Wikileaks in danger, Pentagon/CIA got them in their sites.

Geriatrix

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
6,554
Found this on Reddit.
http://morgue.isprettyawesome.com/?p=1361
http://twitter.com/wikileaks
Sounds like the people behind Wikileaks are under some pressure. Since this is unlikely to turn up in your newspapers, I post it here to spread awareness.

Wikileaks has a mission of bringing hidden information to light, when it’s in the public interest. Wikipedia outlines their greatest hits, including Gauntanamo Bay procedure documents, scientology secrets, and net censorship lists. They come under fire sometimes for hosting material that probably isn’t much in the public interest, but overall they have contributed some compelling information to some fractious global arguments.

In the last 24 hours, their Twitter feed has contained some worrying content.

* WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup at US National Press Club, Apr 5, 9am; contact press-club@sunshinepress.org
* WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation. Following/photographing/filming/detaining
* If anything happens to us, you know why: it is our Apr 5 film. And you know who is responsible.
* Two under State Dep diplomatic cover followed our editor from Iceland to http://skup.no on Thursday.
* One related person was detained for 22 hours. Computer’s seized.That’s http://www.skup.no
* We know our possession of the decrypted airstrike video is now being discussed at the highest levels of US command.
* We have been shown secret photos of our production meetings and been asked specific questions during detention related to the airstrike.
* We have airline records of the State Dep/CIA tails. Don’t think you can get away with it. You cannot. This is WikiLeaks.

All those came out in a rush, then silence for hours. Might just be a timezone thing, with people sleeping, or maybe there’s been no news, or maybe everyone with access to the Twitter feed has been detained. I await more information.

UPDATE: “To those worrying about us–we’re fine, and will issue a suitable riposte shortly.” 8.22am NZ time.

UPDATE: Just noticed that the first tweet quoted, “WikiLeaks to reveal Pentagon murder-coverup” is gone from the feed. Now I wish I’d linked to all of them individually. Anyway, it was definitely there, and I think Linda is right that it is this previously-referred-to video

UPDATE: commenter eru found the missing tweet. It isn’t visible in the ordinary feed for some reason.
 

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,996

Point of order.

WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation.

Iceland has been making a huge hoo-ha recently about ‘freedom of the press’ to the extent where they are putting legislation in place to ‘legally’ protect any whistle blowing entity registered [incorporated] in Iceland. This was welcomed by (Sri-Lankan, Iranian, etc.) journalists. Was it BS? Just asking (genuine question).
 

Geriatrix

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
6,554
Iceland has been making a huge hoo-ha recently about ‘freedom of the press’ to the extent where they are putting legislation in place to ‘legally’ protect any whistle blowing entity registered [incorporated] in Iceland. This was welcomed by (Sri-Lankan, Iranian, etc.) journalists. Was it BS? Just asking (genuine question).
"Keep you friends close, keep your enemies closer" comes to mind.
 

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,996
Iceland has been making a huge hoo-ha recently about ‘freedom of the press’ to the extent where they are putting legislation in place to ‘legally’ protect any whistle blowing entity registered [incorporated] in Iceland.

I would be dubious about this article. It merits further investigation. I watched a TV program a few weeks ago, which had the founder of Wikileaks extolling the virtues of upcoming (whistle blowing) Icelandic legislation (I think its kinda noble). The TV program was a media program called ‘Listening Post’ (once a week) and it can be found at the site Aljazeera.net/English. To implicate Iceland, they must have been quoted out of context. Iceland does not have a history of manipulative scumbucketry and is surrounded by countries of a similar character. If they chose [Iceland] to compromise their credibility, I wonder if this is important enough? I think its crap! Could there be elements of industrial espionage or commercial advantage? They would be competitors. The credibility of the entire article is compromised by sniping at Iceland.
 

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,996
I would be dubious about this article. It merits further investigation.

WikiLeaks is currently under an aggressive US and Icelandic surveillance operation.

