Um, I Think It's Time for a Thread on WikiLeaks

are you being sarcastic - I have a broken sarcasm detector

no

Smithy, imho I think that is silly. It only makes sense if there really are no stakes to this information getting out. First of all, you'd have to think that the government bargaining over leaked items would sound like complicit behavior -- which makes no sense! Of course the government wants to minimize the damage from leaks, that's self-evident, I'd think. Second, you'd have to believe that not only are they afraid meeting with him would look like complicit behavior, but that they think the political fallout from that appearance is worse than compromising informants in Afghanistan, soldiers, the probability of working with anyone ever again (because who would want to work with the US government in Afghanistan if their information is going to be leaked)... essentially this would be one of the most short-sighted decisions in the history of executive power. Unless you believe Obama secretly wants to undermine the war and is just using this as an excuse to do that.

Not to mention, and this comes from my gut, reading the interview it's really hard to see him as a trustworthy figure. He sounds very confused (actually shades of Tommy Wiseau ran through my mind while reading the interview).

TONY JONES: So, how many of the reports that you put on Wikileaks went onto the site without you actually knowing the detail of what was in them?

JULIAN ASSANGE: It's fair to say that only two per cent have been read in precise detail and the rest have been hived off using these classification systems.

Now, I presume what your question is getting to is what, how did we split off the 15,000 that we have not yet released because we think they need further review to understand whether there might be innocent informers' names in there.

So after reviewing several different types of material we saw that it was really these threat reports and then some other classifications that contained information about informers, so those were all hived off.

Mordy OTM

hived off? what kind of phrase is that?

How about the CIA memo a year or two ago about how to take down Wikileaks? Why wouldn't they want to let WL shoot themselves in the foot in order to get them out of the way?

First of all, you'd have to think that the government bargaining over leaked items would sound like complicit behavior -- which makes no sense!

You honestly think that if the government had bargained with this guy over this stuff, Fox News et al wouldn't take that info and run all the way down the field with it?

Adam, can you link me to an article or copy of that CIA memo? I don't remember seeing it.

every GOP candidate this fall would have (succesfully) used "the Obama administration negotiated with the very people who leaked classified information" - right now, it's WikiLeaks putting soldiers in harm's way. Any cooperation from the admin, of any kind, would have meant "Obama in bed with the guy who leaked sensitive info." NAGL in an election year. obv this is just guessing at how this dude's story might be true (though we'll know soon enough; the NYT should confirm or deny their engagement with him, I'd think, and since he's claiming everyone was in on the process, it should be clear enough) but "our position is we do not return this guy's phone calls no matter what" does not seem like an unlikely scenario to me

And Smithy, again, you'd have to believe that a political calculation re: Fox News would trump completely undermining any credibility the US might have among US-sympathetic individuals and communities in Afghanistan. After this, you'd have to be willing to put your life at risk to ever speak to the military in Afghanistan again. This severely undermines US actions in Afghanistan -- putting aside whether that is or isn't a good thing, certainly the Obama administration doesn't think that's a good thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barrett-brown/cia-state-department-appa_b_512050.html

Apparently that memo was leaked by (lol) Wikileaks. Sounds fishy, yes, and skepticism in the case WL is definitely healthy. But it seems like there's a lot more skepticism towards WL than the US Gov't in these matters.

That's not fair. I'm not believing a US account over a Wikileaks account.

From March NYTimes

To the list of the enemies threatening the security of the United States, the Pentagon has added WikiLeaks.org, a tiny online source of information and documents that governments and corporations around the world would prefer to keep secret.

The Pentagon assessed the danger WikiLeaks.org posed to the Army in a report marked “unauthorized disclosure subject to criminal sanctions.” It concluded that “WikiLeaks.org represents a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC and INFOSEC threat to the U.S. Army” — or, in plain English, a threat to Army operations and information.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html?_r=1

LOL and this

Perhaps the most amusing aspect of the Army’s report, to Mr. Assange, was its speculation that WikiLeaks is supported by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Wikileaks has since deleted the file that they claim was leaked by the CIA? http://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf Or maybe moved it? I'd like to read what the memo actually says.

xp to Mords - I don't think any admin thinks there is any matter more important than its party remaining viable in the next election. Lest anybody accuse me of maligning Obama's admin in particular let me be clear, it's not about that. But I do think a sitting admin asks itself "what does this to to us" i.e. the admin's/party's prospects for fall in every instance, and that that is always the first matter of business.

you'd have to believe that a political calculation re: Fox News would trump completely undermining any credibility the US might have among US-sympathetic individuals and communities in Afghanistan. After this, you'd have to be willing to put your life at risk to ever speak to the military in Afghanistan again. This severely undermines US actions in Afghanistan -- putting aside whether that is or isn't a good thing, certainly the Obama administration doesn't think that's a good thing.

this is totally OTM. sad you guys think that Obama would rather fuck up this war you guys think he is so fond of - facilitating the deaths of US servicemen, Afghan collaborators, etc. - rather than irritate Fox News. It's not like Fox News is dying for ammo to use against Obama or anything, they just make shit up if they have to!

