Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents
HomeMembers LoginLatest NewsRefer A LawyerMessage BoardOnline StoreAffiliatesAbout UsContact Us
Who's A Rat - Largest Online Database of Informants and Agents Worldwide!
Site Navigation
Visit Our Store
Refer A Lawyer
Affiliates
Link To Us
Latest News
Top Secret Documents
Make A Donation
Important Case Law
Members Login
Feedback
Message Board
Legal Information
Advertise your AD, Book or Movie

Informants and Agents?Who's a Rat Message Board

WhosaRat.com
Sign up Calendar
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #1 
He smelled dollar bills of the book deal and movie he would get


Adrian Lamo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Adrian Lamo

Adrian Lamo
BornFebruary 20, 1981 (age 31)[1]
Boston, Massachusetts
NationalityColombian-American
Other namesAdrián Lamo, R. Adrián Lamo
OccupationThreat analyst
Spouse(s)Lauren Lamo (divorced)[2]
ParentsMario Lamo-Jiménez and Mary Lamo-Atwood
Website
twitter.com/6 / facebook.com/felon

Adrian Lamo is a Colombian-American threat analyst and "grey hat" hacker. He first gained media attention for breaking into several high-profile computer networks, including those of The New York Times, Yahoo!, and Microsoft, culminating in his 2003 arrest.[3] In 2010, Lamo became embroiled in the WikiLeaks scandal involving Bradley Manning, who was arrested after Lamo reported to federal authorities that Manning had leaked hundreds of thousands of sensitive U.S. government documents.[4][5]

Contents

Personal

Lamo was born in Boston, Massachusetts to Mario Lamo-Jiménez and Mary Lamo-Atwood in 1981.[6] He spent his early childhood in Arlington, Virginia, until moving to Bogotá, Colombia around the age of 10. When his family moved back to the United States two years later, they settled in San Francisco, where Lamo lived until he tested out of high school a year early. Popularly called the "homeless hacker" for his transient lifestyle, Lamo spent most of his travels couch-surfing, squatting in abandoned buildings and traveling to Internet cafes, libraries and universities to investigate networks, and sometimes exploiting security holes.[3] Despite performing authorized and unauthorized vulnerability assessments for several large, high-profile entities, Lamo refused to accept payment for his services.

In the mid-1990s, Lamo became a volunteer for the gay and lesbian media firm PlanetOut.com.[7][8] In 1998, Lamo was appointed to the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning Youth Task Force by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.[9][10]

During this period, in 2001, he overdosed on prescription amphetamines.[6][11]

In a 2004 interview with Wired, an ex-girlfriend of Lamo's described him as "very controlling," stating, "He carried a stun gun, which he used on me." According to the same article, a court issued a restraining order against Lamo.[11] Lamo disputed the accuracy of the article and wrote, "I have never been subject to a restraining order in my life".[12]

Lamo claimed in a Wired article that in May 2010, after reporting his backpack stolen, an investigating officer noted unusual behavior and detained him. He was diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome after having been placed on a 72-hour involuntary psychiatric hold, which was extended to a total of nine days.[13] The police report contradicts Lamo's version of events and states that Lamo was hospitalised as a result of his father calling Sacramento County Sheriff's department three times with concerns that he was over-medicating on his prescription drugs. The Wired article received a subsequent clarification.

As of March 2011, he is in hiding, stating that his "life was under threat" after turning in Bradley Manning.[14]

Activities

Lamo first became known for operating AOL watchdog site Inside-AOL.com.[15][16]

Security compromise

In February 2002 he broke into the internal computer network of The New York Times, adding his name to the internal database of expert sources, and using the paper's LexisNexis account to conduct research on high-profile subjects. The New York Times filed a complaint, and a warrant for Lamo's arrest was issued in August 2003 following a 15 month investigation by federal prosecutors in New York. At 10:15 AM on September 9, after spending a few days in hiding, he surrendered to the US Marshals in Sacramento, California. He re-surrendered to the FBI in New York City on September 11, and pled guilty to one felony count of computer crimes against Microsoft, LexisNexis and The New York Times on January 8, 2004.[17][18]

Later in 2004, Lamo was sentenced to six months detention at his parents' home plus two years probation, and was ordered to pay roughly $65,000 in restitution. He was convicted of compromising security at The New York Times and Microsoft,[19][20] Yahoo![21] and MCI WorldCom.[22]

When challenged for a response to allegations that he was glamorizing crime for the sake of publicity, his response was "Anything I could say about my person or my actions would only cheapen what they have to say for themselves". When approached for comment during his criminal case, Lamo frustrated reporters with non sequiturs such as "Faith manages",[23] (probably a reference to science fiction television show Babylon 5) and "It's a beautiful day."[24]

At his sentencing, Lamo expressed remorse for harm he had caused through his intrusions, with the court record quoting him as adding "I want to answer for what I have done and do better with my life."[25]

DNA controversy

On May 9, 2006, while 18 months into a two year probation sentence, Adrian Lamo refused to give the United States government a blood sample, one that they had demanded in order to record his DNA in their CODIS system.[26] According to his attorney, Adrian Lamo has a religious objection to giving blood, but is willing to give his DNA in another form. On June 15, 2007, lawyers for Lamo filed a motion citing the Book of Genesis as one basis for Lamo's religious opposition to the giving of blood.

On June 21, 2007, it was reported that Lamo's legal counsel had reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice granting Lamo's original request. According to Kevin Poulsen's blog, "the Justice Department formally settled the case, filing a joint stipulation along with Lamo's federal public defender dropping the demand for blood, and accepting cheek swabs instead." Reached for comment, Lamo reportedly affirmed to Poulsen his intention to "comply vigorously" with the order.[27]

WikiLeaks and Bradley Manning

In February 2009, a partial list of the anonymous donors to the WikiLeaks not-for-profit website was leaked and published on the WikiLeaks website. Some media sources indicated at the time that hacker Adrian Lamo was among the donors on the list.[28][29] Wired reported that Adrian Lamo commented on his Twitter page, "Thanks WikiLeaks, for leaking your donor list... That's dedication."[29]

In May 2010,[30] Adrian Lamo reported to U.S. Army authorities that Specialist Bradley Manning had claimed to have leaked a large body of classified documents, including 260,000 classified United States diplomatic cables.[31] Lamo stated that Manning also "took credit for leaking" the controversial, classified video footage of the July 12, 2007 Baghdad airstrike, which has since come to be known as the "Collateral Murder" video.[31][32][33]

Lamo has stated that he would not have turned Manning in "if lives weren’t in danger... [Manning] was in a war zone and basically trying to vacuum up as much classified information as he could, and just throwing it up into the air."[30] WikiLeaks responded by denouncing Lamo and Wired Magazine reporter Kevin Poulsen as "notorious felons, informers & manipulators" and said that "journalists should take care."[31]

According to Andy Greenberg of Forbes,[34] Adrian Lamo may have worked as a "security specialist" with Project Vigilant, a private security institution that works with the FBI and the NSA.[35] Chet Uber, the head of Project Vigilant, has claimed, "I’m the one who called the U.S. government... All the people who say that Adrian is a narc, he did a patriotic thing. He sees all kinds of hacks, and he was seriously worried about people dying."[34]

Lamo has been criticized by fellow hackers such as at those at the Hackers on Planet Earth conference in 2010, who called him a "snitch".[36] Another commented to Lamo following his speech during a panel discussion saying: "From my perspective, I see what you have done as treason."[37]

Julian Assange calls Adrian Lamo "a very disreputable character", and says that Lamo's monetary support for WikiLeaks amounted to only 20 U.S. dollars on one occasion.[38] Assange says that it is "not right to call [Lamo] a contributor to WikiLeaks", and questions the electronic record associated with the Manning-Lamo chats, because, according to Assange, Lamo has "strange motivations" and "had been in a mental hospital three weeks beforehand".[38]


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #2 
Continued

Greenwald, Lamo, Wired magazine

Lamo's role in the Manning case drew the ire of Glenn Greenwald, of Salon Magazine. An ardent supporter of WikiLeaks, Greenwald has been a passionate critic of Lamo, suggesting that Lamo lied to Manning by turning him in, and also lied after the fact to cover up the circumstances of Manning's confessions.[39] Greenwald places the incident in the context of what he calls "the Obama administration's unprecedented war on whistle-blowers".[39] Greenwald's critique of Wired Magazine has drawn a response from that magazine which suggests that Greenwald is writing disingenuously: "At his most reasonable, Greenwald impugns our motives, attacks the character of our staff and carefully selects his facts and sources to misrepresent the truth and generate outrage in his readership."[40] In an article about the Bradley Manning case, Greenwald mentions Wired reporter Kevin Poulsen's 1994 felony conviction for computer hacking, suggesting that "over the years, Poulsen has served more or less as Lamo's personal media voice."[39] Greenwald is skeptical of an earlier story written by Poulsen about Lamo's institutionalization on psychiatric grounds, writing: "Lamo claimed he was diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome, a somewhat fashionable autism diagnosis which many stars in the computer world have also claimed."[39] In his response, Poulsen accused Greenwald of "name-calling, bizarre conspiracy theories and ad hominem attacks".[40]

Greenwald called for Wired to release more of the chat logs in its possession that pertain to a conversation between Bradley Manning and Adrian Lamo: "there are clearly relevant parts of those chats which Wired continues to conceal".[39] Wired's editor-in-chief reiterated that "the logs include sensitive personal information with no bearing on WikiLeaks, and it would serve no purpose to publish them at this time."[40] In an article entitled "The Worsening Journalistic Disgrace at Wired", Greenwald claimed that Wired was "actively conceal[ing] from the public, for months on end, the key evidence in a political story that has generated headlines around the world."[41]

On July 13, 2011, Wired published the logs in full, stating that "The most significant of the unpublished details have now been publicly established with sufficient authority that we no longer believe any purpose is served by withholding the logs."[42] Greenwald wrote of the newly-released logs that they validated his claim that Wired had concealed important evidence: "In sum, the full chat logs — in particular the parts Wired concealed for over a year — prove that Adrian Lamo is a serial liar whose claims are inherently unreliable."[43] The Guardian wrote of the Wired-Greenwald dispute, "An early view of the logs suggests that Wired's defence stands up — much of the new material relates to Manning's sexuality and other personal matters."[44]

Film and television

Lamo was removed from a segment of NBC Nightly News when, after being asked to demonstrate his skills for the camera, he gained access to NBC's internal network.[45] NBC was concerned that they broke the law by taping Lamo while he (possibly) broke the law. Lamo was a guest on The Screen Savers five times beginning in 2002.[46]

Hackers Wanted, a documentary film focusing on Lamo's life as a hacker, was produced by Trigger Street Productions, and narrated by Kevin Spacey.[47] Focusing on the 2003 hacking scene, the film features interviews with Kevin Rose and Steve Wozniak.[47] The film has not been conventionally released. In May 2009, a video purporting to be a trailer for Hackers Wanted was allegedly leaked to or by Internet film site Eye Crave.[48] In May 2010, an earlier cut of the film was leaked on Bittorrent.[49] According to an insider, what was leaked on the Internet was a very different film from the newer version which includes additional footage. On June 12, 2010, a director's cut version of the film was also leaked onto torrent sites.[50]

