View Full Version : More Classified Documents Leaked
I am all about full disclosure in efforts to maintain the accountability of our government to the people, but I am about sick and tired of these yoo-hoos attempting to damage our country and our National Security through the leaking of classified information. Most importantly, it puts my brothers and sisters at greater risk. But sadly, much of it comes from within our own ranks. :nono:
- FoxNews.com
- July 26, 2010
Administration Condemns Release of Afghan War Documents
The Obama administration condemned the unprecedented leak of thousands of classified documents on the Afghanistan war, saying website Wikileaks.org "made no effort" to contact the federal government before releasing them but that the "irresponsible leaks" would not hurt the war effort.
The Obama administration condemned the unprecedented leak of thousands of classified documents on the Afghanistan war, saying website Wikileaks.org "made no effort" to contact the federal government before releasing them but that the "irresponsible leaks" would not hurt the war effort.
The 91,000 classified U.S. records on the war, marking one of the largest unauthorized disclosures in military history, also cover a period time that largely predates the Obama administration as well as the new strategy and surge announced at the end of 2009. They apparently cover a period from January 2004 to December 2009.
The documents cover much of what the public already knows about the troubled nine-year conflict: U.S. spec-ops forces have targeted militants without trial, Afghans have been killed by accident, and U.S. officials have been infuriated by alleged Pakistani intelligence cooperation with the very insurgent groups bent on killing Americans.
National Security Adviser Gen. James Jones said in a written statement that relations with the Pakistanis and other trouble spots have improved since the end of 2009.
"On December 1, 2009, President Obama announced a new strategy with a substantial increase in resources for Afghanistan, and increased focus on Al Qaeda and Taliban safe-havens in Pakistan, precisely because of the grave situation that had developed over several years," he said.
Jones lambasted Wikileaks.org for releasing the massive trove of documents.
"The United States strongly condemns the disclosure of classified information by individuals and organizations which could put the lives of Americans and our partners at risk, and threaten our national security," he said. "Wikileaks made no effort to contact us about these documents -- the United States government learned from news organizations that these documents would be posted. These irresponsible leaks will not impact our ongoing commitment to deepen our partnerships with Afghanistan and Pakistan; to defeat our common enemies; and to support the aspirations of the Afghan and Pakistani people."
WikiLeaks posted the documents Sunday. The New York Times, London's Guardian newspaper and the German weekly Der Spiegel were given early access to the records.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, who held a press conference in London to address the documents, said Monday his organization has "no reason to doubt the reliability" of the records. He said the records will "shape an understanding" of the war's first six years, though he said the documents did not include any "top secret" information.
He claimed that "there does appear to be evidence of war crimes in this material," in a reference to at least seven reported civilian casualties.
A White House aide said many of the concerns addressed in the documents had been addressed publicly by U.S. officials. The aide also said Wikileaks.org is not an objective news organization, but a group that opposes the Afghanistan war.
Pakistan's Ambassador Husain Haqqani said the documents "do not reflect the current on-ground realities," in which his country and Washington are "jointly endeavoring to defeat Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies."
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., though, suggested the release could lead to a change in policy. He said in a written statement that "however illegally" the documents were released, they raise "serious questions" about U.S. policy toward the region.
"Those policies are at a critical stage and these documents may very well underscore the stakes and make the calibrations needed to get the policy right more urgent," he said.
The U.S. and Pakistan assigned teams of analysts to read the records online to assess whether sources or locations were at risk.
The Guardian said the documents "fail to provide a convincing smoking gun" for complicity between the Pakistan intelligence services and the Taliban.
The New York Times interpreted the papers differently, saying they reveal that only a short time ago, there was far less harmony in U.S. and Pakistani exchanges.
The Times said the "raw intelligence assessments" by lower level military officers suggest that Pakistan "allows representatives of its spy service to meet directly with the Taliban in secret strategy sessions to organize networks of militant groups that fight against American soldiers in Afghanistan, and even hatch plots to assassinate Afghan leaders."
The leaked records include detailed descriptions of raids carried out by a secretive U.S. special operations unit called Task Force 373 against what U.S. officials considered high-value insurgent and terrorist targets. Some of the raids resulted in unintended killings of Afghan civilians, according to the documentation.
During the targeting and killing of Libyan fighter Abu Laith al-Libi, described in the documents as a senior Al Qaeda military commander, the death tally was reported as six enemy fighters and seven noncombatants -- all children.