And another thing. Why? What advantage accrues to Iceland? It is a small player (less than 1 000 000 people) on the world stage. There’s something very dodgy about this article.
 

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,996
I would be dubious about this article. It merits further investigation.

In the TV explanation about Iceland’s proposed legislation (as the Wikileaks founder explained it), it is not simply legal protection that Iceland offers. It is a first-world country with a myriad of fast Internet links to different countries (hubs) which cannot all be monitored. Because Iceland has a small population and a low profile internationally, conflicts of interest would be minimized (they are unlikely to indulge in the acts which Wikileaks specializes in uncovering). The key would be for organizations like Wikileaks to incorporate in Iceland and base their servers there. They [the servers] would be virtually bullet-proof against seizure or gagging and volatile information would be preserved (a service for the storage of incriminating data is also offered) no matter how many mirror sites might be compromised. There are wheels within wheels concerning the article. Wikileaks reports Icelandic surveillance. Something is niffy.
 

thatdamnJoe

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,024
Palimino

you are assuming Iceland's executive and legislative arms of government sit around the same campfire. Thats not necessarily true.

It wouldnt be the first time a country's intelligence agencies have overstepped their boundaries...
 

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,996
Palimino

you are assuming Iceland's executive and legislative arms of government sit around the same campfire. Thats not necessarily true.

It wouldnt be the first time a country's intelligence agencies have overstepped their boundaries...

This still raises the question of “why?” Even if Iceland’s intelligence agency has overstepped its boundary, they have done it (presumably) for a reason – according to their rationale (I am assuming they have the best interests of the country at heart). What advantage accrues to Iceland? It is a small player (less than 1 000 000 people) on the world stage. Iceland’s intelligence agency (if they are ‘rogue’) could easily be persuaded of the imperative. They [Iceland] are emerging from bankruptcy and are casting about for a way to re-establish the moral high ground after defaulting on debts to the UK and Holland. If they can establish a safe haven for whistle blowers, they may well gain it IMO.
 

thatdamnJoe

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
1,024
This still raises the question of “why?” Even if Iceland’s intelligence agency has overstepped its boundary, they have done it (presumably) for a reason – according to their rationale (I am assuming they have the best interests of the country at heart). What advantage accrues to Iceland? It is a small player (less than 1 000 000 people) on the world stage. Iceland’s intelligence agency (if they are ‘rogue’) could easily be persuaded of the imperative. They [Iceland] are emerging from bankruptcy and are casting about for a way to re-establish the moral high ground after defaulting on debts to the UK and Holland. If they can establish a safe haven for whistle blowers, they may well gain it IMO.

Their understanding of 'best interests' and yours do not necessarily coincide. Spooks sometimes do funny things, just ask ourself how many own goals our very own NIA have scored.
 

Geriatrix

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
6,554
Update: This is what it was all about.
http://collateralmurder.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8603938.stm
5th April 2010 10:44 EST WikiLeaks has released a classified US military video depicting the indiscriminate slaying of over a dozen people in the Iraqi suburb of New Baghdad -- including two Reuters news staff.

Reuters has been trying to obtain the video through the Freedom of Information Act, without success since the time of the attack. The video, shot from an Apache helicopter gun-site, clearly shows the unprovoked slaying of a wounded Reuters employee and his rescuers. Two young children involved in the rescue were also seriously wounded.

The military did not reveal how the Reuters staff were killed, and stated that they did not know how the children were injured.

After demands by Reuters, the incident was investigated and the U.S. military concluded that the actions of the soldiers were in accordance with the law of armed conflict and its own "Rules of Engagement".

Consequently, WikiLeaks has released the classified Rules of Engagement for 2006, 2007 and 2008, revealing these rules before, during, and after the killings.

WikiLeaks has released both the original 38 minutes video and a shorter version with an initial analysis. Subtitles have been added to both versions from the radio transmissions.

WikiLeaks obtained this video as well as supporting documents from a number of military whistleblowers. WikiLeaks goes to great lengths to verify the authenticity of the information it receives. We have analyzed the information about this incident from a variety of source material. We have spoken to witnesses and journalists directly involved in the incident.

