflicts in which we mired ourselves and basically ruined those countries through decade-long war. I don't see how you can say the Korean war and Vietnam were operations we undertook to "protect others" instead of being for our own political gain.

Don't trivialize how fucked up NK is. If we'd stopped instead of pushing too far it would've been pretty much to protect people.

[Jack]

You are both a moron and wrong. We out spend everyone in NATO, and we do it to protect others, not ourselves.

Just a few of those NATO operations on behalf of others:
Korean Conflict
Bosnian/Kosovo Conflict
Vietnam



Do they not teach History in schools anymore? Two out your three examples had absolutely nothing to do with NATO.

The Korean War began on June 25, 1950 when the North Korean Army invaded South Korea without warning. On July 5 the first US troops arrived with Task Force Smith, and two days later the United Nations Command was formed, with General Douglas MacArthur in command. The North Korean Sixth Army meanwhile was driving down the west coast nearly unnopposed, where they murdered, raped and pillaged towards Pusan. In Mid September US forces landed at Inchon, and the North Korean Army began pulling back in Dissaray. Seoul was recaptured, and General MacArther, and Syngman Rhee made a big show of entering the South Korean capitol. In late September MacArthur gave permission for troops to begin crossing the 38th Paralell, which devided the two countries. The North Korean forces were pretty much in route by this time and it was thought that the offensive would reunite the Korean Peninsula by Christmas. By mid October China began sending troops across the Yalu river into North Korea and by the end of November Chinese forces were engaged in the war all across the front.

The First Marine Division at the Chosin Resevoir was engaged by ten full divisions of Chinese infantry. Despite subzero temperatures, being surrounded, and seriously outnumbered, the Marines regrouped, fought their way out, and brought back all of their dead and wounded. Of the ten divisions that attacked the First Marines, not one was ever capable of combat again.

The US Army's 31st Regimental Combat Team at Chosin did not fare as well. When the Chinese hit, they were spread out, and quickly routed. Three hundred wounded men were left behind in their flight from the enemy, mostly packed into the backs of trucks that the rear guard abandoned. The 80th division of the CCF did not want prisoners, so they slaughtered all of those men. Mostly using incindeary grenades, burning the wounded men to death.

By the start of 1951 the fighting was intense along the 38th paralell, and for a short time Seoul was abandoned once more. In April of 1951 Genearl Macarthur was relieved of command and General Ridgeway took over as commander of UN forces in Korea. Peace talks began in July, and droned on for two years, while UN forces fought the North Koreans, and Chinese all along the main line of resistance. On July 27, 1953 the cease fire was signed, and holds shakily to this day. At no time was NATO ever involved in the conflict.


NATO had absolutely no involvement in the Vietnam War either. After the French were thoroughly defeated the country was devided into North (Communist) and South Vietnam. The US became involved initially under Kennedy in 61, with the main goal of containing the spread of communism in Southeast Asia. A maximum of 16,000 US advisors were deployed to Vietnam from 1961-1963 under Kennedy. After his assassination, Johnson escelated the war by deploying combat troops in 1965. Eventually over half a million US troops ended up being deployed to Vietnam. Nixon pushed for Vietnamization of the war beginning in 1969, and South Vietnam fell rather quickly in 1975. For a total cost of some 325 billion dollars the United States managed to lose a war to the under trained, under armed, and under funded forces of North Vietnam.

This History lesson brought to you by boredome...

[~Rocktar~]

Nice lesson, also missing the fact that Korea was the birth of NATO as a concept and you are incorrect about Vietnam, we became mired in it because France was there, and we had mutual defense treaties due to the formation of NATO and the necessary founding alliances thereof.

I won't get into the minutia of the gaps in your military assessment of Vietnam as many books have been written by people that were there who share a differing opinion. Vietnam was a military success by most any measure, was well on the way to being a political success and if not for ill-managed press, would have been an over all success. Pulling out when you have the enemy beat, crippled and on the run doesn't lead to long term success.

And the word is "boredom".