Task Force 373 selected its targets from 2,000 senior Taliban and Al Qaeda figures posted on a "kill or capture" list, known as JPEL, the Joint Prioritized Effects List, the Guardian said.
WikiLeaks said the release Sunday "did not generally include top-secret organizations," and that it had "delayed the release of some 15,000 reports" as part of what it called "a harm minimization process demanded by our source," but said it would release the documents later, possibly with material redacted.
U.S. government agencies have been bracing for a deluge of thousands more classified documents since the leak of helicopter cockpit video of a 2007 firefight in Baghdad. That was blamed on a U.S. Army intelligence analyst, Spc. Bradley Manning, 22, of Potomac, Md. He was charged with releasing classified information earlier this month. Manning had bragged online that he downloaded 260,000 classified U.S. cables and transmitted them to Wikileaks.org.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
jklaughrey
07-26-10, 09:24
Anyone here hear about Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks leaking and distributing documents and vital information concerning OEF! Times has a report as does the Guardian in London.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/26/world/26wiki.html
I wish we could put Julian Assange in jail as a terrorist for the rest of his natural life. As for the person who leaked the info, he should be tried for treason and sentenced accordingly.
GermanSynergy
07-26-10, 12:16
Persons that leak sensitive/classified information should be tried for Espionage and thrown in the clink for about 60 years- this includes media outlets that disseminate it.
Things like this get our guys/gals killed overseas. It's not a f***ing game, and I wish that these traitors were outed, tried and convicted. :mad::mad::mad:
Persons that leak sensitive/classified information should be tried for Espionage and thrown in the clink for about 60 years- this includes media outlets that disseminate it.
Things like this get our guys/gals killed overseas. It's not a f***ing game, and I wish that these traitors were outed, tried and convicted. :mad::mad::mad:
The good ole days when we shot people for treason. Boy I miss them.
C4
ForTehNguyen
07-26-10, 12:22
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
you would have to classify this action as direct aid to the enemy and have 2 witnesses to the overt act. There is a reason why treason is hard to convict on in the US, or else its way too broad of a brush. Not defending what he did, but this is the US's legal definition of treason.
jklaughrey
07-26-10, 12:54
Isn't it tragic sometimes that our own laws governing evidence and prosecution of offenders disallow us to do what is, or should be the proper course of action.
Isn't it tragic sometimes that our own laws governing evidence and prosecution of offenders disallow us to do what is, or should be the proper course of action.
Yes it is, assuming that this gentleman who did the leaking is still in service, I'm sure some rather "creative" ways could be found for him to spend the rest of his enlistment, I also would'nt rule out a dishonorable discharge for him about a week before his enlistment is up either..
Isn't it tragic sometimes that our own laws governing evidence and prosecution of offenders disallow us to do what is, or should be the proper course of action.
That is quite a disturbing statement. While I understand the sentiment, even if I disagree in this particular case, those laws are what make us us. I would love to drag every pedophile and rapist out in the street and shoot them, but the law doesn't allow that and in some cases even lets them free. It is an imperfect system to be sure. But it is better than anything else out there.
Wikileaks isn't the ones at fault, people with access to the information who are sharing it with a news outlet are the ones at fault.
The face remains some person(s) with access went through the effort to collect the information and sent it to a news outlet. All news outlets protect their sources, it's how they get the trust of future sources to come forward.
Just like when CNN or Fox News doesn't disclose the name of their source because they aren't permitted to give the information and don't wish to punished for doing so.
So it comes down to a problem of assholes with access to sensitive material, not wikileaks, wikileaks wouldn't exist with out the assholes. But those same assholes would still exist with or with out wikileaks.
http://www.vanishedamericana.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Loose-Lips-Sink-Ships.jpg
It's not exactly a new phenomena, people have a need to feel important no matter what the cost.
jklaughrey
07-26-10, 14:53
Kwelz, just merely stating the sometimes frustration that overwhelms us when dealing with the miscarriage of justice.
And yes Mr Smiles, I agree the sources are at fault, but Wikileaks has a duty to discern the information and not post what is sensitive or vital to national security or could put people in harms way. Just because one has the information, doesn't make it right to distribute it freely.
And yes Mr Smiles, I agree the sources are at fault, but Wikileaks has a duty to discern the information and not post what is sensitive or vital to national security or could put people in harms way. Just because one has the information, doesn't make it right to distribute it freely.