WikiLeaks wants to ensure that all the leaked information it receives gets the attention it deserves. In this particular case, some of the people killed were journalists that were simply doing their jobs: putting their lives at risk in order to report on war. Iraq is a very dangerous place for journalists: from 2003- 2009, 139 journalists were killed while doing their work.
 

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
18,025
I'd love to hear the USA's response to this. Most likely, no response, and nothing will happen. Remember that friendly fire incident when a US pilot attacked a British convoy, and killed at least 2 people? He got off scot free, the UK might have written a sternly worded letter, not sure.
 

The_Assimilator

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
5,923
I'd love to hear the USA's response to this. Most likely, no response, and nothing will happen. Remember that friendly fire incident when a US pilot attacked a British convoy, and killed at least 2 people? He got off scot free, the UK might have written a sternly worded letter, not sure.

That friendly fire incident was caused by bad intel, not bad piloting. The pilot called in the convoy, intel didn't know about it and gave him the go-ahead to shoot, which he did - he was only following orders. If you actually listen to the cockpit voice recordings, you can hear that pilot crying after he was informed what he'd done. Your implication that he went in there, guns blazing, and killed allied personnel just because he felt like it is offensive at best, and an insult to the brave men and women who fight.

Regarding the Wikileaks video:

BBC said:
The video shows a street in Baghdad and a group of about eight people, whom the helicopter pilots identify as armed insurgents.

The transmissions says of one of the individuals: "He's got an RPG [rocket-propelled grenade]. I'm going to fire."

After a voice on the transmission urges the pilot to "light 'em all up", the individuals on the street are shot by the gunship's cannon.

...

At the time, the US military said the helicopters were engaged in combat operations against a hostile force.

Put yourself in that chopper gunner's seat: if you've just been told that someone down in the street has an RPG, that can take out your chopper (and almost certainly injure or kill you and your pilot) in seconds, are you going to hesitate? Of course not; you're going to hold your finger on the fire button until that threat is neutralised. This is live-or-die, us-or-them territory; there's no time to call intel and ask "hey, are you really really sure those guys down there with an RPG are bad guys"?

War is war; accidents happen, and to imply that they are anything more than accidents is, once again, insulting to the troops. If journalists want to try and get the "next biggest story" in a warzone, fine for them, but they need to stop believing that their journalistic credentials somehow make them bulletproof as well. And another thing - why is this only a big story because a couple of journalists were killed? What about the (presumably innocent) Iraqis who also died? Why does no-one seem to give a damn about them?

As for WikiLeaks - they're a bunch of hippies who deserve to be shut down. Much of the material that they have published has little or no value to the public, while being detrimental to the foreign policy and goals of the USA - which makes them, in my eyes, an organisation working against the US government. In which case they deserve to be getting all the heat they are.

Don't get me wrong, I support freedom of information as much as the next guy - but there is some information that shouldn't be free, and there are some organisations - like WikiLeaks - that should curtail their activities to making information that is actually in the public interest available, instead of looking for ways to make the US government look bad.
 

Palimino

Expert Member
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
4,996
Put yourself in that chopper gunner's seat: if you've just been told that someone down in the street has an RPG, that can take out your chopper (and almost certainly injure or kill you and your pilot) in seconds, are you going to hesitate? Of course not; you're going to hold your finger on the fire button until that threat is neutralised. This is live-or-die, us-or-them territory; there's no time to call intel and ask "hey, are you really really sure those guys down there with an RPG are bad guys"?

This is UTTER rubbish. The ‘RPG’ was a camera. Even from a distance you couldn’t mistake it. A camera is a small boxy thing, an RPG is at least a metre long. Trigger happy?

As for WikiLeaks - they're a bunch of hippies who deserve to be shut down. Much of the material that they have published has little or no value to the public, while being detrimental to the foreign policy and goals of the USA - which makes them, in my eyes, an organisation working against the US government. In which case they deserve to be getting all the heat they are.

