Wikileaker found and in custody

[MKSheppard]

So, then, Shep, is it your opinion that this should override the responsibility of government officials to the public?

As others have pointed out many many times in this thread; there are legal routes for whistleblowers -- it's just that so many asshats never follow them, and instead leak it to the press for their five minute powertrip of 'i'm so awesome'.

[Bakustra]

So, then, Shep, is it your opinion that this should override the responsibility of government officials to the public?

As others have pointed out many many times in this thread; there are legal routes for whistleblowers -- it's just that so many asshats never follow them, and instead leak it to the press for their five minute powertrip of 'i'm so awesome'.

Edi was pointing out that the Obama administration is clamping down on those legal routes and attacking people who use them. My pardons for assuming that you read what people write in its entirety before responding. For that matter, what if those routes are themselves blocked off by corruption and complicity? Surely an actively abusive administration would seek to neutralize the internal routes for whistleblowers on the theoretical end, and on the practical end, there is the case of Thomas Tamm, who attempted to make use of legal routes first before resorting to the press.

But I am sure that there is nobody in the government that might actually be concerned about justice, legality and all that idealistic trash. They're just glory hounds, right?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Authoritarians like Shep amuse me. They think the whistle-blower, the protester, the activist, the journalist all have motives other than principle, duty, and ethics. They are right. But they also do not have power, and power is a dimension which raises all these concerns a thousand fold. With power you can indulge corrupt motives with corrupt behavior, coerce others into collaborating or submitting to your corruption, and impose the consequences of it on many innocent people much more easily. They are willing to offer endless benefits of a doubt to the powerful, and none to the relatively powerless.

[Ryan Thunder]

Authoritarians like Shep amuse me. They think the whistle-blower, the protester, the activist, the journalist all have motives other than principle, duty, and ethics. They are right. But they also do not have power, and power is a dimension which raises all these concerns a thousand fold. With power you can indulge corrupt motives with corrupt behavior, coerce others into collaborating or submitting to your corruption, and impose the consequences of it on many innocent people much more easily. They are willing to offer endless benefits of a doubt to the powerful, and none to the relatively powerless.

Because its chaotic, mostly. There are some things that the snivelling masses just don't need to know about, because they're things that either get dealt with quietly or things that would piss them off but need to be done anyway.

Now, I'm not saying that this is always the case; in fact, ordinarily I'd keep my mouth shut, because I don't think that reasoning is watertight; it's just the knee-jerk argument that usually comes to my mind on the matter...

[Illuminatus Primus]

Because its chaotic, mostly. There are some things that the snivelling masses just don't need to know about, because they're things that either get dealt with quietly or things that would piss them off but need to be done anyway.

Yeah? Who gets to decide what "need to be done anyway"? Like I said, authoritarian douchebag. If you'd been born in Moscow in 1917 you'd be a frothing-at-the-mouth Stalinist commissar.

Now, I'm not saying that this is always the case; in fact, ordinarily I'd keep my mouth shut, because I don't think that reasoning is watertight; it's just the knee-jerk argument that usually comes to my mind on the matter...

Maybe you should try thinking occasionally. Shit like this couldn't possibly be why you're a VI and laughing-stock.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Is a whistleblower a whistleblower if he brags about his whistleblowing? Or is he just a guy who's bragging that he can slip through security and make a tomfoolery of people?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Is a whistleblower a whistleblower if he brags about his whistleblowing? Or is he just a guy who's bragging that he can slip through security and make a tomfoolery of people?

The social and democratic utility of a whistle-blow should determine its bona fides and legitimacy, not aesthetic bullshit about his behavior, attitude or 'bragging.' How does that even register as a blip versus whether he was truly reporting on illegitimately concealed crimes?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The social and democratic utility of a whistle-blow should determine its bona fides and legitimacy, not aesthetic bullshit about his behavior, attitude or 'bragging.' How does that even register as a blip versus whether he was truly reporting on illegitimately concealed crimes?

Well, because he's stupid enough to brag about it and get reported and caught instead of getting any witness protection, he's now a criminal instead.

[Illuminatus Primus]

The social and democratic utility of a whistle-blow should determine its bona fides and legitimacy, not aesthetic bullshit about his behavior, attitude or 'bragging.' How does that even register as a blip versus whether he was truly reporting on illegitimately concealed crimes?

Well, because he's stupid enough to brag about it and get reported and caught instead of getting any witness protection, he's now a criminal instead.

What "witness protection"? Has it not been already demonstrated it is not trivial to get institutionalized protection or sanction for whistleblowing, that people who do it usually do so with great reservation, under great fear, and having exhausted alternatives? It is not a matter of most whistleblowers are stupid, its that the institutions and mechanisms are frequently inadequate. And even so, we can greatly admire what one does, without liking who one is.