Julian Assange isn't an American, he has no loyalties to this country and it's not his responsibility to protect it. The ones trusted with keeping the information private and instead make it public are 100% at fault.
jklaughrey
07-26-10, 15:43
Yes, I am aware of that fact. It is just my personal opinion, no need to keep trolling for an argument.
Isn't it tragic sometimes that our own laws governing evidence and prosecution of offenders disallow us to do what is, or should be the proper course of action.
No I do not find that tragic at all. I find that just, and I find that to be one of the strengths of the American judicial system. If you want to appeal the laws of the land there is a process you can go through to do that. Simply tearing our constitution to shreds so that you can satisfy your hard on for vengeance is advocating a path towards fascism.
jklaughrey
07-26-10, 15:53
If you would have read the posting in their entirety rather than posting a knee jerk response you would have realized that it was my opinion based upon the frustration we all have as human beings when offenses occur, but we are powerless to change them. Thanks for playing. Cheers!
variablebinary
07-26-10, 16:35
Wikileaks isn't the ones at fault, people with access to the information who are sharing it with a news outlet are the ones at fault.
I have to agree. Somewhere, someone with a great deal of access committed an act I personally would regard as punishable by a long prison stay someplace dark and unpleasant.
I dont know what Wikileak's motive is, and I am not even sure it is relevant.
jklaughrey
07-26-10, 17:16
I for one agree, and I think Wikileaks has an agenda for total transparency in governmental issues, regardless of nationality. However there has to be some culpability in their actions when it jeopardizes US/NATO forces in an operational theater. Even more responsible should be those who gave said information to such a reckless medium as Wikileaks. I like transparency in most things, however not all people are ready to full know what is done by our government to protect our personal freedoms and safety as citizens.
In any case someone, somewhere is taking notes and will deal with these people in a harsh manner, on that I can sleep easy in my bed knowing that they will surely reap what they sow.
I like transparency in most things, however not all people are ready to full know what is done by our government to protect our personal freedoms and safety as citizens.
Ah yes...the "ostrich" defense, eh? :rolleyes:
The good ole days when we shot people for treason. Boy I miss them.
C4
I wonder how long it's been since someone was tried for treason:confused:
jklaughrey
07-26-10, 17:44
Come now sir, my head hasn't been in the sand since Reagan and the Iran Contra affair. LOL.
When I say most, I speak of those who blindly go through life, oblivious to what exactly has to occur to ensure our freedoms. You know the type, sipping 4 dollar latte's and talking about their next Botox appt.
Whoohoo, I can relive Garmser through rereading the TFL blotter...
Unfortunately this information was probably too easy to get to, and our sipr system is treated like aol-mail by those who just don't get it.
Worse yet, every story I've spotted from the journolista idiot crowd simply overtly states that 'US Forces have been grossly underreporting civilian casualties', which I'm absolutely certain is not what the posts I've read actually indicate, ,they just blindly added up anything not NATO or confirmed Taliban forces and added them up. I guess this passes for journalism, just put a bow on an unknown turd and pass it on to the $5 latte crowd.
I'm still looking forward to the wikileaks post about their owner having been renditioned to a fun and faraway new place...:dance3:
I wonder how long it's been since someone was tried for treason:confused:
I believe (someone correct me If I'm wrong) The 50's A couple, (who's names elude me at the moment)(Rosenberg?) who were also commies, stole sceret documents about our nuclear weapons, Gave them to Russia They were both tried and convicted of treason, and excuted..But then again on second thought, I seem to remember, sometime in the late 60's-70's?? One of the Bell's (Bell helicopters) was also convicted of treason...I'm sure there are more...sadly, there are probably many more to come..
I have to agree. Somewhere, someone with a great deal of access committed an act I personally would regard as punishable by a long prison stay someplace dark and unpleasant.
I dont know what Wikileak's motive is, and I am not even sure it is relevant.
They should make big rocks into little rocks for a LONG time.
SW-Shooter
07-27-10, 16:51
I long for the days of kill orders, oh how I miss the Cold War era. Why hasn't someone taken this guy out?
What the hell guys. When did M4C turn into the Kill or jail people we don't like board?
Full transparency in government is good. With the few and far between exceptions of Operational security I feel the government should have no secrets. The more they try to hide the more it should be brought into the light.
Also of note. WK is down right now. I am sure that is just a coincidence LOL.