I can't find the memo anywhere btw, gonna keep hunting, but this is an excerpt from it I found on a website:

"The identification, exposure, termination of employment, criminal prosecution, legal action against current or former insiders, leakers, or whistleblowers could potentially damage or destroy this center of gravity and deter others considering similar actions from using the WikiLeaks.org Web site'" >> Not allowing Wikileaks to shoot itself in the foot by leaking dangerous info that leads to people dying, but drying out the info at the source.

Ok, found it here, reading now:

http://file.wikileaks.org/file/us-intel-wikileaks.pdf

"Fox News" is shorthand for conservative spin control of the admin actions, and if you think that's not always WAY up front in the admin's mind -- well, then we disagree!

I mean feel free to contend that nobody gives a shit about media narrative or that there comes a point at which principles outweigh it, but I mean, evidence seems lacking to me on that q

How about the CIA memo a year or two ago about how to take down Wikileaks? Why wouldn't they want to let WL shoot themselves in the foot in order to get them out of the way?

Yeah, so the memo definitely doesn't say this. It's basically about trying to suss out Wikileak sources so that Wikileak's promise of absolutely anonymity is undermined and sources in the future are more wary of leaking information. It's not like a document full of various ways of trying to undermine Wikileaks, it's about trying to plug leak holes in the government (and much of the document is spent trying to figure out what department(s) the leak is coming from by analyzing the leaks that have already come out). It's actually a really interesting read, imo, but is not the kind of intelligence document you hear about once in awhile which airs a bunch of crazy ideas for how to get something done. It's about trying to find who is leaking information to prevent future leaks. After reading it I'm very skeptical that the government would allow him to publish documents that undermine the war effort just to undermine Wikileaks -- even more than I was before reading it. For one, it's logically not sound; they released the document because -- as they write many times -- they feel like Wikileaks undermines the war effort. Why would they let him undermine the war effort so that later on he couldn't undermine it moreso? There's a huge logical fallacy in there.

there are so many advantages (media narrative and otherwise) to the admin looking at this stuff prior to its release - would allow them to redact stuff, would allow them to get an advance idea of where the leak came from, would allow them to coordinate a response ahead of time, would allow them to minimize the damage to operations on the ground in Afghanistan, etc. That you think the administration is SO AFRAID of the rightwing media spin machine that they would overlook all these advantages is just... I dunno, J0hn yr a sharp a guy but I think yr judgment is seriously clouded here. Obama's certainly aware of the media narrative and their need to control it, but they give those idiots ammo EVERY DAY and hardly shy away from controversy. I just don't know what you're basing this judgment on, other than vindictive bitterness.

Mordy, how have you the time to compose these long posts continuously?

Web sites similar to Wikileaks.org will continue to proliferate and will continue to represent a potential force protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC, and INFOSEC threat to the US Army for the foreseeable future. Sensitive or classified information posted to Wikileaks.org could potentially reveal the capabilities and vulnerabilities of US forces, whether stationed in CONUS or deployed overseas.

I'm actually secretly Artificial Intelligence, Alfred.

btw the administration's handled this shrewdly: let the national security guys like Gates and Jones wag their fingers while the Oval Office affects disinterest.

lol Shakey "vindictive" - who do I want vengeance on & for what? dude I am doing exactly what you are doing: guessing, thinking out loud. only one of us admits it I guess, you presumably are blessed with great insight. "The administration was in cahoots with the people who released sensitive information" seems a much more serious charge than the day-to-day ammo of taking easily-reparsed positions, etc.

I'm actually secretly Artificial Intelligence, Alfred.

this would make me incredibly happy btw

I'm more interested in Assange's claim that there are no verified examples of people's names being exposed -- Gates has claimed it, but we can't really trust him on this, and I think the NY Times has made a similar claim. It's either true or not, and it seems silly that Assange is like, "First of all, no one was harmed by what I released, and second of all, the WH didn't work with me to minimize harm." (How would he even know if he's only read 2% of the documents he put online?)

dude I am doing exactly what you are doing: guessing, thinking out loud. only one of us admits it I guess,

I'm always admitting this! This is like my MO on ILX: "I'm just thinking through this shit out loud."

yeah I think it's unconscionable to share data that he himself hasn't gone over btw, like, personally, not his staff of w/e

xp I was talking to Shakey Mo there.