[Warriorbird]

Nice lesson, also missing the fact that Korea was the birth of NATO as a concept and you are incorrect about Vietnam, we became mired in it because France was there, and we had mutual defense treaties due to the formation of NATO and the necessary founding alliances thereof.

I won't get into the minutia of the gaps in your military assessment of Vietnam as many books have been written by people that were there who share a differing opinion. Vietnam was a military success by most any measure, was well on the way to being a political success and if not for ill-managed press, would have been an over all success. Pulling out when you have the enemy beat, crippled and on the run doesn't lead to long term success.

And the word is "boredom".

There might be a number of things that I disagree with Jack about. I sure as hell wouldn't debate him about military history though.

[ClydeR]

Do they not teach History in schools anymore? Two out your three examples had absolutely nothing to do with NATO.

Apparently they don't. If he had studied at all in school, he'd know that after we kicked their behinds in the French and Indian War, NATO -- if by NATO, you mean France -- stopped trying to get in America's business. And why isn't the F&I War a bigger part of the curriculum in schools? Because of its debt financed participation in the F&I War, Britain was forced to raise taxes a lot to pay its war debt, leading to unrest in the colonies, leading to a certain tea party -- lowercase -- leading to Revolution. It was an unbroken and completely foreseeable chain of events. And for what? A Smoky City that nobody cares about.

[Jack]

Nice lesson, also missing the fact that Korea was the birth of NATO as a concept and you are incorrect about Vietnam, we became mired in it because France was there, and we had mutual defense treaties due to the formation of NATO and the necessary founding alliances thereof.

I won't get into the minutia of the gaps in your military assessment of Vietnam as many books have been written by people that were there who share a differing opinion. Vietnam was a military success by most any measure, was well on the way to being a political success and if not for ill-managed press, would have been an over all success. Pulling out when you have the enemy beat, crippled and on the run doesn't lead to long term success.

And the word is "boredom".

I'll start by adressing your statement that Korea was the birthplace of NATO. The Korean War began in June of 1950, while the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in April of 1949. It can be argued that the Korean War was the catalyst for NATO's military structure being solidified, but that's about as far as you can go with that.

Your assertion that we became involved in Vietnam due to mutual defense treaties is essentially ludicrous. In order to adress that we'll have to get in the way way way back machine and look at the colonization of Indochina by the french. The Sino-French war fought in 1884 and 85 ended with a French victory, giving them control of Vietnam. By 1893 all three Vietnamese territories, Laos, and Cambodia were united and under French rule. There were several nationalist rebellions against the French, a notobale one being the Yen Bai mutiny in which Vietnamese soldiers rose up against them. In the end the French were able to maintain control all the way up until WWII, when Vichy France allowed military access to Tonkin. This gave Japan a place to land troops to send against China. The Japanese maintained control until Japan surrendured.

After the war the Viet Minh, a large group of Communists and Vietnamese Nationalists led by Ho Chi Minh, gained control of much of the countryside of Vietnam. In september of 1945 President Ho declared independance in Vietnam. In response to that claim, a force of French, Brittish, Indian, and captured Japanese troops were sent in and restored French Control. Five years later Ho Chi Minh again declared an independant Republic of Viet Nam, and began the First Indochina War. The communist governments of China, and the Soviet Union were quick to recognize the new government of Vietnam, and bitter fighting ensued between the Viet Minh, and the French. Durring this time the Military Assistance and Advisory Group was formed, and the US sent over 300,000 small arms, and spent over one billion dollars aiding the French. At this point there were very few actual US soldiers involved, mostly involved in training pro-French troops. This all ended with the battle of Dien Bien Phu, where the French were soundly defeated. This led to the 1954 Geneva Accords which granted sovereignty to Vietnam, ended French control of Indochina, and seperated Vietnam into northern and southern zones, which were to be reunified after internationally supervised elections in 1956. At this point France was no longer involved in any conflict in Vietnam.