What the hell guys. When did M4C turn into the Kill or jail people we don't like board?
Full transparency in government is good. With the few and far between exceptions of Operational security I feel the government should have no secrets. The more they try to hide the more it should be brought into the light.
Also of note. WK is down right now. I am sure that is just a coincidence LOL.
That list would be way to big! Seriously it is called war and I think people who take action against our country deserve to be punished. The goal should be to prevent our enimies from harming us. This can obviously be accomplished many different ways from taking down their website, putting them in jail or killing them.
Actions have consequences. Should we just let people break the law and release classified documents? Who ever did that knew what they were doing was illegal. They should be identified and punished accordingly.
GermanSynergy
07-27-10, 19:42
What the hell guys. When did M4C turn into the Kill or jail people we don't like board?
Full transparency in government is good. With the few and far between exceptions of Operational security I feel the government should have no secrets. The more they try to hide the more it should be brought into the light.
Also of note. WK is down right now. I am sure that is just a coincidence LOL.
This has nothing to do with transparency and EVERYTHING to do with operational / national security. Someone that was entrusted with sensitive information betrayed that trust and KNOWINGLY leaked it to persons unauthorized to have that information. The documents in question are related to the US efforts in Afghanistan, where brave men & women are fighting and dying every day. This is blatant treason, in my opinion and it would not have been tolerated in the 1940's-1950's. Not to mention it could be construed as Espionage...
The saboteur's actions have;
-Endangered American lives
-Endangered the ISAF mission in Afghanistan
The person or persons involved need to spend a few decades in a Federal prison.
variablebinary
07-28-10, 01:01
What the hell guys. When did M4C turn into the Kill or jail people we don't like board?
Full transparency in government is good. With the few and far between exceptions of Operational security I feel the government should have no secrets. The more they try to hide the more it should be brought into the light.
Also of note. WK is down right now. I am sure that is just a coincidence LOL.
I believe it is the press' job to force transparency where the government would rather not. It's their obligation in fact. When the press is in cahoots with the Gov't (i.e. MSNBC) we the people are not being served as the founders intended.
However, the leaker should go to a labor camp prison because there is nothing in the report I regard as compelling enough to make one become a traitor.
If you would have read the posting in their entirety rather than posting a knee jerk response you would have realized that it was my opinion based upon the frustration we all have as human beings when offenses occur, but we are powerless to change them. Thanks for playing. Cheers!
Read it, understood it, and still stand by what I said. If your emotions override your sense of reason why shouldn't I call you out on it?
Would it be unethical to drop a few fuel air bombs on Iran and shove any and all traitors out of a plane wearing parachutes and israeli pilot uniforms somewhere in the general vicinity of the craters?
John_Wayne777
07-28-10, 07:38
With the few and far between exceptions of Operational security I feel the government should have no secrets.
The question becomes who gets to make decisions about operational security. Ordinarily those decisions are made by people who are hopefully familiar with the potential ramifications of the information rather than some jackass who wants to make headlines.
That's why those who bypass the normal chain and hand information that hasn't been cleared off to glory-seeking "journalists" with an axe to grind should be ground into powder. Judgments about "transparency" vs. operational security shouldn't be made by just any idiot in the DOD any more than a nuclear launch should be decided by just anybody who happens to be in proximity to a missile. Command and control exist for a reason, and a valid one.
Yes, it's possible to take the "it's for our own good!" argument too far...but that doesn't change the reality that some information is vastly more useful to our enemies than it ever will be to the American public.
jklaughrey
07-28-10, 08:36
No issue here Mac 556, now grow up and quit baiting and trying to make things personal. Be an adult please and stay on topic!
John_Wayne777
07-28-10, 09:27
Let's knock off the bickering and stay on topic, please.
ForTehNguyen
07-28-10, 09:28
more like the real damage is how the hell did someone working inside get what 92k documents without being redflagged? What does this tell other nations about our cyber defenses/security?
What the hell guys. When did M4C turn into the Kill or jail people we don't like board?
Full transparency in government is good. With the few and far between exceptions of Operational security I feel the government should have no secrets. The more they try to hide the more it should be brought into the light.
Also of note. WK is down right now. I am sure that is just a coincidence LOL.