"The administration was in cahoots with the people who released sensitive information"

except that this accusation makes absolutely NO FUCKING SENSE? why would Obama want to deliberately undermine his own war effort, one that he has increased troop levels/funding for and gotten support from Republicans on? how does that make any sense whatsoever?

vindictive in the sense that your default position is Obama = wrong

xp

except that this accusation makes absolutely NO FUCKING SENSE?

it would make every bit of narrative sense if he'd met or spoken with wikileaks in any way, or even acknowledged any contact with them. it would be an easy narrative to spin.

your default position is Obama = wrong

imo that is not being vindictive just realistic lol

it would be an easy narrative to spin.

really? please spin it then. cuz its inconceivable to me. explain to me how Obama is in cahoots with an organization who's stated intention is to undermine his war efforts, and how Obama doesn't really want to fight the war in Afghanistan, in fact he's so uninterested in it, all those troop levels/budget increases are just a cover for actually wanting to endanger the lives of American soldiers. let's hear it. get yr Glenn Beck on.

except that this accusation makes absolutely NO FUCKING SENSE?

just to game out this particular thought experiment -- have you noticed that the accusations don't have to make sense anymore? they just have to feel good to make them!

xps heh

if you can tie in some socialism and reverse-racism that'd be good too

xp

umm hi mr. even-more-excitable-than me I already did it the first time I introduced the idea. WL contacts admin, says "we have documents we are going to release - will you go over them and let us know what we can't release? nb we are going to release docs." WH weighs options: 1) go over documents, get concessions, documents are released with a big ol "this information has been vetted by the white house" on 'em 2) let guy hang self with own rope, attack source, minimize any information that might seem damning, etc etc. Latter option: worst anybody can say about WH is "they didn't stop this guy from leaking this stuff." Former option: because you sifted through the information with this guy, anything he revealed is on your head.

how is this even hard to accept as probable, let alone possible?

I mean srsly I am not accustomed to being in the position of finding my own stance the more reasonable of any two in play but here we are

why would Obama want to deliberately undermine his own war effort, one that he has increased troop levels/funding for and gotten support from Republicans on? how does that make any sense whatsoever?

Actually this recent leak showing how bad the war is going has been cited by the President to back up last year's 30,000 troop surge.

have you noticed that the accusations don't have to make sense anymore? they just have to feel good to make them!

they have to fit the narrative though. so far, there is no "Obama does not care about Afghanistan" narrative. no one on the right is pushing him to commit MORE troops and MORE money and saying he has no intentions of winning. If anything the existing underlying narrative is kinda going the OTHER way - that Obama's getting us into a war that we can't win and it's all pointless (see recent Steele flap). the kind of hypothetical accusations being considered here don't fit any existing narrative about Obama and Afghanistan, they're just nonsensical.

xp

Two different types of undermining, I think; undermining the war effort by showing that it's going very poorly (a conclusion I'm skeptical of in the first place), and undermining the war effort but scaring off people who would otherwise work with the army but now won't because of fear of losing their lives in another leak.

Steve Coll, an expert on the region and a former senior editor of The Washington Post, said in a New Yorker podcast on Thursday, “my reading of the disclosure of these informants in the context of Taliban-menaced southern Afghanistan is that people named in those documents have a reasonable belief that they are going to get killed, or — actually the way it works with the Taliban is, if they can’t find you, they’ll take your brother instead.”

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/taliban-study-wikileaks-to-hunt-informants/

It's gonna be a miracle finding people to work with after this, I think.

highlighting that these cables all come from (i think) 03 - 09 is another "things were sooo much worse under bush amirite" kind of move, but it's not like anyone will believe things are totally different or better now.

Something that occurred to me -- surely if the administration were worried about looking like they signed off on the leaks, they wouldn't have met with the NYT either, right? But they did go over the info with the NYT and tell them what was an actual risk...

i think aerosmith is right about why the WH would not want to haggle on this. better to be completely hands-off. the position has to be that none of this should be leaked. no room for negotiation there.

not sure why it's surprising that the CIA would want to shut down an organization committed to illegally releasing embarrassing secret info abt the US military/govt/________. obviously it's just terrible, but im trying to think of a state that wouldn't try the same.

hm, not a surprise they'd want to shut it down. I'm just skeptical that they decided to shut down an organization because they're afraid it'll harm their war efforts -- and the way they decide to do it is by letting the organization harm their war efforts. Kinda silly. And like I said, WH haggled with the NYT.

Yeah but the Times is a different deal - they are reporting on the release of information; there's a longstanding relationship between them and any admin. The White House, in answering any communication from WikiLeaks, would essentially be validating WL as an organization. Working with the Times - they'll be doing that anyway. If I were the White House, I'd be extremely careful about setting a precedent of "yeah, I know that guy."