[MKSheppard]

Authoritarians like Shep amuse me. They think the whistle-blower, the protester, the activist, the journalist all have motives other than principle, duty, and ethics. They are right. But they also do not have power, and power is a dimension which raises all these concerns a thousand fold.

You seem to think that people just stamp "CLASSEFIED" or "TOP SECRET" onto things for the hell of it.

I've read formerly secret stuff (or confidential) that lists several quite important technical caracteristics of our post-war supercarriers, up to teh Nimitz Class, which include among other things, how many tons of bombs and jet fuel they carry. I've found a document which lists how many nuclear weapons a Forrestal carries as well.

If you can't see the military use for restricting access to THAT, then I can't help you.

There's also another reason to classify a document other than pure military rationales.

For example; if I was POTUS, and wanted to know my options in case Pakistan fell into Civil War, and the status of Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons was very much in doubt. Would I have precedent and justification under international law for a full scale pre-emptive nuclear disarming first stike on Pakistani Nuclear Weapons sites to prevent the weapons from falling into Islamist hands?

If I asked that in public, I'd be crucified by the media and my political career would be over. With classification, I can ask really uncomfortable questions and be sure that it won't leak to ruin me -- or at least won't leak until I'm long dead.

Additionally, classification lets more than just public unclassified sources be used -- and the use of confidential sources like actual diplomatic cables from within the last two years; decrypts from our SIGINT platforms; reports from the debriefing of defectors, from our own spies in other governments, etc.

Both reasons were why McNamara commissioned the Pentagon Papers in '68 -- to ask uncomfortable questions, and to use as much classified material that the authors could access to write the history of the early years of the Vietnam Conflict -- in much the same way there are classified command histories of Strategic Air Command that still have not been declassified even 25-30 years later.

EDIT: Another reason I just realized -- it's by request of a foreign government. A lot of stuff on the SR-71 still remains classified or was a few years ago, by the request of the British Government. As part of the agreement that let us base or fly the Blackbird out of the UK; we had to classify a lot of stuff on operational details; and keep it classified well beyond our own policies for declassification.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Authoritarians like Shep amuse me. They think the whistle-blower, the protester, the activist, the journalist all have motives other than principle, duty, and ethics. They are right. But they also do not have power, and power is a dimension which raises all these concerns a thousand fold.

You seem to think that people just stamp "CLASSEFIED" or "TOP SECRET" onto things for the hell of it.

I've read formerly secret stuff (or confidential) that lists several quite important technical caracteristics of our post-war supercarriers, up to teh Nimitz Class, which include among other things, how many tons of bombs and jet fuel they carry. I've found a document which lists how many nuclear weapons a Forrestal carries as well.

If you can't see the military use for restricting access to THAT, then I can't help you.

Where has there been any discussion as it pertains to this? This is a total red herring. No one said there are no aspects of state policy that within that framework clearly require secrecy, above and beyond the concern for public accountability and responsiveness.

There's also another reason to classify a document other than pure military rationales.

For example; if I was POTUS, and wanted to know my options in case Pakistan fell into Civil War, and the status of Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons was very much in doubt. Would I have precedent and justification under international law for a full scale pre-emptive nuclear disarming first stike on Pakistani Nuclear Weapons sites to prevent the weapons from falling into Islamist hands?

If I asked that in public, I'd be crucified by the media and my political career would be over. With classification, I can ask really uncomfortable questions and be sure that it won't leak to ruin me -- or at least won't leak until I'm long dead.

Ditto.

Additionally, classification lets more than just public unclassified sources be used -- and the use of confidential sources like actual diplomatic cables from within the last two years; decrypts from our SIGINT platforms; reports from the debriefing of defectors, from our own spies in other governments, etc.

Both reasons were why McNamara commissioned the Pentagon Papers in '68 -- to ask uncomfortable questions, and to use as much classified material that the authors could access to write the history of the early years of the Vietnam Conflict -- in much the same way there are classified command histories of Strategic Air Command that still have not been declassified even 25-30 years later.

But it also revealed systemic self-conscious deception of the American public about clearly existentially relevant aspects of the policy? Why are we there? Is it the right decision? Is it correct?

The problem with secrecy is the same as power. People abuse it once it is available for sound purposes, because the feedback mechanisms for control on corruption are weaker and more deformed. Secrecy AND power, well...