Have you ever handled, been responsible or read real classified documents before? I am not talking about SECRET crap, I am talking TS/SCI type stuff?? I did it for over 15yrs both active duty and then as a DoD contractor. There is info in there that people should NEVER know. What people fail to realize is that the info in the documents generally isn't all that big a deal, but how we got that info IS THE BIG DEAL. This is where US lives come into danger (when this stuff gets leaked).
Having been on the inside and now on the outside (and not liking the Obama administration) I still do not have a need to know and am just fine with that.
C4
more like the real damage is how the hell did someone working inside get what 92k documents without being redflagged? What does this tell other nations about our cyber defenses/security?
I was in the NAV and then worked as a contractor for SPAWAR (NAV again). I was not allowed to bring ANYTHING into work with me. No CD's DVD, USB drives, etc, etc.
When I went to work for the USAF, they were WAY more lax on stuff like that. I only did a little with the USA, but saw a lot of USB drives and such attached to .Mil and Civy's. This is a no go to me as it makes it so easy to steal info.
With that said, it comes down to trust. People that have access to classified data are screened pretty heavily and thought to be 100% trustworthy. That isn't always the case though and is why it is really hard to catch folks doing this type of stuff.
C4
Did someone state there was no harm in releasing these documents? Did we really hear that correctly? Come on, now, can't be. :confused:
Totally withstanding all the other downsides involved regarding our personnel and their operations, listen to this little weasel Assange try to explain today why he has placed the lives of dozens of Afghan informants at risk. Just watch the little scumbag squirm.
Scroll down a bit for video.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38441360/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Did someone state there was no harm in releasing these documents? Did we really hear that correctly? Come on, now, can't be. :confused:
Totally withstanding all the other downsides involved regarding our personnel and their operations, listen to this little weasel Assange try to explain today why he has placed the lives of dozens of Afghan informants at risk. Just watch the little scumbag squirm.
Scroll down a bit for video.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38441360/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Went straight back to his talking points when challenged. Kind of reminds me of another political actor consistently in the news.
What these types of people like this guy fail to realize is that you don't necessarily need a "name" or a newspaper report (credible or not) to unnecessarily put people put people at risk or in harm's way. Un-frickin'-believable.
This will effect our ability to collect human intelligence in the future. The whole idea is to collect the information and protect your source. This game is for keeps. People will die because of this. I would not be surprised if people alread have died because of these leaks. 90,000 doccuments! That is a huge ammount of information. The people involved in these leaks are Cowards.
RogerinTPA
07-28-10, 16:37
Have you ever handled, been responsible or read real classified documents before? I am not talking about SECRET crap, I am talking TS/SCI type stuff?? I did it for over 15yrs both active duty and then as a DoD contractor. There is info in there that people should NEVER know. What people fail to realize is that the info in the documents generally isn't all that big a deal, but how we got that info IS THE BIG DEAL. This is where US lives come into danger (when this stuff gets leaked).
Having been on the inside and now on the outside (and not liking the Obama administration) I still do not have a need to know and am just fine with that.
C4
Agreed. Sources and methods, if discovered, could compromise/neutralize not only the collection platform (ELINT/SIGINT), but also the HUMINT sources on the ground, and their families.
The individuals with those clearances should be jailed for life and/or hung for treason, depending on the information leaked.
variablebinary
07-28-10, 17:31
Have you ever handled, been responsible or read real classified documents before? I am not talking about SECRET crap, I am talking TS/SCI type stuff?? I did it for over 15yrs both active duty and then as a DoD contractor. There is info in there that people should NEVER know. What people fail to realize is that the info in the documents generally isn't all that big a deal, but how we got that info IS THE BIG DEAL. This is where US lives come into danger (when this stuff gets leaked).
Having been on the inside and now on the outside (and not liking the Obama administration) I still do not have a need to know and am just fine with that.
C4
I dont think people are making the connection.
There are guys on the ground all over the world that are "collecting" by various means.
When someone leaks info it gives insight into our capabilities, collection methods and sources. It allows our enemies to know where we are. Even roundabout knowledge puts American lives at risk.
Ah, ok, reality check:
As near as I can tell, the most damning information in the wikileak has been available as open source information for some time now. It is just that the stooge media has been too lazy to research and report this stuff.
Wikileaks has only confirmed the obvious. So, one more time for the slow kids in class:
The ISI has had an ongoing operational relationship with Taliban. The ISI is credited with creating the Taliban and this was useful for us when we were fighting the USSR in Afghanistan. Now it frustrates our efforts because Pakistan wants to keep Afghanistan poor, broken and dependent.