The United States became more seriously involved in Vietnam after the exit of the French. In the beginning it was mostly propaganda designed to demonize the communists in the north, and cause the catholics to flee southward. The Viet Minh communists ruled in the North, while in the south former Emporer Bao Dai and Prime Minister Diem led. They rejected the idea of free elections, insisting that the communists in the North would never allow truly free elections. In a rigged election Diem won 98% of the vote in the South. This was after his crack down on any political oposition using the military. When the people questioned his harsh tactics, he blamed it all on the communists. In October of 1955 Diem declared a new Republic of Vietnam, with himself as president.

At no point was NATO, or any mutual defense treaty invoked to draw the US into the region. The US became involved because it was felt that there needed to be an anti-communist force in the region. When that anti-communist force began crumbling, the US became more heavily involved. There were certainly many military successes in the Vietnam War, but these were tactical successes for the most part. At no point was any major strategic success made. The Ho Chi Minh trail was never shut down, and political constraints placed upon the military ensured that the Vietnam War would be a strategic failure. The North Vietnamese Army may not have won on the field of battle, but they won a more important victory. They won the battle for public opinion, which led to the Vietnamization of the war, and the eventual collapse of South Vietnam. Contrary to what Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D. TX-18) claimed, today there are not two Vietnams side by side, North and South, working and exchanging.

[4a6c1]

haaaaaawt

[Atlanteax]

This should be an interesting and educational read for all the dramatists who believe that U.S. foreign policy is irreparably damaged by Wiki Leaks:

(I'm bold-ing a few areas as well for emphasis)

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101213-taking-stock-wikileaks

By George Friedman

Julian Assange has declared that geopolitics will be separated into pre-“Cablegate” and post-“Cablegate” eras. That was a bold claim. However, given the intense interest that the leaks produced, it is a claim that ought to be carefully considered. Several weeks have passed since the first of the diplomatic cables were released, and it is time now to address the following questions: First, how significant were the leaks? Second, how could they have happened? Third, was their release a crime? Fourth, what were their consequences? Finally, and most important, is the WikiLeaks premise that releasing government secrets is a healthy and appropriate act a tenable position?

Let’s begin by recalling that the U.S. State Department documents constituted the third wave of leaks. The first two consisted of battlefield reports from Iraq and Afghanistan. Looking back on those as a benchmark, it is difficult to argue that they revealed information that ran counter to informed opinion. I use the term “informed opinion” deliberately. For someone who was watching Iraq and Afghanistan with some care over the previous years, the leaks might have provided interesting details but they would not have provided any startling distinction between the reality that was known and what was revealed. If, on the other hand, you weren’t paying close attention, and WikiLeaks provided your first and only view of the battlefields in any detail, you might have been surprised.

Let’s consider the most controversial revelation, one of the tens of thousands of reports released on Iraq and Afghanistan and one in which a video indicated that civilians were deliberately targeted by U.S. troops. The first point, of course, is that the insurgents, in violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, did not go into combat wearing armbands or other distinctive clothing to distinguish themselves from non-combatants. The Geneva Conventions have always been adamant on this requirement because they regarded combatants operating under the cover of civilians as being responsible for putting those civilians in harm’s way, not the uniformed troops who were forced to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants when the combatants deliberately chose to act in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

It follows from this that such actions against civilians are inevitable in the kind of war Iraqi insurgents chose to wage. Obviously, this particular event has to be carefully analyzed, but in a war in which combatants blend with non-combatants, civilian casualties will occur, and so will criminal actions by uniformed troops. Hundreds of thousands of troops have fought in Iraq, and the idea that criminal acts would be absent is absurd. What is most startling is not the presence of potentially criminal actions but their scarcity. Anyone who has been close to combat or who has read histories of World War II would be struck not by the presence of war crimes but by the fact that in all the WikiLeaks files so few potential cases are found. War is controlled violence, and when controls fail — as they inevitably do — uncontrolled and potentially criminal violence occurs. However, the case cited by WikiLeaks with much fanfare did not clearly show criminal actions on the part of American troops as much as it did the consequences of the insurgents violating the Geneva Conventions.

Only those who were not paying attention to the fact that there was a war going on, or who had no understanding of war, or who wanted to pretend to be shocked for political reasons, missed two crucial points: It was the insurgents who would be held responsible for criminal acts under the Geneva Conventions for posing as non-combatants, and there were extraordinarily few cases of potential war crimes that were contained in the leaks.

The diplomatic leaks are similar. There is precious little that was revealed that was unknown to the informed observer. For example, anyone reading STRATFOR knows we have argued that it was not only the Israelis but also the Saudis that were most concerned about Iranian power and most insistent that the United States do something about it. While the media treated this as a significant revelation, it required a profound lack of understanding of the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf to regard U.S. diplomatic cables on the subject as surprising.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ statement in the leaks that the Saudis were always prepared to fight to the last American was embarrassing, in the sense that Gates would have to meet with Saudi leaders in the future and would do so with them knowing what he thinks of them. Of course, the Saudis are canny politicians and diplomats and they already knew how the American leadership regarded their demands.

There were other embarrassments also known by the informed observer. Almost anyone who worries about such things is aware that Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is close to the Russians and likes to party with young women. The latest batch of leaks revealed that the American diplomatic service was also aware of this. And now Berlusconi is aware that they know of these things, which will make it hard for diplomats to pretend that they don’t know of these things. Of course, Berlusconi was aware that everyone knew of these things and clearly didn’t care, since the charges were all over Italian media.

I am not cherry-picking the Saudi or Italian memos. The consistent reality of the leaks is that they do not reveal anything new to the informed but do provide some amusement over certain comments, such as Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev being called “Batman and Robin.” That’s amusing, but it isn’t significant. Amusing and interesting but almost never significant is what I come away with having read through all three waves of leaks.

Obviously, the leaks are being used by foreign politicians to their own advantage. For example, the Russians feigned shock that NATO would be reassuring the Balts about defense against a potential Russian invasion or the Poles using the leaks to claim that solid U.S.-Polish relations are an illusion. The Russians know well of NATO plans for defending the Baltic states against a hypothetical Russian invasion, and the Poles know equally well that U.S.-Polish relations are complex but far from illusory. The leaks provide an opportunity for feigning shock and anger and extracting possible minor concessions or controlling atmospherics. They do not, however, change the structure of geopolitics.

Indeed, U.S. diplomats come away looking sharp, insightful and decent. While their public statements after a conference may be vacuous, it is encouraging to see that their read of the situation and of foreign leaders is unsentimental and astute. Everything from memos on senior leaders to anonymous snippets from apparently junior diplomats not only are on target (in the sense that STRATFOR agrees with them) but are also well-written and clear. I would argue that the leaks paint a flattering picture overall of the intellect of U.S. officials without revealing, for the most part, anything particularly embarrassing.

At the same time, there were snarky and foolish remarks in some of the leaks, particularly personal comments about leaders and sometimes their families that were unnecessarily offensive. Some of these will damage diplomatic careers, most generated a good deal of personal tension and none of their authors will likely return to the countries in which they served. Much was indeed unprofessional, but the task of a diplomat is to provide a sense of place in its smallest details, and none expect their observations ever to be seen by the wrong people. Nor do nations ever shift geopolitical course over such insults, not in the long run. These personal insults were by far the most significant embarrassments to be found in the latest release. Personal tension is not, however, international tension.

This raises the question of why diplomats can’t always simply state their minds rather than publicly mouth preposterous platitudes. It could be as simple as this: My son was a terrible pianist. He completely lacked talent. After his recitals at age 10, I would pretend to be enthralled. He knew he was awful and he knew I knew he was awful, but it was appropriate that I not admit what I knew. It is called politeness and sometimes affection. There is rarely affection among nations, but politeness calls for behaving differently when a person is in the company of certain other people than when that person is with colleagues talking about those people. This is the simplest of human rules. Not admitting what you know about others is the foundation of civilization. The same is true among diplomats and nations.

And in the end, this is all I found in the latest WikiLeaks release: a great deal of information about people who aren’t American that others certainly knew and were aware that the Americans knew, and now they have all seen it in writing. It would take someone who truly doesn’t understand how geopolitics really works to think that this would make a difference. Some diplomats may wind up in other postings, and perhaps some careers will be ended. But the idea that this would somehow change the geopolitics of our time is really hard to fathom. I have yet to see Assange point to something so significant that that it would justify his claim. It may well be that the United States is hiding secrets that would reveal it to be monstrous. If so, it is not to be found in what has been released so far.

There is, of course, the question of whether states should hold secrets, which is at the root of the WikiLeaks issue. Assange claims that by revealing these secrets WikiLeaks is doing a service. His ultimate maxim, as he has said on several occasions, is that if money and resources are being spent on keeping something secret, then the reasons must be insidious. Nations have secrets for many reasons, from protecting a military or intelligence advantage to seeking some advantage in negotiations to, at times, hiding nefarious plans. But it is difficult to imagine a state — or a business or a church — acting without confidentiality. Imagine that everything you wrote and said in an attempt to figure out a problem was made public? Every stupid idea that you discarded or clueless comment you expressed would now be pinned on you. But more than that, when you argue that nations should engage in diplomacy rather than war, taking away privacy makes diplomacy impossible. If what you really think of the guy on the other side of the table is made public, how can diplomacy work?

This is the contradiction at the heart of the WikiLeaks project. Given what I have read Assange saying, he seems to me to be an opponent of war and a supporter of peace. Yet what he did in leaking these documents, if the leaking did anything at all, is make diplomacy more difficult. It is not that it will lead to war by any means; it is simply that one cannot advocate negotiations and then demand that negotiators be denied confidentiality in which to conduct their negotiations. No business could do that, nor could any other institution. Note how vigorously WikiLeaks hides the inner workings of its own organization, from how it is funded to the people it employs.

Assange’s claims are made even more interesting in terms of his “thermonuclear” threat. Apparently there are massive files that will be revealed if any harm comes to him. Implicit is the idea that they will not be revealed if he is unharmed — otherwise the threat makes no sense. So, Assange’s position is that he has secrets and will keep them secret if he is not harmed. I regard this as a perfectly reasonable and plausible position. One of the best uses for secrets is to control what the other side does to you. So Assange is absolutely committed to revealing the truth unless it serves his interests not to, in which case the public has no need to know.

It is difficult to see what harm the leaks have done, beyond embarrassment. It is also difficult to understand why WikiLeaks thinks it has changed history or why Assange lacks a sufficient sense of irony not to see the contradiction between his position on openness and his willingness to keep secrets when they benefit him. But there is also something important here, which is how this all was leaked in the first place.

To begin that explanation, we have to go back to 9/11 and the feeling in its aftermath that the failure of various government entities to share information contributed to the disaster. The answer was to share information so that intelligence analysts could draw intelligence from all sources in order to connect the dots. Intelligence organizations hate sharing information because it makes vast amounts of information vulnerable. Compartmentalization makes it hard to connect dots, but it also makes it harder to have a WikiLeaks release. The tension between intelligence and security is eternal, and there will never be a clear solution.

The real issue is who had access to this mass of files and what controls were put on them. Did the IT department track all external drives or e-mails? One of the reasons to be casual is that this was information that was classified secret and below, with the vast majority being at the confidential, no-foreign-distribution level. This information was not considered highly sensitive by the U.S. government. Based on the latest trove, it is hard to figure out how the U.S. government decides to classify material. But it has to be remembered that given their level of classification these files did not have the highest security around them because they were not seen as highly sensitive.

Still, a crime occurred. According to the case of Daniel Ellsberg, who gave a copy of the Pentagon Papers on Vietnam to a New York Times reporter, it is a crime for someone with a security clearance to provide classified material for publication but not a crime for a publisher to publish it, or so it has become practice since the Ellsberg case. Legal experts can debate the nuances, but this has been the practice for almost 40 years. The bright line is whether the publisher in any way encouraged or participated in either the theft of the information or in having it passed on to him. In the Ellsberg case, he handed it to reporters without them even knowing what it was. Assange has been insisting that he was the passive recipient of information that he had nothing to do with securing.

Now it is interesting whether the sheer existence of WikiLeaks constituted encouragement or conspiracy with anyone willing to pass on classified information to him. But more interesting by far is the sequence of events that led a U.S. Army private first class not only to secure the material but to know where to send it and how to get it there. If Pfc. Bradley Manning conceived and executed the theft by himself, and gave the information to WikiLeaks unprompted, Assange is clear. But anyone who assisted Manning or encouraged him is probably guilty of conspiracy, and if Assange knew what was being done, he is probably guilty, too. There was talk about some people at MIT helping Manning. Unscrambling the sequence is what the Justice Department is undoubtedly doing now. Assange cannot be guilty of treason, since he isn’t a U.S. citizen. But he could be guilty of espionage. His best defense will be that he can’t be guilty of espionage because the material that was stolen was so trivial.

I have no idea whether or when he got involved in the acquisition of the material. I do know — given the material leaked so far — that there is little beyond minor embarrassments contained within it. Therefore, Assange’s claim that geopolitics has changed is as false as it is bold. Whether he committed any crime, including rape, is something I have no idea about. What he is clearly guilty of is hyperbole. But contrary to what he intended, he did do a service to the United States. New controls will be placed on the kind of low-grade material he published. Secretary of Defense Gates made the following point on this:

“Now, I’ve heard the impact of these releases on our foreign policy described as a meltdown, as a game-changer, and so on. I think those descriptions are fairly significantly overwrought. The fact is, governments deal with the United States because it’s in their interest, not because they like us, not because they trust us, and not because they believe we can keep secrets. Many governments — some governments — deal with us because they fear us, some because they respect us, most because they need us. We are still essentially, as has been said before, the indispensable nation.”

“Is this embarrassing? Yes. Is it awkward? Yes. Consequences for U.S. foreign policy? I think fairly modest.”

I don’t like to give anyone else the final word, but in this case Robert Gates’ view is definitive. One can pretend that WikiLeaks has redefined geopolitics, but it hasn’t come close.

[AnticorRifling]

wall of text crits you for 1000000000

[Warriorbird]

Assange just got bail in Britain.

[Tgo01]

This Wikileak cable is indeed going to change the world. (http://www.ding.net/wikileaks/234867.txt)

[AnticorRifling]

That is gorgeous.

[NocturnalRob]

This Wikileak cable is indeed going to change the world. (http://www.ding.net/wikileaks/234867.txt)
Son of a bitch...

[Parkbandit]

Assange just got bail in Britain.

Maybe, but he will be spending another day in jail.

[Back]

Cables Portray Expanded Reach of Drug Agency (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/world/26wikidrugs.html?hp)


Diplomats recorded unforgettable vignettes from the largely unseen war on drugs:

¶In Panama, an urgent BlackBerry message from the president to the American ambassador demanded that the D.E.A. go after his political enemies: “I need help with tapping phones.”

¶In Sierra Leone, a major cocaine-trafficking prosecution was almost upended by the attorney general’s attempt to solicit $2.5 million in bribes.

¶In Guinea, the country’s biggest narcotics kingpin turned out to be the president’s son, and diplomats discovered that before the police destroyed a huge narcotics seizure, the drugs had been replaced by flour.

¶Leaders of Mexico’s beleaguered military issued private pleas for closer collaboration with the drug agency, confessing that they had little faith in their own country’s police forces.

¶Cables from Myanmar, the target of strict United States sanctions, describe the drug agency informants’ reporting both on how the military junta enriches itself with drug money and on the political activities of the junta’s opponents.

Officials of the D.E.A. and the State Department declined to discuss what they said was information that should never have been made public.

Plus Assange spoof on SNL.

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/a-message-from-mark-zuckerberg/1265913/

[Cephalopod]

Bamp (http://www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com/).