Page 11 of 28 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 543

Thread: The Wikileaks collection

  1. #201
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9

    Default

    One other story last week shows the lack of public commitment to the war.
    The Washington Post story on "Top Secret America" condemns the role of contractors however because many Western powers are volunteer forces, the logistic and intelligence tasks have to be picked up by contractors rather than by filling the personnel shortfalls with draftees.

  2. #202
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Hi, John Fishel

    You forgot Top Secret BBO.[*]

    So I agree about excessive classification and also the difficulty in prosecuting beyond the initial leaker (espionage networks excepted). Ultimately, you have to come down to the people involved. If all that goes on in the "office" stays in the "office", obviously there will be no problems.

    It is funny how terms mean different things in different contexts. E.g., "Confidential" (lowest security level) means to me (re: proper lawyer-client information) absolute secrecy.

    Red Rat summed the present blowup well:

    From the perspective of an informed observer there appears to be little new in the material released. Most was 'known of' in the public domain, even if it was not widely reported or acknowledged. The sheer amount of material published does IMHO mean that an analysis of it will reveal stuff relating to our intelligence structure, efforts and effectiveness that we just do not want people to know. It will damage us.
    from a larger picture standpoint;

    and Shahid:

    The other issue, one that I'm personally concerned about, is the impact on the lives of named individuals in these documents. When we signed our agreements concerning the proper use of classified material, it was implied that the government would hold up its end of the bargain and prevent the unauthorized disclosure of our names, identities, activities, etc. The fact that US individuals are named in these documents and NOT redacted by the media is disturbing. This could have significant personal and professional ramifications for those who are not career, active-duty intelligence personnel. In some cases, the perception of involvement in 'covert' or 'special forces' raids could make us unhireable in certain professional disciplines.
    from the standpoint of the individual who is ID'd - which may be a larger problem than the governmental aspect.

    One note re: "...it was implied that the government would hold up its end of the bargain ... " Ain't no sure thing in an "implied contract" with the government. Rule 1: get the government's end of the bargain in writing. Rule 2: confirm the authority of the government official to make the bargain in writing from his superior.

    Regards

    Mike

    * For the uninitiated (re: Top Secret BBO), BBO = Burn Before Opening.
    Last edited by jmm99; 07-26-2010 at 04:09 PM.

  3. #203
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Hi Mike

    No, I didn't forget BBO or its twin BBR. They are among those "need to know" compartments.

    There is another part of the "get it in writing from the govt" which is, that if a certain intel agency verbally tells a military person to do somethin that person had better get the order from his commander and, if there is any doubt about its legitimacy, in writing.

    Cheers

    JohnT

  4. #204
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    137

    Default Covert US Reaction?

    The White House has condemned the release of the reports along with other NATO governments. I doubt that the administration will publicly go after Wikileaks; Wikileaks has to much public support.

    As I try to access Wikileak's main website (which is terribly slow and won't load), another thought came to my mind. The intelligence community despises Wikileaks and wishes that it would cease its actions. Since legal action seems unlikely, do you think that Wikileaks will be the victim of a cyber attack (stolen data or DDOSed)? Whether conducted by US government personal or outsourced to a private firm, I wouldn't rule it out.

    So far, I agree with the other comments on here about the leak. Even the current situation of the war was known, the leaks reveal what we know, how we know, and our structure. Repairing this will be difficult.

    The way that the media has reported this (specifically the NY Times) is disappointing. They have been picking specific stories to try to describe the whole war. This is wrong and is simply poor reporting.

  5. #205
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default No intent, real or implied. Simple statements of fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorraine View Post
    Ken, I'm not sure of your intent here. Can you explain further?
    The first should be totally self explanatory and is accurate; the nation and the Army simply have not mobilized for the small wars that we have engaged in since 1945. That does not mean that no one cared or did not do their best in the role given, merely that the nation -- and thus, the Army -- has not had to fully mobilize since WWII.

    That was a war that involved about 11% of the population in service and about 70% or so of adults in civilian supporting roles. It required about 35% of annual GDP each year for defense alone, other costs probably were almost as much. No war since then has seen more than 2% of the population in uniform (currently it's a bit over one half of 1%), other than quite minimal civilian disruption or more than 4% or so of GDP -- that was Korea, most were far less expensive. LINK (.pdf), LINK. In short, the Army has sent folks to war but the bulk of the Army remained relatively unaffected. Most important and most negatively, the Army bureaucracy was and is not forced to adapt to a war fighting mode or mentality.