Google "Pakistan ISI General Hamid Gul" and do your own research.
Iranian and Pakistani security services are both involved (at some level) in drug and weapon smuggling - follow the money!
Pakistan's largest security concern is India. Pakistan is counting on us to stay bogged down in Afghanistan and dependent on their port in Karachi.
Pakistan has played a win-win-win and if you still support our operation in Afghanistan then you really are a sucker. What is it we are trying to do again in Afghanistan?
Ah, ok, reality check:
As near as I can tell, the most damning information in the wikileak has been available as open source information for some time now. It is just that the stooge media has been too lazy to research and report this stuff.
Wikileaks has only confirmed the obvious. So, one more time for the slow kids in class:
The ISI has had an ongoing operational relationship with Taliban. The ISI is credited with creating the Taliban and this was useful for us when we were fighting the USSR in Afghanistan. Now it frustrates our efforts because Pakistan wants to keep Afghanistan poor, broken and dependent.
Google "Pakistan ISI General Hamid Gul" and do your own research.
Iranian and Pakistani security services are both involved (at some level) in drug and weapon smuggling - follow the money!
Pakistan's largest security concern is India. Pakistan is counting on us to stay bogged down in Afghanistan and dependent on their port in Karachi.
Pakistan has played a win-win-win and if you still support our operation in Afghanistan then you really are a sucker. What is it we are trying to do again in Afghanistan?
:rolleyes:
Ah, ok, reality check:
As near as I can tell, the most damning information in the wikileak has been available as open source information for some time now. It is just that the stooge media has been too lazy to research and report this stuff.
Wikileaks has only confirmed the obvious. So, one more time for the slow kids in class:
The ISI has had an ongoing operational relationship with Taliban. The ISI is credited with creating the Taliban and this was useful for us when we were fighting the USSR in Afghanistan. Now it frustrates our efforts because Pakistan wants to keep Afghanistan poor, broken and dependent.
Google "Pakistan ISI General Hamid Gul" and do your own research.
Iranian and Pakistani security services are both involved (at some level) in drug and weapon smuggling - follow the money!
Pakistan's largest security concern is India. Pakistan is counting on us to stay bogged down in Afghanistan and dependent on their port in Karachi.
Pakistan has played a win-win-win and if you still support our operation in Afghanistan then you really are a sucker. What is it we are trying to do again in Afghanistan?
You actually posted this as an attempt to berate the "slow kids in the class" here? Talk about something backfiring.
I wonder how many of the now exposed Afghan informants we could have casually looked up online prior to this incident. I also wonder who is going to be accountable to them. Here's a hint: Nobody and then some.
Anyhow, I'm sure it won't be a problem drumming up more to replace them in the wake of this minor incident.
You actually posted this as an attempt to berate the "slow kids in the class" here? Talk about something backfiring.
I wonder how many of the now exposed Afghan informants we could have casually looked up online prior to this incident. I also wonder who is going to be accountable to them. Here's a hint: Nobody and then some.
Anyhow, I'm sure it won't be a problem drumming up more to replace them in the wake of this minor incident.
Sorry, but I am little confused on how folks can all worked up about wikileaks when our "ally" Pakistan is actively supporting the Taliban. What should concern people is not the leaks but that information is true.
Please, tell me specifically what in wikileaks has you so disturbed? Please cut and paste it here.
Please, tell me specifically what in wikileaks has you so disturbed? Please cut and paste it here.
I see, so rather than you reading what has been posted on several major news outlets all day, I need to do my own research, reporting and editing just for you.
Makes perfect sense to me. I will get started right away.
I see, so rather than you reading what has been posted on several major news outlets all day, I need to do my own research, reporting and editing just for you.
Makes perfect sense to me. I will get started right away.
What I have learned over the years is the the "news" usually gets it wrong. They get it especially wrong when reporting on military or intel matters. This is because they don't understand them.
So when I hear something on the "news" like "sources have been compromised" my first instinct is to question the accuracy of the report. What sources? Where? When? What program or network were they plugged into? Did the report give true names or code names? True names usually have a higher level of classification than what is in wikileaks. None of the wikileaks stuff seems to be TS SCI. It mostly seems like older tactical level intel.
Soooo, when people tell me how bad this is, my first question is to ask them what they personally actually know, or are they just parroting something that someone else (who is equally unqualified in intel analysis) told them?
