Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 12/09/2010 View Wed 12/08/2010 View Tue 12/07/2010 View Mon 12/06/2010 View Sun 12/05/2010 View Sat 12/04/2010 View Fri 12/03/2010
1
2010-12-09 Africa Subsaharan
[Wikileaks cable deleteed per Rantburg policy]
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by anon1 2010-12-09 00:59|| || Front Page|| [11129 views ]  Top

#1 I personally object to the posting of pilfered documents containing US Government (USG) classification markings on the blog. (C) Confidential, (U) Unclassified, etc. I believe we are operating in a dangerous area when this type activity begins to take place.
Posted by Besoeker 2010-12-09 03:05||   2010-12-09 03:05|| Front Page Top

#2 it's public domain now - it's out there in the wild easily accessible to everyone.

It's now a news source. The information is really interesting and reveals the names of very corrupt politicians in Zimbabwe. This is a force for good - I am glad this one is out.
Posted by anon1 2010-12-09 04:13||   2010-12-09 04:13|| Front Page Top

#3 Silentbrick gets out the popcorn.

I seem to recall Badanov telling you not to post anymore of these. This should be fun.
Posted by Silentbrick - Lost Drill Bit Division - Halliburton 2010-12-09 04:21||   2010-12-09 04:21|| Front Page Top

#4 i didn't see the comment you are referring to. I can't be everywhere!
Posted by anon1 2010-12-09 04:24||   2010-12-09 04:24|| Front Page Top

#5 anon1: Maybe not, but you might start checking out the reaction to your posts after the close of business the previous day before you start posting again the next.

Better park it and ask why they don't want you posting cables from WK. There is probably a good reason.
Posted by gorb 2010-12-09 04:32||   2010-12-09 04:32|| Front Page Top

#6 anon1, this is what the warning looked like yesterday:

#2 Anon1: If you post one more classified cable you will be banned permanently from this forum.

This is your only warning
Posted by: badanov 2010-12-08 21:20
Posted by trailing wife 2010-12-09 04:49||   2010-12-09 04:49|| Front Page Top

#7 Personally, I refuse to read any of the 'releases'.

I think Wikileaks is a transnational criminal organization and that JA is a transnational criminal. I refuse to support WL in any manner.

I will avoid all sites and organizations that support WL's brand of transnational espionage.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2010-12-09 05:03||   2010-12-09 05:03|| Front Page Top

#8 Righto TW, no problem I won't put any more up from Wikileaks.

I am sorry to hear that if an employee of the US Government opens a Wikileaks cable they could lose their jobs.

And of course they should not do anything of the sort if their jobs are on the line.

But I do think that is wrong of their employers.

And when they go home at night they should be doubly determined to go to the Wikileaks site and see what it is that the rest of the world is looking at.
Posted by anon1 2010-12-09 05:27||   2010-12-09 05:27|| Front Page Top

#9 And of course they should not do anything of the sort if their jobs are on the line.

Bugger the bloody job! The phueching Chinese, Russians, and terrs are celebrating this Wikileaks fiasco. This should tell you something. This is not a game. Please come to your senses.
Posted by Besoeker 2010-12-09 06:06||   2010-12-09 06:06|| Front Page Top

#10 Righto TW, no problem I won't put any more up from Wikileaks.

Thank you, anon1.
Posted by trailing wife 2010-12-09 06:32||   2010-12-09 06:32|| Front Page Top

#11 There's been a lot of to & fro discussion here on the 'Burg about Wikileaks, but some consequences haven't gotten much coverage. Here's a random collection of what I got from hoovering up stuff with Google:

  • Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information Executive order signed by Obama 12/2009

  • The Library of Congress (LC) has been blocking access to the WikiLeaks website since December 3. “The Library decided to block Wikileaks because applicable law obligates federal agencies to protect classified information. Unauthorized disclosures of classified documents do not alter the documents’ classified status or automatically result in declassification of the documents.”

  • Starting last week, Department of Energy installations began barring access to WikiLeaks and its myriad of mirror sites. Mark Leininger, Fermilab's computer security manager, wrote in an internal newsletter that WikiLeaks' Web site was being blocked. "There is some risk to you as an individual of being involved in an investigation if you view or possess classified information," he wrote.

  • Concerns about violating federal secrecy laws even extend to PROSPECTIVE government employees. The following email from Columbia U has been circulating on the web: From: "Office of Career Services"

    Date: November 30, 2010 15:26:53 ESTTo:

    Hi students,

    We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.