    The second is that we're wealthy enough -- in many senses, not just fiscally -- to do that so it has been a given (and that is unlikely to change...). Those of us who served for lengthy periods (as opposed to Draftees and short term Enlistees or Officers) knew or should have known or should know it was / is part of the job and all should be willing to accept it as the price paid for the many advantages we have. I did; no regrets at all.

    That does not mean that many of the short term people should simply accept it with good grace. The career folks, OTOH should or they probably should seek other employment. Though I admit it can be -- was -- annoying from time to time it's simply the way things are; it's a human thing, a feature, not a bug. ..

  6. #206
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default As for the culprit...

    "... Spc. Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Md. He was charged with releasing classified information this month." (from FoxNews.com)

    He faces 5 to Life if the information was at the Secret level, and 5 to Life with a possibility of the death penalty if Top Secret.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  7. #207
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J Wolfsberger View Post
    "... Spc. Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Md. He was charged with releasing classified information this month." (from FoxNews.com)

    He faces 5 to Life if the information was at the Secret level, and 5 to Life with a possibility of the death penalty if Top Secret.
    So it all stems from ONE person? I would imagine that 92,000 documents would require the participation from multiple people.

  8. #208
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    The documents were from multiple sources. They were apparently stored in the same database or databases to which the alleged perpetrator had access.

  9. #209
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    nyc
    Posts
    23

    Default

    that they have multiple sources and receive information regularly, so they claim...and apparently they dont know who the source is. can it be?

    What can you tell us about the source?
    We know from looking at this material, correlating it with public records and talking to military sources that this material is true and accurate. As to the specific source, obviously we can't comment.

    There's been publicity about Bradley Manning, a military officer, who claims to be a source for Wikileaks. What can you say about him?
    We have a number of military sources, including ones before Manning joined the army.

    Do you know who the source is?
    No, we don't know who the source is.

    So how does Wikileaks work?
    So other journalists try to verify sources. We don't do that, we verify documents. We don't care where it came from - but we can guess that it probably came from somewhere in the US military or the US government, from someone who is disaffected. Clearly, a heroic act by the whistleblower.

    So the same computer system that protects the source also stops you from knowing that source?
    The system we have deployed to make whistleblowers to us untraceable, also prevents us knowing who they are.

    Whoever it is, the US military will regard him as a traitor.
    Well, we can't speak for the decision of the US military in this case, but it's clear there are a number of people in the US military who have a view that abuses should not occur in war, and we have a number of sources revealing these abuses everyday. It's one of the optimistic things in the course of this war that there is dissent and that there are well intentioned people in the US military.
    http://www.channel4.com/news/article...ls+all/3723392

  10. #210
    Council Member Lorraine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    54

    Default Arbiters of life and death

    Intentionally or not, WikiLeaks has become an arbiter of life and death.

    Here's telling quote from the Channel 4 interview referenced by subrosa above:

    There is an awful amount of material here that you couldn't have looked through personally. Could it cost lives? Is it putting people in danger publishing this?
    We've gone through the material and reviewed it and looked for cases where innocent informers, ie an old man saying next door there is a Taliban, or what he believes is Taliban, so we've looked for those cases and there's a particular type of report that frequently has that - those have been withheld and also the source says they have done some work in doing this as well. So I think it's unlikely that that will happen. We've worked hard to make sure there's not a significant chance of anybody coming to harm.

    But you can't guarantee it?
    Any information can be abused for another purpose so we can't guarantee it. But our understanding of the material is that it's vastly more likely to save lives than cost lives.

    With four years experience, a "strong method", and without checks and balances, WikiLeaks steams ahead with a certainty that through their work and thier proper judgment, they can achieve justice. And by extension, that any deaths occuring as a result of their work is a regrettable means to a noble end.

    Achieving justice is a monumental task with which all societies struggle. For WikiLeaks to take it on in this manner reveals a dangerous naivety in their crusade and confidence.
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 07-27-2010 at 07:09 AM. Reason: Replace italics with quote marks
    "Sweeping imperatives fall apart in the particulars."

  11. #211
    Council Member IntelTrooper's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    RC-S, Afghanistan
    Posts
    302

    Default

    I've been thinking about it, and on the positive side someone might actually read my reports now.
    Last edited by IntelTrooper; 07-27-2010 at 12:35 AM.
    "The status quo is not sustainable. All of DoD needs to be placed in a large bag and thoroughly shaken. Bureaucracy and micromanagement kill."
    -- Ken White


    "With a plan this complex, nothing can go wrong." -- Schmedlap

    "We are unlikely to usefully replicate the insights those unencumbered by a military staff college education might actually have." -- William F. Owen

  12. #212
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    156

    Default One Canadian angle to the docs

    Been a while since I've posted, so feel free to shift this if it doesn't belong here.....