My challenge is to find the specific entries in wikileaks that have you so upset. Or, are you just parroting the "news."
A point of Clarification. I though most of you were talking about going after the owner of Wikileaks. I now realize most of those comments were in reference to the person who leaked the info to him.
Sorry about that. I stand corrected.
variablebinary
07-28-10, 23:28
Please, tell me specifically what in wikileaks has you so disturbed? Please cut and paste it here.
It's not the content, it's the exposure.
ALL leaks put collectors at risk. What we do, and how we do is not for public consumption without a massive review by several bodies to ensure the guys on the ground operating in the most secret squirrel fashion aren't exposed at any level
What on the surface might seem benign intel can clue certain people in; that that they are under the microscope. This can make them go underground, and bolster their counter intelligence operations which can obviously include searching for and killing American collectors, which they previously were not aware of.
One moron with a TS opening their suck to the press can create plenty of draped caskets. It's called OPSEC for the reason. C'mon man, you know this already.
Being opposed to the war doesn't give anyone the right to get Americans on the ground killed on principle.
Ok VB, again, go to wikileaks and tell me one thing specifically that has you concerned.
What 'sources and methods' were revealed? Please elaborate.
The ISI is in the spy business so I am pretty sure they are not going to learn anything new.
And why are you so worked up about wikileaks but seem totally unconcerned about the ISI sharing intel with the Taliban?
I haven't looked at what was leaked, but I agree with the rest of the group here in terms of this type of information allows our enemies to gain a better understanding of our collection process. The other intelligence agencies in the world are going to spend years analyzing this information and they will go after every nuance and detail that will point to the capabilities or even identities of HUMINT sources. For example, a report might not cite a source, but if they can guess who/what was where at a certain place and time based on their own intel--then their picture gets clearer.
Maybe this doesn't give the Taliban names and addreses, but it gives China and Russia a whole lot of bang for their buck. Intel is expensive, one of the biggest issues is the cost vs. reward analysis. Any agency has to weigh how much they are willing to devote to discovery vs. the value of the information. In this case, its 90,000 pages of free intel that might have cost millions and required substantial time and resources to develop.
I truly believe the leaker needs to do hard time or worse. But I also agree that the organizations that leak this info need to be held to account. In effect, wikileaks has become a stateless aggressor against the US. In many ways, this is a terrorist act that occurred with information instead planes flying into buildings.
If we let these stateless entities do this much damage without retalitation, it emboldens them to take more serious and aggressive actions against us.
This is cyberterrorism at its finest.
Ok VB, again, go to wikileaks and tell me one thing specifically that has you concerned.
What 'sources and methods' were revealed? Please elaborate.
The ISI is in the spy business so I am pretty sure they are not going to learn anything new.
And why are you so worked up about wikileaks but seem totally unconcerned about the ISI sharing intel with the Taliban?
Um, how about the fact that the wanton disclosure of this material is ILLEGAL?
Everything you're talking about is irrelevant, and you are so far off point it's sad. Should we be concerned that the ISI is allegedly sharing intel with the Taliban? Absolutely, but what has that got to do with the price of tea in China? The leaked material in question is classified and it is not our job to say this information "apparently" isn't very damaging, so it's OK to release it. Further, since you seem to be such an expert on the information contained in the leaked documents, please verify that you've read all of the some 90,000 documents and post your credentials that qualify your understanding and interpretation of the said material, its interconnectedness with other intelligence and how it affects our intelligence collectors and collection systems, or our national security. Further still, post your legal authorization for determining the declassification of such material.
We're all waiting... :rolleyes:
Should we be concerned that the ISI is allegedly sharing intel with the Taliban? Absolutely,....
Yep, let's prosecute the turd that stole the data. That is being worked on. Next slide.
Again, as near as I can tell, there is nothing Earth shattering on the wikileaks. At most, it only confirms things that the were already suspected. From an OPSEC point of view, this is undesirable but not grave.
Now, we still have the NOW CONFIRMED fact that the ISI is responsible for the death of US troops.
Your response?...
VooDoo6Actual
07-29-10, 12:35
I consider his actions a treasonous act.
Yep, let's prosecute the turd that stole the data. That is being worked on. Next slide.
Again, as near as I can tell, there is nothing Earth shattering on the wikileaks. At most, it only confirms things that the were already suspected. From an OPSEC point of view, this is undesirable but not grave.
Now, we still have the NOW CONFIRMED fact that the ISI is responsible for the death of US troops.
Your response?...
My next response would be that you're a short-sighted moron who doesn't blink at the consequences of actions, even when they get Americans killed. Of course, the fact that we now know more about people who are already dead justifies those lives, so it's all ok, at least in your little world.
Yep, let's prosecute the turd that stole the data. That is being worked on. Next slide.
Again, as near as I can tell, there is nothing Earth shattering on the wikileaks. At most, it only confirms things that the were already suspected. From an OPSEC point of view, this is undesirable but not grave.
Now, we still have the NOW CONFIRMED fact that the ISI is responsible for the death of US troops.
Your response?...
http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/ll64/himura_04/facepalm.jpg
jklaughrey
07-30-10, 08:03
Pvt. Bradley Manning...Traitor?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/07/29/128856502/bradley-manning-linked-to-afghan-leak
Pvt. Bradley Manning...Traitor?
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/07/29/128856502/bradley-manning-linked-to-afghan-leak
Yep.
The military is not the place for your political activism, son.
Gates, Mullen Blast WikiLeaks for Disclosures
Published July 29, 2010
FoxNews.com
Top Pentagon officials assailed WikiLeaks on Thursday for its release of thousands of pages of leaked documents covering the war in Afghanistan -- at one point even accusing the man behind the whistle-blower website of having "blood ... on his hands."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen issued some of their harshest criticisms yet of the leak, which appeared to include the names of Afghans enlisted as classified U.S. military informants.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has defended the release, but Mullen dismissed his arguments.
"Mr. Assange can say whatever he likes about the greater good he thinks he and his source are doing, but the truth is they might already have on their hands the blood of some young soldier or that of an Afghan family," Mullen said.
Gates said he called FBI Director Robert Mueller seeking assistance in the ongoing investigation into the leak of the documents, though Gates wouldn't comment on reports that the leak was the work of Pvt. Bradley Manning, an Army intelligence analyst already under suspicion in an earlier leak of classified materials to WikiLeaks.
The criminal investigation into the leak could go beyond the military, Gates said, and he did not rule out that Assange could be a target.
"The investigation should go wherever it needs to go," Gates said.
He would not be more specific, waving off questions about whether Assange or media outlets that used the WikiLeaks material could be subjects of the criminal probe. But he noted that he has asked the FBI to help in the investigation "to ensure that it can go wherever it needs to go."
Gates and Mullen called the release of the documents that WikiLeaks calls its "Afghan War Diary" deeply damaging and potentially life-threatening for Afghan informants or others who have taken risks to help the U.S. and NATO war effort.
Theirs was the most sober assessment of the ramifications of the leak Sunday of raw intelligence reports and other material dating to 2004.
The Army is leading an inquiry inside the Defense Department into who downloaded some 91,000 secret documents and passed the material to WikiLeaks, an online archive that describes itself as a public service organization for whistleblowers, journalists and activists.
The FBI would presumably handle aspects of the investigation that involve civilians outside the Defense Department, and the Justice Department could bring charges in federal court.
Assange agreed Tuesday that the files offered insight into U.S. tactics.
But he said that was none of his concern, and seemed irritated when a questioner in London pressed him on whether he believed there were ever any legitimate national security concerns that would prevent him from publishing a leaked document.
"It is not our role to play sides for states. States have national security concerns, we do not have national security concerns," he said.
Gates said that the Pentagon is tightening rules for handling classified material in war zones as a result of the leak. He did not mention Manning by name, and Pentagon officials caution that Manning may not be the sole target of the Army inquiry.
Manning was stationed at a small post outside Baghdad. If he was the source of the Afghan war logs, he would have been amassing material he had little if any reason to see.
"If the kind of breach involved in the downloading of these thousands of documents had occurred at a rear headquarters or here in the U.S., there's a very high likelihood we would have detected it," Gates said.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/29/pentagon-wikileaks-blood-hands/
"It is not our role to play sides for states. States have national security concerns, we do not have national security concerns," he said.
No, just human blood on your hands.
Gates said that the Pentagon is tightening rules for handling classified material in war zones as a result of the leak. He did not mention Manning by name, and Pentagon officials caution that Manning may not be the sole target of the Army inquiry.
Yeah, here comes about 40 more hours of annual OPSEC training too.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.