    The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.

    Regards,
    Office of Career Services
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2010-12-09 08:31||   2010-12-09 08:31|| Front Page Top

#12 There is no flexibility whatsoever about this in DoD, not even the hint of a sense of humor.
Posted by rwv 2010-12-09 10:19||   2010-12-09 10:19|| Front Page Top

#13 Nor should there be.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-12-09 10:52||   2010-12-09 10:52|| Front Page Top

#14 Thanks Fred and mods for insisting WL docs NOT be posted to this excellent site.
Posted by Besoeker 2010-12-09 10:55||   2010-12-09 10:55|| Front Page Top

#15 I would be remiss to not say this: I budgeting for charitable donations to give at Christmas and of course Rantburg and some veterans's groups like Paralyzed Veteran of America will be at the top of my list.
The infamous however, the voluminous postings of Anon1 and the mockery of American soldiers and their security detracts completely from the overall Rant at Rantburg. It is fine and dandy that Anon1 has opinions, but her vociferous and lenghty diatribes make the site practically intolerable. Mods I do not mean to order you on how you fo your jobs, but a suggestion would be to limit Anon1 in a meaningful way so Rantburg isn't debased. Just a suggestion.
Posted by Fire and ice 2010-12-09 11:13||   2010-12-09 11:13|| Front Page Top

#16 That is "I am"
Posted by Fire and ice 2010-12-09 11:14||   2010-12-09 11:14|| Front Page Top

#17 That last comment was mine....don't know why it didn't say it was. My bad!
Posted by Swamp Blondie 2010-12-09 11:43||   2010-12-09 11:43|| Front Page Top

#18 Millions for Defense, but Not One Cent for Tribute!
Posted by wr 2010-12-09 11:58||   2010-12-09 11:58|| Front Page Top

#19 Great post Swamp Blondie. :-) Very funny. I think I wasn't clear in my writing--- I am contributing to Rantburg, Paralyzed Veterans of America and a food bank no matter what! It's just Sooooo much of Rantburg seems given
over to Anon1 long long long big big big opinions. Not banning, but at least limiting the length of her postings would improve the overall experience of being at Rantburg and
perhaps she could find a way to do that herself. After all less is often more in things like writing. And I think Anon1 is a grown adult.
Posted by Fire and ice 2010-12-09 12:11||   2010-12-09 12:11|| Front Page Top

#20 Adult is a nebulous concept these days;-).
Posted by Fire and ice 2010-12-09 12:14||   2010-12-09 12:14|| Front Page Top

#21 "Adult is a nebulous concept these days;-)."

That's for sure.
Posted by Black Charlie Chinemble5313 2010-12-09 13:05||   2010-12-09 13:05|| Front Page Top

#22 limiting the length of her postings would improve the overall experience of being at Rantburg

You don't have to read every comment. I've been known to pass over some by Mr. Mendiola.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-12-09 13:27||   2010-12-09 13:27|| Front Page Top

#23 Joe M is a special case here.
Posted by OldSpook 2010-12-09 15:44||   2010-12-09 15:44|| Front Page Top

#24 I try to read Joe's, OS's, and OP's, and ignore everyone else's.
Posted by Thing From Snowy Mountain 2010-12-09 15:47||   2010-12-09 15:47|| Front Page Top

#25 I'm willing to concede a certain amount of "whose ox is being gored" here. I do think there is a case for espionage or, at the least, receiving stolen goods, and it wouldn't cause me the slightest loss of sleep if Manning were hung and Julie were to be shot while trying to escape. However, if the released documents were Russian or Chinese, I'd read them with glee and feel kindly about Romanov/Chang or whomever stole them and I'd wouldn't care one way or the other about Julie. Not rational, not fair, but that's the way it is.
Posted by Mercutio 2010-12-09 15:56||   2010-12-09 15:56|| Front Page Top

#26 Hello all, I understand that you all think that Wikileaks is some kind of enemy saboteur trying to wreck your country in the name of terrorists.

But this isn't true.

And how will you know unless you look at what they do?

I had never even bothered to check out the Wikileaks site before they arrested Assange and the crap hit the fan last week.

Since viewing it I know better what it is now than I did before, and on that I base my views.

Since shutting off access to the website and censoring its documents is the cyber equivalent of book burning, don't you all think you had at least better know what it is you are burning before it is destroyed?

Then you can make up your own minds.

I will point you specifically to that video of Reuters journos being gunned down - not because they were killed.

That happens in war.

But because of the lying that occurred after it that is captured on that video.

That will show you how the messages you receive in the Old Media are spun, and how the truth never makes it out there.

That is why the Government hates wikileaks so much and is trying to cut it down every way it can.

Also on the Wikileaks site is much that has nothing at all to do with the US Government but to do with African nations, South American nations - they are into Government transparency all around the world.

The citizens of these countries have never had a chance to see just how corrupt their governments are or who is doing the thieving.

So I really urge you to at least see for yourselves.

Also I would say that if banning wikileaks cables, why stop there? Why not also ban all news reports that are written sourcing those cables?

It's the same thing.
Posted by anon1 2010-12-09 18:18||   2010-12-09 18:18|| Front Page Top

#27 Banning copies of the documents is NOT the same as banning the articles about them. The documents are marked as U.S. Government property. News articles are clearly marked as something different.

Imagine the task of a security officer who finds a marked Government document on an employee's computer. The officer has no idea how it got where it shouldn't be. Perhaps the reason it is there is because this was the computer used to leak the files in the first place. Maybe not. Either way, an unpleasant investigation and cleanup is required by law.

Do not ever post a restricted or classified U.S. Government marked document to a public forum like this. It is almost certainly illegal for the poster and causes no end of annoyance to innocent people on the site.
Posted by rammer 2010-12-09 19:38||   2010-12-09 19:38|| Front Page Top

#28 I think it would be just splendid if Anon started it's own website and posted all of the stuff there instead instead of constantly pissing in the pool over here hoping to slip one by the moderators.
Posted by rjschwarz 2010-12-09 19:47||   2010-12-09 19:47|| Front Page Top

#29 Posting classified material to a public forum is a violation of the Wiretap act. The law is written where there is little a defendant can do to mount an affirmative defense of his or her actions.

Telling a federal judge, "Well it was on Wiki-leaks!" will get you nowhere. Telling a judge the material was found on a foreign website will not be heard as a defense as well.

It is not legal for the US government to prevent publication of classified material; it is, however, legal for the government to sanction individuals and institutions for publishing classified material, and sanctions include civil as well as criminal penalties.

This ain't a game.

This isn't a case of "OMFG! Assange is teh roxrz."

Posting classified material not only places the forum in a legal jeopardy, but places the poster in it as well. Be aware of that should have have plans to travel to the US in the near future.

You can't do it and expect to have much in the way of a legal justification for doing it.
Posted by badanov 2010-12-09 20:05|| http://www.freefirezone.org  2010-12-09 20:05|| Front Page Top

#30 I'm amazed, anon1, how you can type that voluminous drivel one-handed...bravo!
Posted by Frank G 2010-12-09 21:25||   2010-12-09 21:25|| Front Page Top

#31 Now that's just cold, Frank. (But too true. ;-p )
Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2010-12-09 21:29||   2010-12-09 21:29|| Front Page Top

#32 hoping to slip one by the moderators.

rjschwarz, I don't think anon1 was trying to slip anything by the moderators, only to share what she thought were key revealing documents that she was sure would change our minds, not having picked up hints that this might be an issue to some of our readers. She wasn't openly warned until last night, and she wasn't aware of the warning until this morning. She accepted the ruling, and has not tried to buck it, although continuing to argue in defence of her position.

I find her distressingly obdurate on this issue, although she has been very sensible about some other things, and has provided useful comments about the situations and players in the countries near her Australian home.

badanov, thank you for clarifying the risk to those who wish to travel to the U.S., a real concern. Given anon1's fondness for Americans, she'll probably not want to start her own blog on the WikiLeaks cables, then.
Posted by trailing wife 2010-12-09 21:47||   2010-12-09 21:47|| Front Page Top

#33 can't slip one by you, Barbara. Heh
Posted by Frank G 2010-12-09 22:03||   2010-12-09 22:03|| Front Page Top

23:50 Procopius2k
23:40 Procopius2k
23:39 CincinnatusChili
23:22 Guillibaldo Unusing2147
23:20 HEU
23:20 trailing wife
23:17 trailing wife
23:13 Pappy
23:11 trailing wife
22:30 Rambler in Virginia
22:27 Rambler in Virginia
22:24 Skidmark
22:18 rjschwarz
22:03 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:03 Frank G
22:02 Frank G
21:57 Frank G
21:52 Pappy
21:49 DarthVader
21:47 trailing wife
21:45 trailing wife
21:35 Pappy
21:29 Barbara Skolaut
21:28 trailing wife









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com