    Here in Canada, one of the documents drawing the media's eye (copy saved in Scribd.com here) deals with an incident where 4 Canadians were killed in 2006. The report is classified "Friendly Fire", so media people here are reading this to mean "Cdn cas=blue-blue cas". A spokesperson for the Minister of National Defence has denied this, and people who were there also say that's not the case.

    Also, in the words of one Twitterer just after the release:
    The Wiki leaks is going to get lots of people into the hit list of Taleban, even if the names are not real.

  13. #213
    Council Member davidbfpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    13,349

    Default How Does the CIA Know If Its Intel Is Any Good?

    A short article on FP reflecting on how intelligence works and amidst the avalanche of comments worth a read IMHO:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._and_what_isnt

    Now, does Wikileaks contribute to greater understanding for the reader of what has happened as a guide to today? I think not.
    davidbfpo

  14. #214
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Posts
    137

    Default Reveals to much

    Last night, I was browsing some of the raw documents and appalled by what I found.

    After opening one report, I came across an informant's name, elder's name, and the source's phone number. Several email addresses were also listed.

    I know that the NY Times and The Guardian pledged to hide their sources (for some reason, I was under the impression that Wikileaks also deleted the names). However, even the private information is publicly available. If I can find it, I'm sure that anybody can find it.

    What does this mean? With the Taliban's decision to now attack Afghan civilians who are cooperating with the Coalition, the situation is much more disturbing. With the leaked documents (which also provide location details) publicly available, the Taliban could easily make a hit list of hundreds of Coalition informants within 24 hours. If this is done (or something along these lines), then working with the locals in some cases will be much more difficult. It's to bad that sensitive, private information about Afghan civilians was leaked.

  15. #215
    Council Member Kiwigrunt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Auckland New Zealand
    Posts
    467

    Default

    On TED.com: (20 min)


    The controversial website WikiLeaks collects and posts highly classified documents and video. Founder Julian Assange, who's reportedly being sought for questioning by US authorities, talks to TED's Chris Anderson about how the site operates, what it has accomplished -- and what drives him. The interview includes graphic footage of a recent US airstrike in Baghdad.
    Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

    All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
    (Arthur Schopenhauer)

    ONWARD

  16. #216
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post

    When last was a US serviceman executed for exposing classified current war information to the world and the enemy?

    The best advice is to do it quickly before the media fest starts.
    Last edited by JMA; 07-31-2010 at 08:27 AM.

  17. #217
    Council Member gute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    322

    Default

    I am finding it difficult to write about this because it obsolutely infuriates me so I'll tell you about the nice dream I had last night - Assange, PFC Manning and Seymour Hersh had their heads sawed off by the Taliban on national t.v.

  18. #218
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    People's Republic of California
    Posts
    85

    Default Getting more bizzare by the minute...

    WikiLeaks posts huge encrypted file to Web Link

    LONDON Online whistle-blower WikiLeaks has posted a huge encrypted file named "Insurance" to its website, sparking speculation that those behind the organization may be prepared to release more classified information if authorities interfere with them.
    Somebody tell this guy that he isn't Will Smith and that this aint "Enemy of the State."

  19. #219
    Council Member Lorraine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    54

    Default WikiLeaks or not -- Classified is still classified

    According a Huffington Post story, this week the Navy issued an official memo notifying sailors that they should not and are not authorized to view the classified documents on WikiLeaks. Huffington Posts quotes the memo:

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

    The Navy memo articulates an important message to military and civilian alike -- viewing the classified documents at WikiLeaks expands the reach of sensitive info and reinforces WikiLeaks' role as a legitimate infomation provider.

    I agree with the Navy -- tempting as it may be, there are few, if any, compelling reasons for most of us to view the classified information.
    Last edited by Lorraine; 08-05-2010 at 08:51 PM.
    "Sweeping imperatives fall apart in the particulars."

  20. #220
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    The real problem is whether information in the leaked documents helps the bad guys, not the expansion the reach of classified information. DoD his pointed out that certain of the documents identify persons who have cooperated with our forces. On the other hand, most of these documents are mundane as they could be, not at all like the high-level stuff in Ellsburg's Pentagon Papers in 1972.

Similar Threads

  1. "Processing Intelligence Collection: Learning or Not?"
    By Tracker275 in forum Intelligence
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-21-2011, 12:46 AM
  2. New to S2, need FM 34-20 and collection management info
    By schmoe in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 02-07-2009, 11:03 PM
  3. Efing Wikileaks
    By SWJED in forum The Whole News
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 02:12 PM
  4. Relationship between the political system and causes of war (questions)
    By AmericanPride in forum RFIs & Members' Projects
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 03-30-2008, 09:16 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •