Obama smacked in the mouth

[Gob]

On Saturday, US state department legal adviser Harold Koh wrote in a letter to Wikileaks that the most recent document dump "could place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals" as well as "ongoing military operations".

He accused Wikileaks of endangerment "without regard to the security and the sanctity of the lives your actions endanger". But is there any real evidence of this peril?

The problem for officials like Mr Koh is proving direct links between the information released and any loss of life.

After the release of an enormous haul of US defence department documents in August, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell told the Washington Post: "We have yet to see any harm come to anyone in Afghanistan that we can directly tie to exposure in the Wikileaks documents." Pentagon Papers whistle-blower Daniel Ellsberg says silence puts lives at risk But, he added: "There is in all likelihood a lag between exposure of these documents and jeopardy in the field."

After this latest release a Pentagon official, who wished to remain anonymous due to the sensitive nature of the material involved, told the McClatchy newspaper group that even three months later the US military still had no evidence that people had died or been harmed because of information gleaned from Wikileaks documents. Daniel Ellsberg, the former military analyst who in 1971 released the Pentagon Papers which detailed government lies and cover-ups in the Vietnam War, is sceptical of whether the government really believes that lives are at stake.

He told the BBC's World Today programme that US officials made that same argument every time there was a potentially embarrassing leak. "The best justification they can find for secrecy is that lives are at stake. Actually, lives are at stake as a result of the silences and lies which a lot of these leaks reveal," he said.

"The same charges were made against the Pentagon Papers and turned out to be quite invalid."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11882092

[Gob]

Wow, Rudd grows a set!!!

In an interview with Reuters news agency, Mr Rudd said: "Mr Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorised release of 250,000 documents from the US diplomatic communications network. The Americans are responsible for that."

Mr Rudd, the former prime minister who was replaced by Julia Gillard in June, added: "I think there are real questions to be asked about the adequacy of [the US] security systems and the level of access that people have had to that material.

"The core responsibility, and therefore legal liability, goes to those individuals responsible for that initial unauthorised release."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11945558

Analysis
Nick Bryant

BBC News, Sydney


The Australian government has found itself in the anomalous position of offering consular assistance to Julian Assange after his arrest in London, while at the same time being highly critical of his part in leaking sensitive US diplomatic cables.

Julian Assange has written an opinion piece for The Australian newspaper which is scathing in its criticism of the Gillard government, accusing her of "trying to shoot the messenger".

The case of Julian Assange is already drawing comparisons here with the detention of an Australian, David Hicks, at Guantanamo Bay. Hicks, who trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, was found guilty of providing material support for terrorism by an American military tribunal. But he became something of a folk hero for many Australians, because of the widespread feeling that he was treated unfairly by the Americans after being detained at Guantanamo Bay without trial.

[Lord Jim]

And now...

Cyber terrorism:

BOSTON (Reuters) – Advocates of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange quickly built a cyber army that took down MasterCard Inc's website using simple tools posted on the Web.

MasterCard's website was shut down for much of the day on Wednesday as a group calling itself AnonOps organized a "Denial of Service" attack on the credit card giant, which had stopped processing donations for WikiLeaks after the United States criticized its release of sensitive diplomatic cables.

Denial of service attacks typically use botnets, or armies of computers that have been enslaved by criminal hackers, to bring down a website by hitting it with an overwhelming number of simultaneous requests for information.

But the MasterCard attack seems to have come from a grass-roots effort organized by AnonOps.

It distributes sophisticated hacking software that is relatively simple for supporters to install on their computers.

"It is very easy to launch these attacks," said John Bumgarner, chief technology officer for the U.S. Cyber Consequences Unit, which monitors cyber attacks.

The group used Twitter to seek supporters, referring them to its website where they could download the software that turns a Windows or Mac PC into a weapon against the MasterCard site.

WikiLeaks has come under international scrutiny after releasing a slew of diplomatic cables that angered and embarrassed Washington. Assange was arrested in Britain on Tuesday over accusations of sexual offenses.

The MasterCard attacks are in apparent retaliation for the No. 2 credit and debit card processing company's move to block donations to the WikiLeaks website.

The AnonOps site links users to a chatroom, where some ask questions about how to use the software and others gloat about their success.

"MasterCard still down. Hell yeah," said one anonymous participant in the makeshift chatroom.

"Good job everyone!" said another user.

MasterCard said the attack did not compromise its "core" payment processing capabilities, but that there had been some limited interruptions to web-based services it offers customers. It did not elaborate.

As of early Wednesday afternoon, the software was programed to attack the MasterCard site only, but AnonOps was soliciting suggestions for additional targets.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101208/wl_nm/us_wikileaks



I just heard on the news that these cyber terrorists have also now attacked Visa's website. I also understand they've issued some sort of "warning" to governments around the world in a You Tube video.

[Gob]

I was just about to start a thread on that.

Still will I think.

[Lord Jim]

So now truthfully reporting to a population what's being done by a democratically elected government put in place by the people is a form of "terrorism"? Is there no end to how far that word can be stretched/perverted?

You've got a great point Big RR....

I think they ought to start broadcasting the President's daily security briefing on C-SPAN....

And we ought to publish all our planned military actions is Afghanistan on You Tube....As well as all of our security protocols....

After all, the people have a right to know....

[rubato]

"...

The problem for officials like Mr Koh is proving direct links between the information released and any loss of life.
... "

Proof!

Right now they don't even have a wild-assed theory connecting the wikileaks to any known harm.

Proof! They've got a thousand miles to go before they start talking about proof.

yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

So now truthfully reporting to a population what's being done by a democratically elected government put in place by the people is a form of "terrorism"? Is there no end to how far that word can be stretched/perverted?

You've got a great point Big RR....

I think they ought to start broadcasting the President's daily security briefing on C-SPAN....

And we ought to publish all our planned military actions is Afghanistan on You Tube....As well as all of our security protocols....

After all, the people have a right to know....

Come on Jim, that's really beneath you. Certainly some things are kept secret for good reason, but saving the government from being embarrassed by being exposed for doing something it ought not be doing, or for being exposed for doing the opposite of what it said it is, is clearly not a good reason.

[Sue U]

Certainly some things are kept secret for good reason, but saving the government from being embarrassed by being exposed for doing something it ought not be doing, or for being exposed for doing the opposite of what it said it is, is clearly not a good reason.

Or for misinforming its citizens about the reasons, progress or prospects for the war(s) they are being asked to support wth their blood and treasure.

[Lord Jim]

Certainly some things are kept secret for good reason

Yes, and revealing the sources and methods for gathering intel for on going military operations, and the private communications between our Ambassadors and the State Department, (if these communications are not guaranteed privacy, then we will not get honest assessments from our diplomatic personnel) most certainly fall into that category.

[Big RR]

Well at least you're not claiming lives were placed at risk. But are you actually saying that the diplomatic corps will not do its job without a guarantee of confidentiality? I sincerely doubt that, at least if there is any professionalism (and MHO I think there is by many within the corps).

And Jim, how do you respond to the point Sue raised, and I endorsed. Does the government have to the to bamboozle the public in the name of "secrecy" to keep support for unpopular military actions, and/or hide what is actually being done. I don't think so. Vietnam alone proved that.

[Crackpot]

Well at least you're not claiming lives were placed at risk.

That is because after getting their pee-pee's slaped after the Afgan dump, which did and put lives at risk and quite rightly earned the condemnation of just about every media/human rights group out there, they've been vetting all thier leaks with mainstram outlets and following their lead about what to release and not to release/redact.

But are you actually saying that the diplomatic corps will not do its job without a guarantee of confidentiality? I sincerely doubt that, at least if there is any professionalism (and MHO I think there is by many within the corps).

it's difficult, if not impossibe, to gave an unvarnished opinion on happenings if you have to take into account that what you say will become common knowledge. Will they stop doing their job? No. Will it make their job more difficult possibly to the point of being unable to provide clear anaysis? Quite likely.