And the US claims to be moral? <rolls eyes>
 

Praeses

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2005
Messages
4,897
This is UTTER rubbish. The ‘RPG’ was a camera. Even from a distance you couldn’t mistake it. A camera is a small boxy thing, an RPG is at least a metre long. Trigger happy?

They were total retards for thinking it's a RPG. It was clearly a camera in the shoddy video footage. The soldiers seem to enjoy killing too much ("Haha'ing all the time")
 

d0b33

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 16, 2004
Messages
17,388
Put yourself in that chopper gunner's seat: if you've just been told that someone down in the street has an RPG, that can take out your chopper (and almost certainly injure or kill you and your pilot) in seconds, are you going to hesitate? Of course not; you're going to hold your finger on the fire button until that threat is neutralised. This is live-or-die, us-or-them territory; there's no time to call intel and ask "hey, are you really really sure those guys down there with an RPG are bad guys"?.

from reddit...
http://i.imgur.com/MWaBV.png

There is a full video torrent on wikileaks, so there is no excuse these were trigger happy folks. Also the chopper was far away and not in remote danger.
 
Last edited:

Ancalagon

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
18,025
That friendly fire incident was caused by bad intel, not bad piloting. The pilot called in the convoy, intel didn't know about it and gave him the go-ahead to shoot, which he did - he was only following orders. If you actually listen to the cockpit voice recordings, you can hear that pilot crying after he was informed what he'd done. Your implication that he went in there, guns blazing, and killed allied personnel just because he felt like it is offensive at best, and an insult to the brave men and women who fight.

Where, exactly, do I say he was a trigger happy Yank who gunned down people for the fun of it? Thats right, I didnt.

What was disturbing in that case was A) the USA's refusal to help in the investigation in any way, or admit any responsibility, and B) the UK's impotence in taking the USA to account for the death of its soldiers. USA and UK soldiers alike work hard for their ideals - do you think its right that the UK bends over every time the USA says so?

Regarding the Wikileaks video:



Put yourself in that chopper gunner's seat: if you've just been told that someone down in the street has an RPG, that can take out your chopper (and almost certainly injure or kill you and your pilot) in seconds, are you going to hesitate? Of course not; you're going to hold your finger on the fire button until that threat is neutralised. This is live-or-die, us-or-them territory; there's no time to call intel and ask "hey, are you really really sure those guys down there with an RPG are bad guys"?

War is war; accidents happen, and to imply that they are anything more than accidents is, once again, insulting to the troops. If journalists want to try and get the "next biggest story" in a warzone, fine for them, but they need to stop believing that their journalistic credentials somehow make them bulletproof as well. And another thing - why is this only a big story because a couple of journalists were killed? What about the (presumably innocent) Iraqis who also died? Why does no-one seem to give a damn about them?

Again, you miss the point. Its not what they did, its their comments during the video. "Oh well, shouldnt have brought a kid to battle.", "Come on, pick up a gun so I can shoot you again." Are these honourable men who die for their country? Doesnt sound like it to me.

As for WikiLeaks - they're a bunch of hippies who deserve to be shut down. Much of the material that they have published has little or no value to the public, while being detrimental to the foreign policy and goals of the USA - which makes them, in my eyes, an organisation working against the US government. In which case they deserve to be getting all the heat they are.

Don't get me wrong, I support freedom of information as much as the next guy - but there is some information that shouldn't be free, and there are some organisations - like WikiLeaks - that should curtail their activities to making information that is actually in the public interest available, instead of looking for ways to make the US government look bad.

So information that makes the USA look bad, even if the USA, in this case, is really bad, should not be released? So its okay to release information about other's screwups, but not the USA? Double standards much?

Wikileaks is proving to be a powerful transformative tool for governments, forcing them to admit to mistakes they have made and deal with them. In this case, the secrecy surrounding this did not save lives, but was merely used to provide cover for the USA, since it KNEW it screwed up. Why else would it not want the videos released?
Why all the love for the USA anyway?
 
Top