EDIT: Another reason I just realized -- it's by request of a foreign government. A lot of stuff on the SR-71 still remains classified or was a few years ago, by the request of the British Government. As part of the agreement that let us base or fly the Blackbird out of the UK; we had to classify a lot of stuff on operational details; and keep it classified well beyond our own policies for declassification.

The UK's fetish for timeless state secrets is a secondary consideration before evaluation in an ostensibly and allegedly democratic society.

[Elfdart]

You seem to think that people just stamp "CLASSEFIED" or "TOP SECRET" onto things for the hell of it.

Oh they have a reason for doing it alright: to hide their own crimes and other misdeeds.

[Edward Yee]

More details from Wired (the article focusing on the State Department leak instead of the military leak):

Regarding the State Department cables specifically, Manning told Lamo, “State dept fucked itself. Placed volumes and volumes of information in a single spot, with no security.”

Manning described personal issues that got him into trouble with his superiors and left him socially isolated. He said he had been demoted after he punched a colleague in the face during an argument, and was reassigned to a job in a supply office pending early discharge. He also told Lamo, “I’m restricted to SIPR now, because of the discharge proceedings.”

Army spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Bloom in Baghdad confirmed that in early May, Manning was demoted to private first class and was reassigned job duties. He did not know the reason behind the demotion but said Manning was not being discharged early and that his deployment in Iraq was supposed to last a year.

Bloom said the demotion was conducted under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice in a nonjudicial proceeding, and that Manning maintained his security clearance after the demotion. He did not know what access Manning would have had to classified networks following his job reassignment.

According to the article, Manning told Lamo that there was absolutely horridly poor internal network security, and that any evidence on his computers would have been destroyed as part of the drawdown from Iraq procedures.

LOL at how quickly this was alluded to in Pantheocide.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

What "witness protection"? Has it not been already demonstrated it is not trivial to get institutionalized protection or sanction for whistleblowing, that people who do it usually do so with great reservation, under great fear, and having exhausted alternatives? It is not a matter of most whistleblowers are stupid, its that the institutions and mechanisms are frequently inadequate. And even so, we can greatly admire what one does, without liking who one is.

Then why the fuck did he decide to bragg about it? There's nothing he has done that suggest even an ounce of altruism, and you seem to be bent on protraying him as a hero when he seems more like an idiot seeking glory and bragging rights. If he even had an ounce of sense, he'd have done it under the table but noooo. Quite frankly, he deserved to get locked up for such stupidity, just as plenty of idiots in any military who don't have an ounce for brains to exercise discretion and get charged for not being discrete about their ill-doings.

[Teleros]

The UK's fetish for timeless state secrets is a secondary consideration before evaluation in an ostensibly and allegedly democratic society.

"This is a British democracy, Bernard IP!"

Getting back to the OP, I can live with Manning giving WikiLeaks the videos or the report on WikiLeaks as a security threat (after all it was WikiLeaks, not Manning, that made that "Collateral Murder" video, and without that hype it'd've been just more war porn gun camera footage) - he should be punished, but it's not a big deal IMHO. The quarter of a million diplomatic cables though... that IS a big deal, with what should be obvious national security & policy concerns.

[Simon_Jester]

"This is a British democracy, Bernard IP!"

Getting back to the OP, I can live with Manning giving WikiLeaks the videos or the report on WikiLeaks as a security threat (after all it was WikiLeaks, not Manning, that made that "Collateral Murder" video, and without that hype it'd've been just more war porn gun camera footage) - he should be punished, but it's not a big deal IMHO. The quarter of a million diplomatic cables though... that IS a big deal, with what should be obvious national security & policy concerns.

Yes. This is true.

Then why the fuck did he decide to bragg about it? There's nothing he has done that suggest even an ounce of altruism, and you seem to be bent on protraying him as a hero when he seems more like an idiot seeking glory and bragging rights.

...How does bragging about something you've done that you think is right not make it a right action?

Because its chaotic, mostly. There are some things that the snivelling masses just don't need to know about, because they're things that either get dealt with quietly or things that would piss them off but need to be done anyway.

And there are some that they damn well do need to know about. The classic example is the Vietnam War. That was a huge political issue through much of the 1960s and into the '70s for the US, with much of the American public staking out strong positions on the war. Many of them accepted the government line that the war as being fought was both necessary and winnable.

But the government was lying, and knew it; hence the famous Pentagon Papers. Now, in a dictatorship, that's par for the course. But in a democracy, the public is supposed to be able to vote on policy, or at least on policymakers. It is impossible to judge policymakers if they make their decisions in secret and don't let you know even basic strategic information (like whether they think they can win the war they got you into).

The public has not only a right to know that kind of basic data, it has a need to know it, or we might as well determine election results by shaking a magic 8-ball because the real issues can't be brought up in public due to security classification.

And that isn't always to the advantage of the military-industrial-interventionist side of American politics, either. For an example take the 1970s-era ABM systems I've seen mentioned here so many times. They became a political football and were cancelled, even though they supposedly worked. Would that have been possible if it were public knowledge that the system did work, that we did in fact have a viable missile defense system that could stop ICBMs from killing us all? If it were impossible for politicians opposed to the system to lie about such a fundamental detail as whether or not it works?

There has to be a limit. Yes there's a need for the government to make unpopular plans for unpleasant contingencies, but at the very least we need to know what they have done, and whether they honestly believe the stories they are telling the public about what they have done. Otherwise, they're lying to their employer as a way of covering up inadequate job performance, which isn't acceptable in any other line of work and shouldn't be acceptable in politics.

Keeping details of weapon systems and intelligence gathering methods secret is one thing. Keeping basic operational and strategic realities secret from the public that is supposed to be able to vote on officials' job performance is another matter entirely.

[MKSheppard]

Many of them accepted the government line that the war as being fought was both necessary and winnable.

It was. The JCS and Saint Curtis proposed in about 1964 the same basic plan which ended the war -- a massive sustained strategic bombardment of every target of importance in North Vietnam from railyards, harbors, airfields, power plants, and industrial sites.

Johnson and McNamara vetoed it. It took eight more years before Richard Nixon executed the plan -- as Linebacker I and II.

For example 85% of Hanoi's military imports came through a single point -- the port of Haiphong -- which was mined in Linebacker I; and then the rail yards blown up by 1,500~ tons of bombs from B-52s in Linebacker II.

But until Linebacker, Haiphong and a 10 nautical mile radius around it were off limits to US airstrikes; giving NVN unimpeded acccess to foreign war materiel.

It is impossible to judge policymakers if they make their decisions in secret and don't let you know even basic strategic information (like whether they think they can win the war they got you into).

I pointed out earlier that that basic information can be classified or SECRET, if it comes from a source we wish to protect. For example, we might be breaking and reading the mail between the NVN Government and their delegation at the Paris Peace Talks. If this is referenced; then the paper has to be classified to protect the sources.

The proper way for the Pentagon Papers to be released would have been for Ellsburg to have leaked a hint about it -- "hey, this paper exists it's called such and such title; done by such and such back in '67."

The FOIA act became law in 1967; so all the NYT would have had to do is FOIA the Papers; and get the sanitized version and publish it.

And you would be surprised how many congressional deliberations are closed door or sanitized before being printed in the Congressional Record.

And that isn't always to the advantage of the military-industrial-interventionist side of American politics, either. For an example take the 1970s-era ABM systems I've seen mentioned here so many times. They became a political football and were cancelled, even though they supposedly worked. Would that have been possible if it were public knowledge that the system did work, that we did in fact have a viable missile defense system that could stop ICBMs from killing us all? If it were impossible for politicians opposed to the system to lie about such a fundamental detail as whether or not it works?

Sadly, in the end, it wouldn't matter. The other side can bullshit too much. In order to truly defeat their claims, you would have to reveal pretty much all of the technical tactical characteristics of the system; and that wouldn't drive a stake through the claims -- they would just switch to "it's unproven and never has been tested in a real scenario".

The only way you'd be able to defeat their bullshit is if you simply built a full scale representative SAFEGUARD complex on Kwajalein, and then had no less than two SSBNs fire their full loads at the site directly.

[Elfdart]

Yeah, he's not going to have a long time in prison before he "accidentally" throws himself down a flight of stairs, or "accidentally" stabs his kidneys with a homemade shiv.

Yeah that happens a lot in the US Military correctional institutions. I would like some examples to back up the implied claim there skippy.

How about the three inmates killed in Guantanamo?

[Aaron]

US Military personnel are not incarcerated at Gitmo, a fact you know full well.

[Phantasee]

I don't understand why some people here seem to think WikiLeaks owes this guy anything. He wasn't ratted out or exposed by WikiLeaks, he got busted because he bragged to someone else about it. Whether what he did was the right thing to do or not, I'm going to mock him for being bad at getting away with it.

[Elfdart]

The authoritarians don't like their dirty laundry being aired. Big surprise. If it contains what is alleged, this man is a hero.

Now they want to "neutralize" Julian Assange:

Anxious that Wikileaks may be on the verge of publishing a batch of secret State Department cables, investigators are desperately searching for founder Julian Assange. Philip Shenon reports. Plus, Daniel Ellsberg tells The Daily Beast: "Assange is in Danger."

(This story has been updated to reflect new developments on Assange's whereabouts, including the cancelation of a scheduled appearance in Las Vegas.)

Pentagon investigators are trying to determine the whereabouts of the Australian-born founder of the secretive website Wikileaks for fear that he may be about to publish a huge cache of classified State Department cables that, if made public, could do serious damage to national security, government officials tell The Daily Beast.

The officials acknowledge that even if they found the website founder, Julian Assange, it is not clear what they could do to block publication of the cables on Wikileaks, which is nominally based on a server in Sweden and bills itself as a champion of whistleblowers.

American officials said Pentagon investigators are convinced that Assange is in possession of at least some classified State Department cables leaked by a 22-year-old Army intelligence specialist, Bradley Manning of Potomac, Maryland, who is now in custody in Kuwait.

And given the contents of the cables, the feds have good reason to be concerned.

As The Daily Beast reported June 8, Manning, while posted in Iraq, apparently had special access to cables prepared by diplomats and State Department officials throughout the Middle East, regarding the workings of Arab governments and their leaders, according to an American diplomat.

The cables, which date back over several years, went out over interagency computer networks available to the Army and contained information related to American diplomatic and intelligence efforts in the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, the diplomat said.

There's more at the link. If you're worried that someone might publish things you'd rather not see published, isn't this kind of thuggery the last way you should go about it? Maybe they could coax Gordon Liddy out of retirement to lead the Plumbers Mk II.

Speaking of which, Ellsberg would know about the danger faced by those who leak embarrassing information. As he points out:

Do you think Assange is in danger?

I happen to have been the target of a White House hit squad myself. On May 3, 1972, a dozen CIA assets from the Bay of Pigs, Cuban émigrés were brought up from Miami with orders to “incapacitate me totally.” I said to the prosecutor, “What does that mean? Kill me.” He said, “It means to incapacitate you totally. But you have to understand these guys never use the word ‘kill.’”

Is the Obama White House anymore enlightened than Nixon’s?

We’ve now been told by Dennis Blair, the late head of intelligence here, that President Obama has authorized the killing of American citizens overseas, who are suspected of involvement in terrorism. Assange is not American, so he doesn’t even have that constraint. I would think that he is in some danger. Granted, I would think that his notoriety now would provide him some degree of protection. You would think that would protect him, but you could have said the same thing about me. I was the number one defendant. I was on trail but they brought up people to beat me up.

You believe he is in danger of bodily harm, then?

Absolutely. On the same basis, I was….Obama is now proclaiming rights of life and death, being judge, jury, and executioner of Americans without due process. No president has ever claimed that and possibly no one since John the First.

What advice would you give Assange?

Stay out of the U.S. Otherwise, keep doing what he is doing. It’s pretty valuable…He is serving our democracy and serving our rule of law precisely by challenging the secrecy regulations, which are not laws in most cases, in this country.

He is doing very good work for our democracy. If [the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning] has done what he is alleged to have done, I congratulate him. He has used his opportunities very well. He has upheld his oath of office to support the Constitution. It so happens that enlisted men also take an oath to obey the orders of superiors. Officers don’t make that oath, only to the Constitution. But sometimes the oath to the Constitution and oath to superiors are in conflict.

Keep in mind that the Plumbers (among other things) broke into the office of Ellberg's psychiatrist as well as the Watergate Hotel, plotted to firebomb the Brookings Institute (they thought Ellsberg might have stashed the Pentagon Papers there) and assassinate journalist Jack Anderson.

I hope Assange has made arrangements to have everything released in the event that he should "meet with an accident". I found this Twitter message encouraging, but cryptic:

"Any signs of unacceptable behavior by the Pentagon or its agents towards this press will be viewed dimly."

[MKSheppard]

The authoritarians don't like their dirty laundry being aired. Big surprise. If it contains what is alleged, this man is a hero.

Now they want to "neutralize" Julian Assange:

Don't post such woo-woo-woo bullshit. All they have to do is get a subponae from a Fed Judge to track Assange's credit card and other stuff to hunt him down; and then bring him into custody to formally charge him with unlawfully receiving classified/confidential information. Why would they want to send a fucking hit squad?

[Uraniun235]

He's not an American citizen and he's not on American soil; how do you think they'll 'bring him into custody'?

[Phantasee]

Yeah, not seeing the authority of a Federal judge to give permission to track his credit card. It's not like he's going to use an American card, if he has one, as long as he's not in the US.

[MKSheppard]

He's not an American citizen and he's not on American soil; how do you think they'll 'bring him into custody'?

Heh, my bad. Googling up on him reveals that he's an Aussie; and that the Aussies are talking about pulling his passport. Heh.