[Lord Jim]

I was about to post a reply Big RR, but I think CP pretty much nails it, so I'll just associate myself with his remarks.

[Big RR]

Jim--on Dec 4 you posted

which contained sources and methods information that endangered the lives of his fellow soldiers in the field and provided a treasure trove of intel for the enemy. (While adding nothing of value to the knowledge of the general public)

(emphasis added)

do you still believe that or do you believe that the information stolen/released did not endanger any lives because of vetting as Crackpot said?

[Lord Jim]

Big RR, I have said that the first batch scum boy released did in fact endanger lives...

The fact that he got so much heat even from those he would expect to be alllies, (like Amnesty International and George Soros) that in subsequent dumps he and his people actually bothered to go through and redact sources and methods info DOES NOT change the fact that he has in fact endangered lives, and that he needs to be held accountable and answer for that. Among other things.

Re this:

And Jim, how do you respond to the point Sue raised, and I endorsed. Does the government have to the to bamboozle the public in the name of "secrecy" to keep support for unpopular military actions, and/or hide what is actually being done. I don't think so. Vietnam alone proved that.

As I said before, just about the only real "revelation" of any value to the general public that has come from this, is the "revelation" of to what a great extent the government, (under both administrations) has leveled with the American people about the course of the wars, the mixed record of allies, etc. (particularly compared to Vietnam). I have yet to see one single thing of any substance, that has been released that I wasn't aware of before. Comparing this to the Pentagon Papers is ridiculous.

[Long Run]

What I come back to is how does this differ from a cleaning service employee coming into a doctor or lawyer or IP office, obtaining some private information and then giving it to someone with the hope they publish it? There is a theft. The stolen property is given to one other person who knows it is stolen, and that person then tries to make money off of the stolen property. Alternatively, the person with the stolen property is trying to cause harm to the owner of the property and in the process has injured innocent people.

It is impossible to take out the politics and ignore that there may be espionage or treason type of charges involved. But if we can put those aside for the moment aren't we dealing with theft, use of stolen property, an intent to cause harm and injury to innocent people? Why is anyone in the corner of someone like this? Weren't these the basic allegations in the Valerie Plame situation?

[Big RR]

I have yet to see one single thing of any substance, that has been released that I wasn't aware of before. Comparing this to the Pentagon Papers is ridiculous.

well gee, if you knew it, thn i would think our allies and enemies (who have people whose business it is to know this information) would know it as well, so I fail to see any danger/problem in revealing it.

LR-because this information belongs to the American people, not a doctor or lawyer, and was (allegedly) being illegally hidden from them by the government which is merely the custodian, not the owner, of the information. If a person broke into his physician's office (or had someone do it) to retrieve information being illegally withheld from him about his own diagnosis or whatever (information which is legally his), I think it would be a pretty good defense to theft of property. Likewise, I think that defense could exist here.

[loCAtek]

What qualifications does the average American person possess to judge such info?

Most average Americans think Sarah Palin would make a good President.

You want them acting knee-jerk on diplomatic smears they have no fore, aft nor mid knowledge about?

[Big RR]

Sure; indeed, why even let them vote? Let's just set up leaders by appointment. After all, what qualifications does the average american have to select wh should lead them?

and let's d away wth jury trials as well; what qualifications does the average american have to pass judgment?

[Andrew D]

Big RR, I have said that the first batch scum boy released did in fact endanger lives...

Which, of course, makes it true.

[Lord Jim]

Yeah Andrew, this is uniquely my view....

It's not the broad consensus of responsible and knowledgeable elements across the political spectrum, from the Commander of NATO to Amnesty International.....

Oh wait...

It is....

It's really not that complicated...

If you reveal the names of the people who have been providing you intel, and the methods you use to acquire intel, to your enemy in a shooting war, (oh wait a minute, that's right... you claim you didn't even know who the enemy was, or even that there was an enemy) you are endangering lives...

Anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size and the common sense of a marmoset can work that one out....

Since I know that you are not too stupid to grasp this, the explanation has to be that you are being willfully and deliberately obtuse for ideological reasons....

This would not exactly be a "first" for you in that department.