Notes

  1. ^ "Hospital bracelet with birth date visible". Adrian Lamo. Retrieved April 26, 2012.
  2. ^ "Biography for Lauren Lamo". Internet Movie Database. Retrieved April 20, 2010.
  3. ^ a b Wired 12.04: The Homeless Hacker v. The New York Times. Wired.com. Retrieved on March 10, 2011.
  4. ^ Poulsen, Kevin; Zetter, Kim (June 6, 2010). "U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe". Wired. Retrieved June 7, 2010.
  5. ^ "US intelligence analyst arrested over security leaks". BBC. June 7, 2010. Archived from the original on 7 June 2010. Retrieved June 7, 2010.
  6. ^ a b Palmquist, Matt (April 16, 2003). "A Duty to Hack". SF Weekly. Retrieved October 23, 2006.
  7. ^ Noah Shachtman (March 6, 2002). "He Hacks by Day, Squats by Night". Wired.com. Retrieved 2011-12-20.
  8. ^ "Wired 12.04: The Homeless Hacker v. The New York Times". Wired.com. Retrieved 2011-12-20.
  9. ^ Worldtribune.com
  10. ^ "Agenda & Minutes Archive". San Francisco Board of Supervisors. August 3, 1998. Retrieved October 23, 2010. "Adrian Lamo, Seat No. 10"
  11. ^ a b Kahn, Jennifer (2004). "The Homeless Hacker v. The New York Times". Wired. Retrieved July 8, 2010.
  12. ^ Lamo, Adrian (July 10, 2010). "Citability (is important!)". God, Sex, & the FBI: Adrian Lamo's (alleged) blog. Retrieved July 10, 2010.[dead link]
  13. ^ Poulsen, Kevin (May 20, 2010). "Ex-Hacker Adrian Lamo Institutionalized for Asperger’s". Wired. Archived from the original on 23 May 2010. Retrieved May 23, 2010.
  14. ^ "Hacker: Why I turned FBI Informer". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on 16 March 2011. Retrieved March 16, 2011.
  15. ^ Brown, Janelle (July 1, 1999). "Can AOL silence its critics?". Salon.com. Retrieved February 1, 2006.
  16. ^ Poulsen, Kevin (November 29, 2000). "Hijackers take AIM accounts". SecurityFocus. Retrieved February 1, 2006.
  17. ^ "Adrian Lamo Cuts Deal With Feds", Wired.com, January 9, 2004.
  18. ^ "Lamo Pleads Guilty to Times Hack", SecurityFocus, January 8, 2004.
  19. ^ Lemos, Robert (May 29, 2001). "Hacker helps Excite@Home toughen defenses". CNET News. Archived from the original on 14 December 2005. Retrieved January 21, 2006.
  20. ^ Poulsen, Kevin (May 5, 2001). "Proxy exposes Excite@Home data". SecurityFocus. Retrieved April 24, 2006.
  21. ^ Poulsen, Kevin (September 9, 2001). "Yahoo! News hacked". SecurityFocus. Retrieved January 21, 2006.
  22. ^ Poulsen, Kevin (December 5, 2001). "Lamo's Adventures in WorldCom". SecurityFocus. Retrieved January 21, 2006.
  23. ^ McCullagh, Declan (September 16, 2003). "The 'homeless hacker' talks". CNET News. Archived from the original on 3 February 2006. Retrieved January 21, 2006.
  24. ^ McCullagh, Declan (September 12, 2003). "Judge lifts hacker's PC restrictions". CNET News. Retrieved January 21, 2006.
  25. ^ Poulsen, Kevin (September 15, 2004). "Feds say Lamo inspired other hackers". SecurityFocus. Retrieved January 21, 2006.
  26. ^ Poulsen, Kevin (May 10, 2006). "Feds Want Hacker's Genetic Code". Wired. Retrieved January 21, 2006.
  27. ^ Poulsen, Kevin (June 21, 2007). "Hacker Adrian Lamo Wins, Won’t Have to Give the FBI His Blood". Wired. Retrieved June 22, 2007.
  28. ^ "Wikileaks Forced to Post Its Own Secrets". DailyTech. Retrieved 2011-12-20.
  29. ^ a b Singel, Ryan. "Wikileaks forced to leak its own secret info (Wired UK)". Wired.co.uk. Retrieved 2011-12-20.
  30. ^ a b U.S. Intelligence Analyst Arrested in Wikileaks Video Probe | Threat Level. Wired.com. Retrieved on March 10, 2011.
  31. ^ a b c Bumiller, Elisabeth (June 7, 2010). "Army Leak Suspect Is Turned In, by Ex-Hacker". The New York Times.
  32. ^ Sheridan, Michael (June 7, 2010). "Report: Soldier arrested for allegedly leaking 'Collateral Murder' helicopter video to WikiLeaks". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 9 June 2010. Retrieved June 10, 2010.
  33. ^ Fildes, Jonathan (June 8, 2010). "Wikileaks site unfazed by arrest of US army 'source'". BBC News. Archived from the original on 10 June 2010. Retrieved June 10, 2010.
  34. ^ a b [1] Forbes.com: Andy Greenberg: Stealthy Government Contractor Monitors U.S. Internet Providers, Worked With Wikileaks Informant, August 1, 2010.
  35. ^ FAZ.Net 4. August 2010 „'Collateral Murder'-Video – Erstaunliche Wendung in Sachen Wikileaks“ ("surprising turn in wikileaks case")
  36. ^ "According to Emmanuel Goldstein, who organized the panel discussion, 90 percent of the conference was anti-Lamo." 'WikiLeaks 'Snitch' Hacker Faces Wrath of His Peers', AOL News
  37. ^ "WikiLeaks Is Not One Person...We Are All the Threat" – Hacker Magazine Editor Says WikiLeaks Is Bigger Than Julian Assange. Democracynow.org. Retrieved on March 10, 2011.
  38. ^ a b "WikiSecrets" | full interview footage. wikileaks.org. Retrieved on May 29, 2011. See video at 21:25.
  39. ^ a b c d e Greenwald, Glenn (June 18, 2010). "The strange and consequential case of Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo and WikiLeaks". Salon.com. Archived from the original on 21 June 2010. Retrieved June 18, 2010.
  40. ^ a b c Putting the Record Straight on the Lamo-Manning Chat Logs | Threat Level. Wired.com. Retrieved on March 10, 2011.
  41. ^ The worsening journalistic disgrace at Wired – Glenn Greenwald. Salon.com (December 27, 2010). Retrieved on March 10, 2011.
  42. ^ Hansen, Evan (July 13, 2011). "Manning-Lamo Chat Logs Revealed". Wired. Archived from the original on July 14, 2011. Retrieved July 14, 2011.
  43. ^ Greenwald, Glenn (July 14, 2011). "Wired publishes the full Manning-Lamo chat logs". Salon.com. Archived from the original on 15 July 2011. Retrieved July 14, 2011.
  44. ^ Pilkington, Ed (July 13, 2011). "Bradley Manning's conversations with Adrian Lamo published in full". The Guardian (London).
  45. ^ Poulsen, Kevin (November 29, 2000). "Lamo Bumped from NBC After Hacking Them". SecurityFocus. Retrieved January 2, 2007.
  46. ^ The Screen Savers. September 26. 2002. TechTV. The Screen Savers. March 4, 2003. TechTV. "Adrian Lamo, TiVo Hacks, Xbox Mods". The Screen Savers. TechTV. Null, Christopher (May 29, 2003). "Lamo Hacks Cingular Claims Site". Wired. Retrieved June 15, 2010. The Screen Savers. September 5, 2003. TechTV. The Screen Savers. September 9, 2003. TechTV.
  47. ^ a b Lost Hacking Documentary Surfaces on Pirate Bay | Threat Level. Wired.com. Retrieved on March 10, 2011.
  48. ^ Goodsmith, Ed (May 5, 2009). "Exclusive: Hackers Wanted (Documentary) Trailer!". Eve Crave Network. Archived from the original on 11 May 2009. Retrieved May 6, 2009.
  49. ^ enigmax (May 20, 2010). "Unreleased ‘Hackers Wanted’ Movie Leaks To BitTorrent". TorrentFreak. Retrieved May 20, 2010.
  50. ^ enigmax (June 13, 2010). "Director Sam Bozzo On BitTorrent and the Movie Industry". TorrentFreak. Archived from the original on 16 June 2010. Retrieved June 13, 2010.

References

External links


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #3 

Hacker who betrayed Bradley Manning expresses regret over possible jail term

Adrian Lamo says jail for WikiLeaks suspect would be a 'lasting regret' but stands by decision to give information to authorities

Adrian Lamo
Adrian Lamo said: 'The decision was not one I decided to make. It was thrust upon me.' Photograph: Jennifer S Altman/Washington Post/Getty Images

Adrian Lamo, the hacker who betrayed the alleged WikiLeaks source Bradley Manning to the US authorities, has said it would be to his "lasting regret" were the soldier to be given a lengthy custodial sentence.

Lamo, 30, dubbed the "world's most hated hacker" for his role in passing information on Manning to military intelligence after the soldier befriended him on internet chat, said that he understood that Manning was an idealistic young man who believed he could change the world for the better and "who didn't necessarily know what he was doing.

"I think about him every day. The decision was not one I decided to make, but was thrust upon me."

Lamo's comments come on the eve of the opening of a pre-trial hearing in the prosecution of Manning, who is charged with multiple counts of transferring state secrets to WikiLeaks including hundreds of thousands of US embassy cables. The hearing starts in Fort Meade, Maryland, on Friday amid exceptionally tight security.

Bradley Manning supporters hoping for an expression of remorse from Lamo ahead of the soldier's prosecution will be disappointed, however. Despite the note of regret at a possible harsh sentence for Manning – the soldier faces a maximum punishment of life in custody with no chance of parole – Lamo said he continued to be convinced that he had done the necessary thing.

"Had I done nothing, I would always have been left wondering whether the hundreds of thousands of documents that had been leaked to unknown third parties would end up costing lives, either directly or indirectly," he said.

A soldier alleged to be Bradley Manning contacted Lamo on AOL instant messaging on 21 May 2010, using the internet handle Bradass87. Lamo was known to the soldier because of his celebrity status in the hacking world having been prosecuted in 2003 for breaking into the computer network of the New York Times, for which Lamo was put on six months' house arrest.

In the course of their internet chat, later published by Wired, the soldier asked Lamo: "if you had free reign [sic] over classified networks for long periods of time, things that belonged in the public domain, what would you do?" The soldier confessed to Lamo that he had been downloading US state secrets on to a CD labelled "Lady Gaga".

Lamo took advice from two friends who had experience working with military intelligence, and, with their assistance, he passed the details of the internet conversation to the US military. On 26 May, Manning was arrested on duty at the Forward Operating Base Hammer outside Baghdad, where he was working as an intelligence officer.

For his action, Lamo was denounced by fellow hackers as a "snitch" and a traitor to the community, and was booed at the Hackers On Planet Earth conference in Manhattan in July 2010. Lamo said he also had to move home to avoid any opprobrium affecting those close to him.

But he said he was unflustered by the adverse reaction. "I'm not a politician running for re-election. I don't need to be popular among the hacker community, and I most likely will never be liked in the hacker community."

Lamo said he was taken aback by the enormous fallout from his approach to the military authorities. "At the time I was not even certain that this was newsworthy. I suppose that demonstrates a certain degree of naivety on my part."

He had thought hard, he said, about Manning's position. "I remembered what it was like to be Manning's age – 22 – that was the age that I was arrested for what I regarded as crimes of conscience. I deliberated on whether I wanted to subject someone of that age to the same process that I went through."

In the end though, he concluded that "Mr Manning's wellbeing was not as important as the security of our armed forces. I had never considered myself particularly patriotic, but when push came to shove the wellbeing of the nation was of paramount importance to me."

He said he suffered "a great deal of internal conflict" about Manning's situation when he was being held at the Quantico marine base in Virginia. The soldier was held in solitary confinement and stripped naked every night in conditions that some likened to torture.

Manning, 23, is now being held under a much more liberal regime at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas.

Lamo declined to speculate about what an appropriate sentence would be for Manning were he found guilty of the WikiLeaks charges. However, a hypothetical individual who had engaged in passing state secrets to a third party would merit a sentence of "25 to 50 years", he said.

"This is different to a James Bond film. WikiLeaks was involved in an overall weakening of strategic operations and diplomacy that will take decades to recover from," he said.

But Lamo added that he was aware of the lasting harm that he has caused. "There are times in life when you are faced with a variety of choices, none of which you consider right. All of them harm someone and you have to choose the one that harms the fewest number of people. That still leaves you harming someone, and, because of that, I think of Manning on a daily basis."



__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #4 

In WikiLeaks Case, Bradley Manning Faces the Hacker Who Turned Him In

Adrian Lamo, left, walks with a soldier into a courthouse in Fort Meade, Maryland, on Tuesday, Dec. 20, 2011, for a military hearing that will determine if Army Pfc. Bradley Manning should face court-martial for his alleged role in the WikiLeaks classified leaks case. Manning's online correspondent was Adrian Lamo, a former hacker, who gave the chat logs to authorities, leading to Manning's arrest in May 2010. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

Accused WikiLeaker Bradley Manning sat in the same room with the man who undid his life on Tuesday, when former hacker Adrian Lamo took the stand on the fifth day of Manning’s pretrial hearing.

Lamo, who turned Bradley Manning into the FBI and Army for allegedly leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive government documents to WikiLeaks, denied in his testimony that he’d violated a journalistic or ministerial promise of confidentiality when he turned over the chat logs that led to Manning’s arrest.

The 30-year-old ex-hacker said he’d decided just a day after first chatting over instant messenger with Manning, who used the handle “bradass87″ in their online chats, to report the Army intelligence analyst. Lamo said he did so because what was being confessed was so “egregious” that it required action.

Lamo, who’s been affiliated with the hacker ‘zine 2600, said that he considered himself a reporter, and that he was a minister with the Universal Life Church, which grants ministerial credentials over the internet. On cross-examination, Manning’s attorney David Coombs — who refused to refer to bradass87 in the chats as Manning — asked Lamo about the section of the logs where Lamo offered bradass87 confidentiality as a journalist and a man of the cloth.

(10:22:24 AM) bradass87: uhm, trying to keep a low profile for now though, just a warning

(10:23:34 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: I’m a journalist and a minister. You can pick either, and treat this as a confession or an interview (never to be published) & enjoy a modicum of legal protection.

(10:24:07 AM) bradass87: assange level?

(10:25:12 AM) bradass87: or are you socially engineering ;P

(10:25:51 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: You must not have done your research

(10:25:57 AM) info@adrianlamo.com: I could have flipped for the FBI.

Lamo responded that in their chat, Manning “neither declined nor accepted,” his offer of source protection.

Lamo, who acknowledged in the hearing to being diagnosed with Asperger’s Disorder, used formal diction and circuitous language in his responses, in stark contrast to the sharp, definitive “yes” and “no” answers given by witnesses in the previous four days of testimony. He remained unperturbed throughout the hearing, however, even when things heated up between him and Coombs.

Coombs pressed Lamo further, asking why Lamo told “bradass87″ in their chat that “none of this is for print,” when he’d already given logs of their initial chats to law enforcement agents, and would later go on to give all of the chat logs to the government and to Wired.com.

“It was not for print by me,” Lamo said, eliciting a snicker from the gallery.

“So you thought Wired magazine wouldn’t print it?” Coombs asked.

Lamo, who was convicted in 2004 for hacking Microsoft and the New York Times, responded that he gave the chats to Wired.com before he met with law enforcement agents a second time because he was “uncertain” if they would arrest him.

“I was uncertain I would be coming back,” he said.

Coombs’ cross-examination of Lamo sought to portray the former hacker as a duplicitous confidential informant who was trying to get Manning to incriminate himself.

Coombs asked Lamo if he was acting as a minister, and then repeatedly asked, “Don’t you think he was contacting you for moral support?” At that point, Manning looked off into the short distance, perhaps recalling the state of confusion and despair that prompted him at the time to reach out to Lamo.

Coombs and Lamo went back and forth over whether Lamo violated his responsibility as a “minister” to keep Manning’s confessions private. Coombs asked Lamo whether it wasn’t clear that bradass87 intended their chat to be confidential.

“A reasonable person would conclude that,” Lamo conceded.

Throughout Lamo’s testimony, Manning continued taking notes and occassionally leaning forward, looking at Lamo.

Manning, dressed in fatigues and black-rim Army-issue glasses that he continually pushed back into place on the bridge of his nose, showed only a single moment of brief animation during the afternoon’s testimony by his former online confidante, after Lamo was handed a copy of the chat logs — dozens of pages long — and was asked if he recognized them. Lamo took several minutes to thumb through and look at each page while everyone in the courtroom waited, prompting Manning to lean back slightly at one point and turn a palm up as if in an expression of wonderment.

Asked when he first contacted law enforcement, Lamo said on May 21 he contacted Timothy Douglas Webster, a psychology student at UC Santa Barbara and a former Army counterintelligence agent. In cross-examination by Coombs, it was established that Lamo contacted Webster because he wanted Webster to help him find the “right team for the job” who would handle the matter in a sensitive manner. That request eventually led to the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division.

Lamo, who has a history of psychological disorders and drug abuse, said he wasn’t on drugs and was feeling “more normal than usual” when he recorded the chats and turned them over to law enforcement.

Earlier in the day, Special Agent Antonio Patrick Edwards, who works for the Army’s Computer Crime Investigation Unit, testified that he got the chats from Lamo after receiving an e-mail from Chet Uber, a civilian who worked with Lamo as part of a cyber security initiative. The e-mail alerted Edwards that Uber was “aware of a person in contact with an intelligence analyst who was releasing information to an Australian national in connection with WikiLeaks.”

Edwards first spoke with Lamo in late May, but didn’t actually take possession of Lamo’s computer until June 11 when he met with Lamo in California to collect his netbook and a hard drive from another computer.

Asked if Lamo worked as a confidential informant for law enforcement, Edwards said that Lamo was not working for law enforcement at the time of his chats with Manning in May, but became a confidential informant for the Army starting in July 2010, and remained one until about three or four months ago. Lamo was not a paid informant, Edwards said, but the government did pay his expenses for travel and other costs associated with his research on its behalf and also purchased a hard drive to replace the one taken into evidence by the Army.

The month that Lamo became an official informant, he contacted a Manning acquaintance named Danny Clark, and engaged him in a chat session that Lamo subsequently turned over to law enforcement. Edwards testified that in June he had tried to speak with Clark to interview him, but Clark declined to talk, invoking his right to an attorney.

Lamo insisted that when he contacted Clark shortly thereafter on July 21, he wasn’t doing so with any intent to hand over information he obtained to law enforcement.

“I was curious regarding his role in the WikiLeaks affair,” Lamo said.

He admitted to being suspicious that someone, perhaps Clark, had helped Manning install encryption on his laptop. In chatting with Clark, Lamo wrote, “Let’s just agree neither of us is going to share these [chat logs] with anyone else.” But Lamo did indeed hand over the chats to agents. He told Coombs that he felt a “necessity that overrode the implied agreement” with Clark.


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #5 

Bradley Manning's Betrayer, Adrian Lamo, Testifies at Pretrial Hearing

Dec 21, 2011 7:13 PM EST

In a hearing to determine if the Army private will face a court martial, the defense is limited to two witnesses after the prosecution puts Adrian Lamo, the man who turned Manning in, takes the stand.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/21/bradley-manning-s-betrayer-adrian-lamo-testifies-at-pretrial-hearing.html


Witness | US v Pfc. Bradley Manning, Adrian Lamo, confidential informant for US Government


http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/witness_profiles_us_v_pfc_bradley_manning/informants/witness_us_v_pfc_adrian_lamo_confidential_informant_for_the_government.html


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #6 

DoD Compares 9/11 Attack and WikiLeaks-Manning

 


http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=118262

Classified Information Plays Central Role in Both 9/11, WikiLeaks Cases

By Donna Miles

American Forces Press Service

FORT MEADE, Md., Oct. 18, 2012 – Pretrial hearings for two major court cases – one involving the alleged perpetrators behind the 9/11 terror attacks and the other involving the soldier charged with the largest intelligence leak in U.S. history – are converging this week as attorneys operating in two very different legal systems focus on the issue of classified information in the courtroom.

The pre-trial hearing for Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who has confessed to planning the 9/11 attacks “from A to Z,” and four others who allegedly trained, financed or arranged transportation for the 19 hijackers entered its fourth day today at Naval Air Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Mohammed’s codefendants in the case are his nephew, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali; Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak bin Attash, charged with selecting and training some of the hijackers; and Ramzi Binalshibh and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, accused with helping finance the attacks.

Meanwhile, here at Fort Meade, the second day of pre-trial hearings continued for Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. He is an Army intelligence specialist accused of downloading and transmitting classified information to the whistle-blowing group WikiLeaks while he was deployed to Iraq.

The legal systems being used to prosecute these cases are significantly different.

Manning, as a member of the U.S. military, is subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. This system has roots dating back to the Revolutionary War, and is intended to promote good order and discipline in the armed forces. The 9/11 defendants, on the other hand, will be tried through a military tribunal governed by the Military Commissions Act of 2009.

Manning is charged with aiding the enemy; wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the Internet, knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; theft of public property or records; transmitting defense information; and fraud and related activity in connection with computers. The charges against him also include violation of Army Regulations 25-2 “Information Assurance” and 380-5 “Department of the Army Information Security Program.”

If found guilty, Manning could receive up to life in prison. He also could be reduced to E-1, the lowest enlisted grade, and face a total forfeiture of all pay and allowances and dishonorable discharge.

Military commissions, on the other hand, apply to “an alien unprivileged enemy belligerent who has engaged in hostilities, or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States, its coalition partners or was a part of al Qaeda.”

The 9/11 defendants were captured in Pakistan between 2002 and 2003 and have been confined at Guantanamo Bay since 2006.

They were charged during their arraignment in May with terrorism, conspiracy, attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, hijacking or hazarding a vessel or aircraft. If found guilty, they could receive the death penalty.

A casual peek into the courtrooms gives a glimpse into one of the most obvious differences between the UCMJ and military commission processes.

By law, Manning is not required to attend proceedings regarding his case, but a military lawyer with more than 20 years experience said on background that he’s never seen a service member not attend. Photographers outside the courtroom yesterday captured images of Manning being escorted from the courtroom in his Army dress blue uniform with gold-colored private first class rank on his sleeves.

Army Col. James Pohl, the judge presiding over the 9/11 case, ruled earlier this week that the defendants don’t have to attend their court sessions, as long as they sign a waiver form each morning they choose to skip. When they do elect to attend, they can dress as they choose – as long as their attire doesn’t include U.S. military uniform items or prisoner garb in a color that would misrepresent their security status at the detention facility.

Mohammed quickly took advantage of both rulings. He opted out of court the first day after Pohl ruled that he could – the day the judge also took up the wardrobe issue. Yesterday, Mohammed initially elected not to attend the third day of pre-trial hearings, then showed up later that morning wearing a camouflage vest over his traditional white tunic.

Most of the distinctions between the UCMJ and military commission legal processes are less obvious to those without legal training, and the discussion could fill textbooks. One big question being debated during the 9/11 hearings, for example, is whether the defendants have constitutional rights.

However, a central concern in both the Manning and 9/11 cases is the issue of how classified information is dealt with in court.

Today, the fourth day of pretrial hearings for the 9/11 suspects continued to focus on the balance between protecting classified information that, if made public, could jeopardize U.S. national security, and the constitutional mandate that court proceedings be open to the public.

The prosecution and U.S. government lawyers say protections are needed to prosecute the case without disclosing classified information that would threaten U.S. national security.

In contrast, the defendant’s defense teams accused prosecutors of using an overly broad banner of national security to safeguard information vital to providing a solid defense. Echoing them were lawyers representing the American Civil Liberties Union and media groups, who said the government wants to squelch information the public deserves to know.

Pohl is expected to rule this week on a protective order the prosecution has requested to spell out what provisions are protected and which ones aren’t.

A central issue in both the 9/11 and Manning cases involves information regarding the defendants’ detention. For Manning, that involves time when he was allegedly mistreated while being held in a Marine Corps brig at Quantico, Va. Of primary concern regarding the 9/11 defendants is time they spent in the hands of the CIA before being transferred to Guantanamo Bay.

Both cases also require hammering out details about witnesses who can be called. In Manning’s case, for example, some witnesses’ names have been redacted from the motion and are considered to be classified as secret. At Guantanamo Bay, the issue involves whether the defense is required to give the prosecution a heads up about what testimony the witnesses it calls are likely to provide –something the government would weigh in deciding whether to fly a witness to the court.

Meanwhile, Army Col. Denise Lind, the judge hearing he Manning case, ordered the prosecution yesterday to release hundreds of emails about his incarceration to the defense team. Lind’s ruling covered all but 12 of about 600 emails regarding a range of issues: from Manning’s visitor list and provisions to ensure he had proper uniforms to plans for responding to protesters and media queries. These emails, added to ones already in the possession of Manning’s defense attorneys, bring to 1,200 the total number of emails that will presumably be used to argue that their client was treated illegally.

Lind also issued rulings that would allow parts of CIA, FBI and Department of Homeland Security documents used in the case to be redacted.

Ironically, the only concrete decision made during the 9/11 hearing today had nothing to do with the court proceedings. Rather, it involved the cleanup of administrative space the defense teams have complained are plagued with rat droppings and mold. Although base officials had declared them safe, a defense lawyer told Pohl the space is making her staff sick.

A Navy officer promised a comprehensive cleanup before the next series of pre-trial hearings, assuring the court that occupational health experts will verify that they they’re up to standards.


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #7 

More event details: https://www.facebook.com/events/445608622147199/?ref=ts&fref=ts

Journalists and activists to hold Bradley Manning teach-in and rally in Bryant Park

What: discussion of Bradley Manning’s case and its implications

When: Friday, October 26, 2012, 4 PM ET

Where: Bryant Park, New York, NY

On Friday, October 26, 2012, activists, journalists and concerned citizens will gather in Bryant Park, NY, for a teach-in and rally for accused WikiLeaks whistle-blower PFC Bradley Manning. Journalist Alexa O’Brien, who has reported on Manning case independently since its inception; Chase Madar, author of The Passion of Bradley Manning; and Stanley Cohen, legal representative for the 14 activists accused of attacking PayPal online, will speak at the event.

They’ll discuss Bradley Manning’s latest legal updates, the implications of a government-wide persecution of whistle-blowers and journalists, how activists can support PFC Manning and WikiLeaks, and more. The teach-in will culminate with a rally to the New York Times’ building a few blocks west, to raise public awareness of Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and the efforts to silence them.

Bradley Manning has been imprisoned for two and a half years awaiting trial, where he faces a potential life sentence for “indirectly aiding the enemy,” for allegedly releasing hundreds of thousands of documents exposing crimes and abuse in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in diplomacy worldwide. His court-martial trial is scheduled to start February 4, 2013.

Bradley Manning Support Network

http://bradleymanning.org

ADVISORY FOR 2:00 PM EDT October 22, 2012

Contact: Kevin Limiti, 516-474-4761

Or email press[at]bradleymanning.org


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #8 

Bradley Manning Article 32 Hearing Script

January 8, 2012 in Department of Defense

This script produced by the military for the Article 32 hearing of PFC Bradley Manning was released as part of a public court filing and was first reported on by Politico.

PFC Manning Article 32 Script

  • 18 pages
  • November 2011
  • 6.6 MB

Download

PFC Manning, I am Lieutenant Colonel Paul Almanza. By order of Colonel Carl R. Coffinan, Jr., I have been appointed as investigating officer under the provisions of Article 32(b) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to conduct an investigation into the charges which have been preferred against you.

Before proceeding, I would like to advise the participants and persons observing that this is a formal investigation. In order to protect the dignity and decorum of these proceedings, I would ask that all present refrain from interrupting or otherwise disturbing the investigation. Should any person nevertheless engage in speech or conduct that interferes with the dignity and decorum of the proceedings, they may be removed from this courtroom.

PFC Manning, let the record show that Mr. David Coombs, civilian counsel, MAJ Matthew Kemkes, and Captain Paul Bouchard are here present with you. On 23 November 2011, I advised you of this investigation and your rights to counsel in this investigation. As you were in pretrial confinement, I provided that notification to your counsel.

Counsel, when was your client provided with that notification?

I have read the written documents provided to your counsel for the sole purpose of determining which witnesses and evidence would be necessary to conduct a thorough and impartial investigation. Your counsel have examined those documents. I will not consider those documents for any other purpose, and I will make my findings, conclusions and recommendations based only on the evidence presented during the course of this investigation. After I have heard the evidence presented by both the government and your defense counsel and arguments by the government and the defense counsel, I will forward the results of this investigation and my recommendations to the appointing authority. Do you have a copy of the charge sheet in front of you?


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #9 

Bradley Manning's trial set for February in WikiLeaks case

 

The latest hearing for detained soldier, Bradley Manning, ended Thursday at Ft. Meade, Md.

Manning was arrested in May 2010 for allegedly releasing classified materials containing military and diplomatic secrets. The charge of “aiding the enemy” is a capital crime, though prosecutors have said they will not seek the death penalty.

 

The released materials were believed to be the basis of the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs and Afghanistan War Diary and contained video of U.S. air attacks on a group that contained two Reuters correspondents.

During this latest hearing, which ran from Aug. 28 through Aug. 30, military judge Denise Lind set the date for Manning’s trial. It will take place from Feb. 4 to through March 15, 2013.

Lind ruled that the court would take judicial notice of the Authorized Use of Military Force legal code, establishing that Al Qaeda is an enemy of the United States.

She also granted the defense motion that the court take judicial notice of David Finke’s book, The Good Soldiers, which the defense maintains contains an exact transcription of the Baghdad attack video and was published in September 2009—in advance of Manning’s alleged passing of the same information to WikiLeaks. If this were proven true, Manning could possibly be seen as neither culpable for making the secret information public nor for the information being “closely held.”

The judge would not, however, according to Kevin Gosztola’s live blog of the hearing, “allow the defense to argue that the content was a ‘verbatim transcript’ of the audio/video from ‘Collateral Murder.’ That was a legal theory or argument they needed to wait to make in court before a panel of jurors.”

The prosecution said Manning posted a YouTube video that contained language that violated Army codes, and the evidence of his subsequent “corrective training” was ruled admissible. Manning, the prosecution will certainly claim, had a proven history of knowing the rules and willfully breaking them.

The judge also scheduled a review of emails to which the defense has requested access.

Between his arrest in 2010 and April 2011, Manning was held at the Marine brig in Quantico, Va. He was held under “prevention of injury” status, allowing the brig’s administrators to keep him in solitary confinement, where they allegedly also took his clothes from him each night, kept him awake between 8pm and 5am (7am on weekends), forbade him from lying down on his bed at that time, and other actions that the defense considers pretrial punishment.

If the argument for illegal pretrial punishment is made successfully, the judge could release Manning from custody and even dismiss the charges against him.

The judge has already made about half of the almost 1,400 emails between Quantico personnel available. The defense seeks the rest. Review of that request will be made at a hearing on Nov. 27. Prior to that hearing, two other hearings will take place concerning whether Manning’s right to a speedy trial was violated.

As The Guardian’s Ed Pilkington notes, by the time the trial starts, Manning will have been in jail for three years, a custody 12 times longer than a defendant is entitled to under military guidelines.

Photo by Wikimedia


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #10 
http://shofarleaks.com/

ShofarLeaks™
Domain Name Services for a resilient, secure, anonymous web.

In 2012 a modest personal computer can easily store the text from a million books.  Distributing that kind of volume of whistleblower data, and the analysis work of others, securely and anonymously, onto your desktop is the goal of ShofarLeaks.  It is a framework for others to use while their identity remains unknown.

ShofarLeaks answers the need for whistleblower or leak sites to offer privacy in communications, an ability to vet the data, and the tools to build on the analysis of others.

The project is built on top of other projects to build a complete technical foundation for independent and autonomous sites.

The domain name system in ShofarDomain which provides true domain name ownership rather than domain name rental also ensures that sites once present cannot be taken down by a third party.  It also provides the technology for servers that have gone down to reappear on the web without third party assistance.

ShofarPortfolio technology gives intense security for both data sources and data viewers.  Even secondary monitoring, such as traffic analysis, is thwarted for ShofarPortfolio users.  In keeping with the motto “We don’t know your stuff”, who is providing or viewing data remains completely cloaked.


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #11 

STRATFOR On DHS Failings, Wikileaks and Bradley Manning

This is meant to be an interesting insight into what the intelligence services (mainly STRATFOR along with their contacts in other agencies) are discussing on topics that are in the news. All information posted below is my own personal take on some of the interesting emails that were leaked to Wikileaks. The emails in question are from 2010 onwards and certain internal situations may have changed since.

Original emails will be referenced inside brackets ( )

Very brief description for parties discussed:

STRATFOR ~ Founded in 1996 by George Friedman who is the founder, chief intelligence officer, and CEO of the company which is located in Austin, Texas. (US) The companies vice president for Counterterrorism and Corporate Security is Fred Burton (arguably the most colourful of STRATFOR’s staff and the author of Chasing Shadows) who is considered “one of the world’s foremost experts on security, terrorists and terrorist organizations. STRATFOR is viewed as being ‘The Shadow CIA’ and is one of the most trusted sources for global intelligence gathering.

DHS ~ Formed on November 25th 2002 as a response to the 9/11 attacks that took place in New York on September 11th 2001. They employ over 240,000 staff and as of 2012 have an annual budget of US$60.4 billion. They are currently located at the Nebraska Avenue Complex in Washington DC, but put forward a $4.1 billion plan to Congress to consolidate its 60-plus Washington-area offices into a single headquarters complex at the St. Elizabeths Hospital campus in Anacostia, Southeast Washington, D.C. The earliest DHS would begin moving to St. Elizabeth’s is 2012. Janet Napolitano heads DHS as Secretary and is the fourth person to do so since its inception.

Wikileaks~ The site was first registered with GoDaddy on 4th October 2006 and is a not-for-profit media organisation whose goal is to try improve the transparency of world governments in order to create a better society for all people. Wikileaks is infamous for the publishing of many secret government documents and databases, allowing the public to know more about the world in which they live. Julian Assange is without a doubt the face of Wikileaks and is also generally recognised as the founder of the site. Mr Assange is also wanted for extradition to the States to face charges of making public classified government documents (US Diplomatic Cables) He is also wanted in Sweden to face questions involving the alleged rape and sexual assault, something that he hasn’t actually been charged for but is seen by most as a ploy by the US government to have Sweden extradite him to the US (being that the US still have the death penalty, this hopefully will not happen) who allegedly had a sealed indictment on Assange for a while now. Mr Assange has stated that he is willing to stand trial in Sweden as long as there are assurances that he won’t be extradited to the US. He is currently staying at the Ecuadorian embassy in London (UK) as the UK government are determined to extradite his to Sweden. The UK government has also issued a threat to Ecuador that they would invade the embassy in order to grab Assange. Wikileaks is credited with the disclosure of some very big leaks including documents on the Afghan War, classified documents on the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, US Diplomatic Cables (allegedly leaked by Bradley Manning) through to the biggest release in 2011 which consisted of just over 5 million emails from STRATFOR (Global Intelligence Files). The STRATFOR files were leaked to Wikileaks after LulzSec hacked STRATFOR on December 24th 2011. The attack was led by Sabu who was working for the FBI at the time of the attack as an informant. Being that Sabu was under a constant watch by the FBI with all computer activity being monitored 24/7, one has to assume that the FBI were fully aware of the attack.

Bradley Manning ~ Private First Class Bradley Manning is alleged to be the person to have leaked the US Diplomatic Cables to Wikileaks. The cables consisted of 250,000 diplomatic cables and 500,000 Army reports. The Army logs are better known as the  Iraq War logs and Afghan War logs. So far Bradley Manning has been held for 817 days without trial (the legal limit is 120 days) and there are also very disturbing reports that he was mistreated during this time. In December 2010, the UN said that they were going to investigating a complaint on behalf of Bradley Manning that he is being mistreated. Manning has served with the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division since joining the service in 2007. There remains quite a bit of confusion/ suspicion as to just how someone of his rank was granted access to such documents in the first place.

—————————————————————————————————

STRATFOR on DHS Failings and inadequacies

If there is one thing that is fairly consistent in the STRATFOR emails, it is the overall negative feeling against the ability of the Department of Home Security (DHS) and their ability to perform the tasks on which they were formed. Being that STRATFOR are viewed by many as extremely reliable in their intelligence gathering and analytics, their views on the DHS are worrying. There seems to be the overall tone that the DHS are more governed by political agenda rather that what need to be done to prevent the threat of terrorism.

Via Fred Burton (3546952)

DHS is an absolute nightmare from my perspective. Totally irrelevant to the legacy agencies who continue their work unabated in the field. Meanwhile back at DHS HQ, it’s a constant turnover of politically connected wanna be insiders. Imagine the Agency or FBI, that turned over personnel at the highest levels of the organization every 18 mos to 2 years – that in and of itself is a formula for disaster, the legacy agencies issue notwithstanding. They are also looking to the state fusion centers they pour millions of $ into, to be their de facto field offices. The fusion centers are often tasked by DHS central planning with briefing the state and locals on “non-specific threats” (like the one we are looking at now), one step ahead of the FBI if possible. It is freaking amature hour.

Mr Burton also makes reference to Janet Napolitano’s hands being effectively tied by the White House regarding domestic threats, specifically the Ft. Hood shooting that took place on November 5th (1211585)

The White House told Nancy Pelosi not to allow the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee to hold hearings into the domestic plots and attacks, specifically the Ft. Hood shooting.

The culprit is believed to be Holder.

Holder sat on the request for the FBI to respond to Ft. Hood, which substantiates why it took them 3 days to mobilize.

Motive – Politically, timing was bad for a Muslim terrorist attack on U.S. soil, however, the WH did not anticipate the follow on attacks (Detroit, Times Square) so now the WH’s arse is in a crack.

Napolitano told a very good source that her hands have been tied. She’s been told at a cabinet meeting not to push the domestic threat issue.

Another email sent to Fred Burton which was disclosed to analysts and tactical at STRATFOR shows the worrying inadequate leadership, lack of expertise, extreme politics and involvement of far too many outside contractors involved with DHS procedures. (385505)

** From a senior agent at DHS.

—————————————————————————

For your consumption only: it is a combination of inadequate leadership, lack of expertise, extreme politics and lousy procedures/equipment coupled with a forced rush to do something/anything yesterday, no matter how ineffective.
Another issue is that DHS in general has too many contractors whose first interest is furthering their company’s interests, and many of these folks couldn’t find their bottoms with both hands and a mirror. Unfortunately, the few direct hire staff end up overwhelmed by their contractor majority staffs.
Contractor footnote: have observed that the contractors are extremely adept at showing up at meetings in large numbers, eating the donuts and drinking the beverages without contributing anything more than body count.
Director told me that he has difficulties with all of the academic types who have jumped onto the counterterrorism bandwagon. They do some things very well, no question, but many times they are untimely (ever look at UofM’s START terrorism database?) and don’t answer the “so what” question; sortta like ending up with everything you ever want to know about something that is irrelevant. Or, as we used to say: some of the national labs are marketing solutions for problems that we didn’t have = “so what.”
Sounds jaundiced and there are surely some well-meaning TSA folks out there somewhere, but my assessment is that they are in the minority. Just wait until DHS moves 14,000 employees to the old St. Elizabeth Hospital site in SE Washington, and then maybe they will learn some real transportation security methodology.

Here is Mr Burton’s ‘Too many cooks’ response to Obama’s outlines steps to prevent terrorism (1100541)

Threat investigation is an art, but there is no single govt agency responsible. It depends upon the nature of the threat. So, the many cooks in the kitchen have to figure out who takes the lead in DC, but the originator of the threat reporting can run with the ball and direct his agent colleagues to take action in other posts. This was a very routine matter done 5-6 times a day, back on my watch. The inability to know who has the lead, provides the vacuum to be filled by those taking action in the field.

For example, here are the various threats and the lead agencies to investigate:

POTUS, VPOTUS – USSS
SecState, Embassies – State/DSS
Nuclear – FBI, CIA, DOE
US Homeland – FBI, DHS
Aviation – FBI, TSA, FAA

Clear as mudd, ain’t it?

Which is why WE would take the lead on every terror threat and run with the ball back in the day.

Fred Burton’s remarks on President Obama’s speech on the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day 2009 (1089652)

This is not a fixable problem.

DHS is dysfunctional and broke. FBI doesn’t share information w/DHS.

CIA has one foot in the grave. DIA is conspiring w/the FBI to bury the CIA.

Foggy Bottom has always been broke.

Meanwhile, NYPD is infiltrating aQ.

It is worrying when even well-known and experienced intelligence specialists have little faith in agencies like the DHS. The emails and remarks were made just over a year ago, but I seriously doubt that much has changed.

STRATFOR on Wikileaks

As to be expected there are a lot of emails regarding Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange. The feelings towards Mr Assange are pretty hostile although at least one of the analysts admitted to voting for him in Time magazines Person of the Year for 2010.  Assange won that year. (5521009)

i voted for assange. that makes me a tard. i thought the pic was great
with the ladies in the back.

Fred Burton on the tools that are being used to take down Wikileaks and cut off their finance (1067796)

Take down the money. Go after his infrastructure. The tools we are using to nail and de-construct Wiki are the same tools used to dismantle and track aQ. Thank Cheney & 43. Big Brother owns his liberal terrorist arse.

Fred Burton on how to deal with Assange, his family and associates (1056763)

One other point is this. Ferreting out his confederates is also key. Find out what other disgruntled rogues inside the tent or outside. Pile on. Move him from country to country to face various charges for the next 25 years. But, seize everything he and his family own, to include every person linked to Wiki.

In February it transpired via a leaked STRATFOR email that there was a sealed indictment already in place for Mr Assange which if anything makes what Wikileaks is doing even more important, in that there is a real need for more transparency in government rather that more secrecy. (375123)

Not for Pub –

We have a sealed indictment on Assange.

Pls protect

Fred Burton on US vice-president, Joe Biden’s comments stating that Julian Assange is a ”hi-tech terrorist” (1973411)

Opinions are like arseholes: Everyone has one and they all stink.

Why may ask lad is the case being handled by FBI CT and not CI?

Material witness warrant has already been made. Deaths have already occurred from what I’ve been told. Trying to find out where.

————————————————–

Like I had cited before, he can be prosecuted under the terrorism statutes. Wiki is a terrorist organization.

Fred Burton on a reply to one of the analysts thoughts on an article by The Age newspaper in May 2010. (1036081)

He needs to fall off a roof top.

Burton replying to a ‘Guide on the leaks’ thread  (364817)

We probably asked the ASIS to monitor Wiki coms and email, after the soldier from Potomac was nabbed. So, its reasonable to assume we probably already know who has done it.
The delay could be figuring out how to declassify and use the Aussie intel on Wiki.
Wiki holding on to other docs is to protect their sources.
The owner is a peacenik. He needs his head dunked in a full toilet bowl at Gitmo.

Fred Burton on Wikileaks founder (1040789)

The odd aspect in play here is the seated Grand Jury looking at inside the beltway leaks. DoJ is on a Nazi-like pursuit of leakers. I have it on very word that Obama himself is driving that train, in cahoots w/Holder. Wiki far surpasses anything some reporter from the NYT has done.

To which an analyst replies:

This means that the administration doesn’t buy the Bradley Manning story?
That they think there has to have been someone more high up?

That last question by the analyst is something that most people believe, in that Manning is basically being played for the fall guy.

Those are a fraction of the emails regarding Julian Assange and Wikileaks, but it does draw a pretty conclusive picture in that should Assange actually be extradited to the US, he can fully expect to be found guilty even before any actual trial begins. This is why I believe that it is incredibly important for him not to be tried in the US, as he is already viewed as a terrorist by the security services and intelligent agencies. If the US gov are truly not going to leave this alone, which they obviously won’t, it would be fairer for him to be tried in a neutral country where at least his safety would be assured.

 STRATFOR on Bradley Manning

As with Julian Assange and Wikileaks, there is also a lot of chatter regarding Bradley Manning. However, not all analysts seem to view Manning with the same hatred as they do Assange. There is a lot of discussion as to just how a young Private with next to zero field experience was able to access the US Diplomatic Cables and then allegedly pass them off to Wikileaks, (unproven) which would usually involve having security clearances well above what he had, but apart from an assumed/ possibly misinterpreted comment above (1040789)  that is mainly it.

Fred Burton does however state that a very senior man at the FBI has said that there is no way the Manning will stand trial, but he should hopefully fry instead (386477)

From: “Fred Burton”
To: “Analyst List” , “TACTICAL”

Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2010 8:16:14 PM
Subject: Manning & Wiki Founder Arrest/Prosecution?

>From a very senior man @ the FBI — (not for attribution to the FBI pls)

——————————————————————

There is no way the administration wants to put him on trial. That
would be a huge circus. Manning should fry and hopefully will

Please note that according to Mr Burton in his replying comment, ‘fry’ means to be severely punished in FBI speak. (same email)

Emre:

We cannot source the comment specifically to the FBI, but can say a
reliable Stratfor source reports…..

Fry means pay severely for his actions in the intel lingo.

I think Manning could get the death penalty. Depends if the DOD goes after
him for espionage vice unauthorized disclosure.


http://techfleece.com/2012/08/21/stratfor-on-dhs-failings-wikileaks-and-bradley-manning/


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #12 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/who-is-wikileaks-suspect-bradley-manning/2011/04/16/AFMwBmrF_print.html


Bradley Manning is at the center of the WikiLeaks controversy. But who is he?

By ,

In January 2010, more than 130 people gathered to celebrate the opening of Room B-28, a “hacker space” in the basement of the computer science building at Boston University. The room had two rows of computers running open-source software, and, in conformity to the hacker ethic, its walls were painted with wildly colored murals, extensions of the free expression to be practiced there. That was the reason for the power tools, too — in case someone wanted to build something amazing and beautiful, such as the musical staircase, under construction now, that chimes when you step on it.

One of the visitors was a young Army specialist named Bradley Manning, on leave from duty in Iraq. He had been working with computers, modifying code, since he was a kid. David House, founder of the hacker space, said he immediately sensed that Manning “was in the community,” someone who understood how technology could be empowering. This was the sort of world Manning hoped to inhabit one day, friends said. He had joined the Army so the GI Bill would finance his education. He had his eye on a PhD in physics.

Days later, he would be on a plane back to Baghdad and a culture where rule-breaking was not celebrated. And eight months after that, House — who had chatted with the man for barely 15 minutes — went to visit him in the brig at the Quantico Marine Base in Virginia, where Manning was being held as the prime suspect inthe largest national security leak in U.S. history.

He is accused of violating military computer security and leaking classified information to the insurgent Web site WikiLeaks. He faces 22 charges, including “aiding the enemy,” a capital crime. The material includes a video of an Apache helicopter firing on civilians in Baghdad, daily field reports from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a quarter-million cables from U.S. diplomats around the world. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has called the cable leaks “an attack on America’s foreign policy interests.”

For most of the past year, Manning spent 23 hours a day alone in a 6-by-12-foot jail cell. His case has become a rallying point for free-information activists, who say the leaked information belongs to the American people. They compare the 23-year-old former intelligence analyst to Daniel Ellsberg, leaker of the Vietnam War-era Pentagon Papers, and decry excessive government secrecy. “What is happening to our government when Bradley Manning is charged with aiding the enemy?” asked Pete Perry, an organizer with the Bradley Manning Support Network. “Who is the enemy? Information? The American people?”

The case raises troubling issues. Placing information in the public domain has never before been construed as aiding the enemy. Manning had a history of emotional outbursts throughout his youth, and they continued during his Army service, culminating in a breakdown in Baghdad.

How did a young man of such promise wind up in a brig? And how was he in a position to potentially access sensitive material given what the Army knew — or should have known — about him? Who is Bradley Manning, and what made him the way he is?

***

Manning’s path to jail began in a one-stoplight Oklahoma town so pious he liked to quip that it had “more pews than people.” There are a dozen churches in Crescent’s one square mile, and its pastures are dotted with oil derricks and bales of hay.

Manning’s parents — a young Navy veteran skilled in computer programming and his Welsh wife — moved to Oklahoma from California in 1983 with their 7-year-old daughter, Casey. Brian Manning had married Susan Fox the day after his 21st birthday in Wales, where he had been stationed.

The couple had tried for years to have another child, so Bradley’s arrival exactly 11 years after his sister’s was an occasion. His early years, spent in Arizona and Oklahoma, were happy ones. The girl was crazy for her little brother, bounced him on her knees as he “laughed and laughed.” His mother noticed that even as a 6-month-old, Bradley was fascinated by the computer. “He would sit with his father and just peck, peck, peck” at the keyboard, she said in an interview during a trip to see her son at Quantico.

The family lived in a neatly kept two-story house on five acres on an isolated dirt road several miles outside Crescent, where they had what Casey calls a “hobby farm.” There were two horses, a cow, pigs and chickens, a large vegetable garden and a pond stocked with perch. Susan was a homemaker and expert knitter who worked odd jobs but never learned to drive. She was a doting, even indulgent mother who let Bradley cover the entire second-story floor with his Lego creations.

Bradley was like a “hummingbird,” said his aunt, Debra Manning. “Always moving fast, taking a short rest, then back in motion again.” He’d talk just as quickly, his words tumbling over his thoughts.

When Bradley was no more than 7 or 8, Brian brought home a computer programming book and introduced his son to the C++ programming language. Much later, his dad helped him build a computer. “He loved anything electronic,” recalled a family friend, Mary Egelston.

His outstanding intellect was apparent early in school. He earned straight A’s and studied in advanced classes along with Jordan Davis, his oldest friend, now living in a suburb of Oklahoma City. Though Bradley played the sax and both boys were on a youth basketball team, Davis said, “he was a pretty big nerd, and so was I.”

“Extremely bright,” said one of his teachers, with a “vocabulary, a depth of knowledge that most fifth-graders didn’t have.” He won top prize in the science fair three years in a row.

Bradley was also a wisecracker who was not shy about expressing his opinions — even to teachers, whom he sometimes corrected. The other children would say, “Oh, Bradley, he always thinks he knows everything,” recalled Egelston, who used to be a substitute teacher. “Well, Bradley, little munchkin that he is, he would stand up for what he believes.”

Even in elementary school, Bradley showed an interest in the world. He would argue that the United States had a right to assert its military power overseas to protect its interests, Davis said. Former classmate Chera Moore admired his outspokenness. “He was just the most intelligent boy I’ve ever met,” she said.

In sixth grade, Bradley became the first student from Crescent to win a statewide academic meet. When he went on stage to collect his trophy in Oklahoma City, his parents were not there. Indeed, Brian and Susan Manning did not take an active interest in Bradley’s schooling or grades, even skipping parent-teacher conferences. “[Kids are] the ones that have to grow up,” Susan Manning said in explanation. “Nobody else is going to do it for you.”

Other parents looked out for him. When Bradley and his friend Paden Radford went to academic meets in other towns, Paden’s mother, Jacqueline Radford, said she “always made sure Paden had enough money to pay extra if Bradley didn’t have any. The teacher would sometimes pitch in. That’s what we do around here.” One summer, Bradley went on an East Coast school bus trip with Paden’s father acting as his chaperone. It was evident that Bradley was “trying to find out where he fit in the world,” Mark Radford said.

He did a lot of that searching on his own. Brian Manning, who worked in information technology for Hertz, took business trips to Europe for five or six weeks at a time, Susan recalled. “Come home on a Saturday, then sleep on Sunday, go back to work on Monday and leave on another trip on Friday,” she said.

The absences strained Bradley’s relationship with his father, family members said. And when Brian was home, he was, one relative said, “far too strict” — in contrast to a mother who was “far too soft.”

Bradley was “afraid of his dad,” Davis said. He recalled how Bradley once told him that “he had to hide out in a tree” or that “his dad was going at him with a belt.” Once, when Bradley was in the second grade or so, his father gave him a spanking so severe that the next day at school, he told his teacher he could not sit down, his mother and sister said. His father was also “abusive with words,” Susan Manning said.

(Brian Manning did not respond to requests for interviews.)

Bradley’s mother had drunk for years, but, she said, her habit grew worse in Crescent, where the family lived in relative isolation. She added vodka to her morning tea and rum to her afternoon Coke. “She just basically drank once she got up and till she went to bed,” Casey said. Susan said she was having problems in her marriage and turned to the bottle for solace. She admitted the drinking affected her children: “I wasn’t just hurting myself. I know that. But you don’t think that at the time. You get so down that you don’t care.”

The children learned early to be self-reliant. By age 6, Bradley could dress himself and get his own breakfast cereal. When Brian traveled, he would leave envelopes containing pre-written checks, and Casey would mail them. Her mother, she said, never learned how to write a check.

Bradley also began acting out. On a family trip to Florida when he was 9 or 10, one of his cousins touched his laptop, inadvertently clearing the screen. Angered, Bradley hurled an ironing board across the rented villa, recalled his aunt Sharon Staples. Moore, his former classmate, said that if someone crossed him, “he’d pick up a book or notebook and slam it on his desk, or his face would turn bright red.”

But on his computer, Bradley could transcend life in his small Midwestern town. “He was always thinking outside Crescent, Oklahoma,” Paden Radford said. “He was always a step ahead of most people.” By middle school, Bradley was altering lines of code to transform a computer-game character’s appearance, just for fun. “I don’t know too many 13-year-olds who can re-skin a model,” Davis said.

Playing computer games, Bradley discovered the world of ideas. The game Call to Power II, for instance, prompted him and Davis to discuss using technology to achieve democracy. It was during one of those discussions that Bradley mentioned the concept that “information wants to be free,” which had become a tenet of the hacker community. “Bradley was interested in hacking — not in doing it, but in theory,” Davis said.

Susan and Brian’s troubles escalated, and by the fall of 1999, Brian had moved out. The divorce in 2000, Egelston recalled, “rocked their world.” It was especially hard on young Bradley, who moved with his mother to a smaller, rented house in town. Casey was by now in college.

That same year, his father remarried, and the new wife’s son changed his name to Manning. One afternoon in 2001, Bradley came home devastated after a visit to his father, Susan Manning recalled. He felt replaced by his stepbrother, Dustin. Bradley began literally climbing the wall in frustration — taking two or three steps, running up the wall, then hopping off, over and over. She called Egelston and asked her to intercede. Egelston finally got him to his room and sat him down. He was “just totally frustrated,” Egelston recalled. He blurted out: “Nobody understands!” He confessed his sense of rejection to his mother. “I’m nobody now, Mom,” he said.

Bradley was now an adolescent, coming into his sexual awakening. The summer he was 13, he confided to Davis and another friend that he had a crush on a boy. “It was, I guess, me,” Davis said. “I was flattered. It was a little bit awkward.” Bradley came out to his mother, very matter-of-factly, at the dining room table about the same time. She remembers telling him it was “okay with me, but try not to tell other people — especially your dad.”

***

Bradley did not speak openly of the turmoil at home. Besides, big things were happening in the world, and even as a 13-year-old, he was keenly aware of current events. On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Bradley and Jordan Davis saw the footage of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. “Oh, man, this is unbelievable,” Davis recalled them saying. The boys felt that they were alone in their class in seeing the “game-changing” nature of the attack. “This was going to be by far the biggest event of this decade and maybe the next, probably one of the biggest events of this new century.”

It was amid this turbulence that Manning’s mother decided to return to Wales, and in November, Bradley announced to surprised friends and teachers that he was leaving. They flew from Washington on Thanksgiving Day after spending a few nights in Potomac with Bradley’s Aunt Debbi, Brian’s older sister. Bradley, by now the man of the family, had made the airline reservations online himself.

They settled into a three-bedroom apartment in Haverfordwest, Wales, near his mother’s family. Though Bradley made a few friends, he spent a lot of time in his room playing games and listening to music on his computers.

Wales was not an easy fit. “All the things he knew — politically, culturally, all his comfort zone — were all of a sudden gone,” said his uncle Joseph Staples.

Kids picked on him. “Some days, he was relieved to get home from school,” said his aunt Sharon Staples. “He’d run. He never walked.” Once on a camping trip with friends, she said, “he woke up, and all the tents around him were gone. They left while he was sleeping.”

His mother’s drinking continued to be a concern to the boy, and he told relatives he was afraid she would die. When he graduated from high school in 2005, he returned to Oklahoma, where his father had offered to get him a job in technology.

Bradley moved in with Brian, his second wife (also named Susan) and her son, who was about Bradley’s age. They lived in a ranch-style house in Oklahoma City, where Bradley, now 17, began work at a software start-up, Zoto Inc.With its Macs, white boards and robots tooling around, Zoto appealed to Bradley’s tech sensibilities. The young man certainly had aptitude, recalled Zoto co-founder Kord Campbell. He was also politically switched-on, intelligent beyond his years. “Here I was a grown man, and he could run circles around me” talking about Iraq and Afghanistan, Campbell said.

Bradley showed a political consciousness about the Iraq war. “He didn’t like that people were being killed, particularly the citizens, innocent people,” Campbell said. “I remember us specifically talking about how we were having a hard time getting information on how many people were being killed.”

The youth confided in Campbell about his home life, expressing frustration with his mother — “ ‘I felt like I was the parent with her’ ” — and his stepmother — “ ‘My stepmom hates me.’ ” Campbell came to the conclusion that “nobody’s been taking care of this kid for a really long time.”

As they grew closer, Campbell began to notice worrisome incidents. There were moments when Bradley would just “sit there and stare,” he said. Once, when Campbell was teaching Bradley to drive, Bradley failed to brake as he approached a stop sign. When Campbell spoke up, Bradley stopped the car but then “just locked up,” Campbell said. “I had to put on the emergency brakes, get out, walk around the car, open the door and touch him before he finally snapped out of it.”

The odd behavior became more frequent, Campbell said, and he suspected drug use. Manning had trouble focusing on work, and it became increasingly difficult to communicate with him, Campbell said. Finally, he told Bradley he needed to deal with his problems and fired him. He was sorry, he said, but he had a business to run.

At home, Bradley and his stepmother fought over money, over his smoking, over his leaving empty Dr Pepper cans under his bed. In March 2006, the two got into such a row that Susan called 911, saying Bradley had threatened her with a knife. Her husband had fallen while trying to protect her, she told the dispatcher.

In the tape of the call, an angry Susan can be heard screaming at Brad: “Get away from him! You get away from him!” In the background, a concerned Bradley asks his father, “Are you okay?”

Susan told the dispatcher that Bradley was upset “because I have been telling him he needs to get a job, and he won’t get a job.”

In the audio, she lays down an ultimatum to his father: “You better find somewhere for him to go, because he ain’t staying here.” (In March of this year, Brian Manning filed for divorce.)

So Bradley took the old red Nissan pickup his dad had given him and hit the road.

***

In July 2006, Bradley’s aunt in Potomac received a call from her former sister-in-law in Wales. Bradley was in Chicago, broke and living out of his truck in someone’s driveway. Could Debbi help?

Debra Manning called Bradley on his cellphone and offered to wire him money. She also offered him a temporary place to stay. About 30 hours later, Bradley showed up at her house. He had driven almost 700 miles in one day.

Thus began a 15-month interlude in the Washington area that would be one of the most tranquil in Bradley’s life. He found a job at Abercrombie & Fitch, then a better one at Starbucks. With his uncle’s help, he enrolled in Montgomery College, in the hope that it might be a steppingstone to the University of Maryland. After one semester in which he failed an exam, he dropped out and never returned.

Still, he seemed productive and more or less happy. “He was extremely organized, extremely tidy,” his aunt said. “This was not somebody who was flailing around.” So she was stunned when, over dinner at the now-gone Broadway Diner in Rockville, Bradley announced that he had enlisted in the Army and would be leaving in a week or so. To her concerned questions, he replied that service would allow him to go to college.

Debra would later learn that it was her brother who encouraged Bradley to enlist because, he said, it would give structure to his son’s life. “Twisted his arm,” was how Brian Manning put it to a PBS “Frontline” correspondent.

In October 2007, Pvt. Manning reported for basic training at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri. “He really didn’t like a lot of the people,” said a friend in Washington. “They weren’t very nice to him.” At 5-foot-2, “he was the smallest guy in the group. There are two types of small guys: the guys, who, if you mess around with them, they break your arm. And then there are the type who just take it. And he just took it.”

***

Despite his struggles, Manning was excited about his future in Army intelligence, a field that suited his analytical mind. “It’s going to be a different crowd when I get through with basic,” he told the friend. “I’m going to be with people more like me.”

He enjoyed classes at the Fort Huachuca, Ariz., intelligence school, where he received a top-secret security clearance, graduated and joined the 2nd Brigade, 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y.

It was here, constrained by the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, that he began speaking out anonymously about gay rights. He attended a rally in Syracuse and noted on Facebook that he had gotten an “anonymous mention” in an article. The reporter wrote of a gay soldier who complained he was “living a double life. ... I can’t make a statement. I can’t be caught in an act.”

Manning now had a love interest: Tyler Watkins, a freshman interested in neuroscience at Brandeis University who was an active member of Triskelion, the Brandeis club for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students. Manning began to make weekend visits to Watkins’s dorm at the tranquil, wooded campus west of Boston. On his Facebook page, Watkins declared that he was “totally in love with Bradley Edward Manning!!!!!!!”

The trips to Boston exposed Manning to new friends and a vibrant tech community. A friend named Danny Clark introduced him to Pika House, a rambling, cooperative-style clapboard house near the Massachusetts Institute of Technology whose residents — mostly students — practiced creative chaos: tacking circuit boards to the ceiling, hanging a traffic signal upside down from the porch.

Clark, who runs a small software firm, provided a sympathetic ear to Manning’s Army and family woes. “He always seemed in control. Even when he was in desperate situations, he came up with inventive ways to be as fine as possible. ... I was part of the world he hoped to join after he got out of the Army,” Clark said.

Manning was not adapting well to the military culture. He clashed with a roommate he thought was anti-gay and one he thought was racist, according to a friend. He quarreled with other soldiers and pushed some chairs in anger. By August 2009, a supervisor, Master Sgt. Paul D. Adkins, noted that he was showing signs of “instability” and required him to seek mental health counseling, according to an Army report. Manning received an initial screening but no regular therapy, the report said. Because he could not discuss his romantic relationship with an Army therapist, Manning on his own saw a civilian counselor off the base.

Adkins and a major discussed leaving Manning behind when the unit deployed to Iraq in the fall, “as I felt he was a risk to himself and possibly others,” Adkins said in a statement. But the Army was short on intelligence analysts in Iraq. Manning was clearly bright and his behavior had started to improve, so his superiors decided to send him.

At the same time, Manning tried to reassure his family he would be okay. He told his aunt he was eager to use his training in a war zone. He told his sister not to worry because he would be “in an air-conditioned trailer behind the front line.”

On one of his last visits to Boston, Manning told Keith Rose, a friend he had met at Brandeis, of his misgivings about Iraq because of what he was learning as an intelligence analyst. “He expressed a feeling to me like how messed up the situation is,” Rose said. “He said things like, ‘If more people knew what was going on over there, they would not support the war.’ ”

In Baghdad, Manning worked in a drab warehouse-like building called a sensitive compartmented information facility, or SCIF. His job at Forward Operating Base Hammer was to detect threats in locally gathered information to keep troops out of danger. He told friends he enjoyed the intellectual challenge.

He also confided that his supervisor “completely knew [he was gay] and had no problem with it as long as he did his job properly,” Rose said. A few others knew, too, Manning told Clark, but in deference to the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy, he limited his gay signals to small things that wouldn’t get him tossed out of the Army. He kept a fairy wand on his desk and used an online account password of TWinkl.

Three months into his Baghdad assignment, by now promoted a rank, Manning had a two-week leave and flew back to the States to see his relatives in Potomac and his boyfriend in Boston. He also saw Clark, who took him to the hacker space open house at Boston University, a high point of his leave.

During the visit, according to Wired.com, which interviewed Watkins, Manning confided to his boyfriend that he had “gotten his hands on” sensitive information and was considering passing it to WikiLeaks. Since the Wired story, Watkins has not spoken to the media and did not return phone calls for this article. (After Manning’s arrest, federal investigators swooped into Boston looking for leads on WikiLeaks among Manning’s friends in the tech community, which one called a chilling experience.)

The lovers were not getting along. One evening, they went to a Triskelion meeting, and Rose said he noticed Manning sitting dejectedly in a corner. “He came home expecting some kind of homecoming, to be embraced. Instead, he’d been ignored.”

***

Shortly after Manning returned to Baghdad in February, WikiLeaks began posting documents that appeared to have been leaked from inside the U.S. government. They included an Army counterintelligence report warning of the risk of leaks from within the Army to WikiLeaks.

Founded in late 2006 by a peripatetic Australian and former hacker named Julian Assange, the site was conceived as an “uncensorable system for untraceable mass document leaking,” with servers peppered throughout the world. By early 2010, it had earned some ink for posting the “Climate-gate” e-mails from a British university and Sarah Palin’s private Yahoo e-mails.

But it was the April 2010 posting of a 2007 video shot from a U.S. Army helicopter hovering over the streets of Baghdad that put WikiLeaks on the map. The action is viewed through the crosshairs of an Apache gunship, as unseen shooters take aim at suspected insurgents, saying, “Light ’em all up. Come on, fire!” The gunfire killed about a dozen people, including two Reuters employees — a driver and a photographer, whose lens had been mistaken for a weapon. WikiLeaks dubbed the piece “Collateral Murder.”

Not long after, Manning e-mailed friends a link to the video, urging them to check it out. According to Wired.com, Manning messaged Watkins, asking, “Are people talking about it? ... That was one of his major concerns, that once he had done this, was it really going to make a difference? ... He wanted people held accountable and wanted to see this didn’t happen again.”

The same month the video appeared, Manning began to exhibit “bizarre behavior” at work, including showing “blank stares when spoken to” and stopping in mid-sentence, according to Master Sgt. Adkins in a memorandum written for an investigation into whether any supervisors should be punished for failing to properly discipline Manning and for failing to run a secure SCIF. The following sequence of events is taken from that report, portions of which were read to The Post.

Manning’s strange behavior increased in “frequency and intensity” and gave “an impression of disrespect and disinterest” to his superiors. Adkins sent Manning not to a therapist but to a chaplain.

On May 7, Manning left his work area about 6:30 p.m. and was found an hour later “sitting on the floor in a fetal position in a storage room.” It appeared as though he had been cutting open a vinyl chair. Etched in the chair were the words “I want.” A Gerber army knife lay at his feet.

Later that evening, having returned to his shift, he struck a female soldier in the face. He would later say he had no intention of hitting her and had no idea why he did.

The brigade psychiatrist, Capt. Edan Critchfield, diagnosed an “occupational problem and adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.” Two sources familiar with the case said Manning’s adjustment disorder was related to “gender identity.” The psychiatrist recommended that Manning be discharged. The bolt was removed from his weapon, and he was reassigned to work in the supply room.

A day later, Capt. Matthew Freeburg decided to suspend Manning’s top-secret security clearance but never processed the paperwork. On May 24, Manning was demoted to private first class because of the assault.

Adkins, Critchfield and Freeburg all declined to comment for this story.

***

With his military career disintegrating, Manning turned to cyberspace. On May 9, he sent a Facebook message to a novelist in Minneapolis he had never met, wondering if he could speak to him “in confidence, sometime in the next year or so?”

Jonathan Odell, who is gay and writes about race and culture in the American South, said he was intrigued when Manning wrote that he had been involved in some “ ‘very high-profile events,’ albeit as a nameless individual thus far.”

Odell perused Manning’s Facebook wall. Manning again linked to an interview he gave anonymously, this time telling the Washington Blade (in an April 1, 2010, piece) that even though he was stressed because of the military’s gay policy, he had to “dodge” questions about sexuality in therapy sessions.

Odell said he thought the soldier “was reaching out for someone to tell his story” and messaged back that he understood, he had read the Facebook posts.

“Facebook,” Manning replied, “doesn’t even touch the surface.”

Odell said he never heard from Manning again.

Instead, less than two weeks later, an e-mail from Manning popped up in Sacramento on the laptop screen of Adrian Lamo, who had been convicted in 2004 of breaching the computer systems of the New York Times and others, and sentenced to six months’ house arrest. Lamo, a controversial figure in the hacker community, said in a series of phone interviews that he speculated that he had come to Manning’s attention because of tweets he wrote suggesting people donate money to WikiLeaks.

They continued their correspondence by instant message. Manning’s handle was Bradass87. He said he was an intelligence analyst pending discharge and had had “unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months.” He also painted himself as “isolated,” “desperate,” “broken” and “self-medicating like crazy.”

And in the following hours, according to excerpts of chat logs provided to The Washington Post and Wired.com by Lamo, Manning referred extensively to what he said he found in the networks, including the quarter-million State Department cables — most of them unclassified — and the Baghdad video, “i want the material out there,” he said.

(The logs — Lamo provided The Post a small portion — have been authenticated by Army investigators, according to an intelligence official familiar with aspects of the case. According to a second source, the investigators matched the logs on Lamo’s hard drives with logs found on Manning’s hard drive.)

Lamo was impressed by the video leak but, he said, felt uneasy about the cables. He consulted an ex-boyfriend who had worked in counterintelligence, who advised him to turn the soldier in. Lamo did, three days after he began chatting with Manning. The chats continued, with Lamo probing for details.

And Manning appeared to be providing them, expressing a sense of outrage about the United States’ conduct in war and foreign policy. He said the cables revealed “crazy, almost criminal political backdealings.” In a chat published by Wired.com, he said: “The thing that got me most was discovering that 15 detainees taken by the Iraqi Federal Police for printing ‘anti-Iraqi’ literature” had in truth printed a “benign political critique” against the corruption in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s cabinet. He “ran” that information to his superior. But the officer “told me to shut up and explain how we could assist” the federal police in finding more detainees.

“Everything started slipping after that,” he wrote. “I was actively involved in something that i was completely against.”

He noted at another point that if he were “more malicious,” he could have sold the cables to China or Russia — “made bank.” But the data, he said, belong in the public domain. “Information should be free.”

Lamo later said he was “deeply conflicted” about reporting Manning, “given that Bradley is an individual acting out of his conscience and his desire to make the world a better place. ... However, he was actively trying to disrupt U.S. foreign policy.”

Lamo asked Manning what he would do if his role with WikiLeaks “seemed in danger of being blown?”

Manning replied: “i don’t think it’s going to happen”

“i mean, i was never noticed ...

“and who would honestly expect so much information to be exfiltrated from a field network?”

***

Long before the terrorist attacks of 2001, the Defense Department created a secure network to share operational plans and intelligence among military personnel. The data obtained by WikiLeaks came from this network, the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, or SIPRNet, to which more than half a million people have access. State Department cables are also accessible through SIPRnet because the department has found it less costly to piggyback on the military’s network than to build its own. But only employees with a “need to know” are authorized to see these cables.

Manning, despite his clearance, would not have had such a need. The Army alleges that he “knowingly exceeded [his] authorized access” to obtain the cables. He also lacked access to portions of the Afghan and Iraq databases, said the intelligence official familiar with the case, and allegedly installed unauthorized software on the SIPRnet to get at them.

The Army had security protocols that would have prevented the breach if followed, the official added. But safeguards to detect unauthorized installation of software had not been activated at the SCIF. Audit logs of computer activity were not reviewed. Bags were not inspected as personnel entered and left. To boost morale, the official said, people were allowed to bring in CDs and listen to them.

“The unit personnel that had responsibility for security of the network failed to do their job,” the official said. “It was flat-out apathy and a failure of the chain of command.”

In the chats, Manning appeared to share that view. “Everyone just sat at their workstations ... writing more stuff to CD/DVD,” he wrote Lamo. “ [The] culture fed opportunities. ... weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counterintelligence, inattentive signal analysis ... a perfect storm.”

Manning, with his history of emotional fragility, should at a minimum have had his clearance reviewed, said Joel F. Brenner, former national counterintelligence executive. His outbursts and emotional issues “should have been the big trigger.”

Nobody “cared about him,” said the intelligence official familiar with the case. “If somebody had taken an interest or tried to work with him, that very well may have changed his behavior.”

David Charney, a psychiatrist who has consulted on espionage cases, said supervisors can be trained to recognize signs of distress in people before they take actions that could harm national security. Young adults often don’t know their place in the world. “When there’s a lot of confusion about that,” he said, “then you really are talking about a deeper sense of being unmoored in life.”

***

Bradley Manning was detained on May 29 and held in Kuwait. On July 29, he was transferred to Quantico, where his treatment became an international cause celebre. The U.N. special rapporteur on torture asked to see him without being monitored but was not permitted to do so. In mid-April, Manning was moved to a medium-security facility at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, which officials said has a greater array of mental health services. He has been deemed competent to stand trial. Army officials said he "maintains a presumption of innocence" throughout the pretrial process. He had not entered a plea as this story went to press.

“We have seen nothing that proves to us that he did it,” Debra Manning said.

Friends and relatives who have visited Manning say he tries to keep abreast of current events, following, for instance, the uprisings across the Middle East and the men’s college basketball tournament.

“He tries to think about the outside world as much as possible,” his cousin Chris in Potomac said. “You can tell he doesn’t want his mind confined to the prison.”

Ellen Nakashima is a Washington Post staff writer. She can be reached at nakashimae@washpost.com. Staff writer Greg Jaffe and staff researchers Julie Tate, Alice Crites and Jennifer Jenkins contributed to this story. This portrait of Manning’s life comes from interviews with more than 30 relatives, friends and colleagues. Some asked for anonymity because of the political sensitivity of the case.


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #13 

32 Interesting facts about WikiLeaks

Image of WikiLeaks flag by Graphic Tribe


“For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.”
Mark 4:22


One way secret things are being manifested, is through a website called, “WikiLeaks.”

Julian Assange launched WikiLeaks in December 2006.  The Australian programmer and internet activist created WikiLeaks.org as an international website dedicated to publishing secretive, private or classified information.

Here are 32 interesting facts about WikiLeaks.

Interesting facts about WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks purpose

  • Fact #1- The goal of Wikileaks is “to bring important news and information to the public… One of our most important activities is to publish original source material alongside our news stories so readers and historians alike can see evidence of the truth.”

WikiLeaks founder

  • Fact #2- Julian Assange was born July 3, 1971 in Queensland, Australia.
  • Fact #3- On July 19, 2010 Assange spoke at an Oxford TED conference.
  • Fact #4- In 2010 Assange received several awards including the Sam Adams Award and the Readers’ Choice Award for TIME’s Person of the Year.
  • Fact #5- Assange entered London’s Ecuadorian embassy on June 19, 2012 claiming he was persecuted and requesting political asylum.  On August 16, 2012 the British government granted Assange political asylum, but told him he would be arrested if he attempts to leave Ecuador’s embassy.

WikiLeaks staff

  • Fact #6- In 2010 the WikiLeaks team had about five full-time employees and about 800 part-time volunteers.
  • Fact #7- There is no official headquarters for WikiLeaks staff.

WikiLeaks history

  • Fact #8- In WikiLeaks first year, they obtained more than 1.2 million documents.
  • Fact #9- WikiLeaks started out as a wiki that users could edit.  Since May 2010, WikiLeaks no longer no longer allows users to comment or edit the website.

WikiLeaks.org hosting service

  • Fact #10- The domain http://www.WikiLeaks.org was hosted by a Swedish company PRQ until August 2010.  Now Wikileaks is mainly hosted by Bahnhof in an old Swedish nuclear bunker.
  • Fact #11- Besides it main servers in Sweden, WikiLeaks has several servers in undisclosed countries.
  • Fact #12- WikiLeaks information is encrypted to protect leak sources.
  • Fact #13- Assange said he feels Switzerland and Iceland are the only countries WikiLeaks activities can be secure.

Wikileaks funding models

  • Fact #14- WikiLeaks only source of revenue is donations.
  • Fact #15- WikiLeaks has considered auctioning off early access to documents to raise money.
  • Fact #16- Wikileaks began to auction items through Ebay to raise money in September 2011.
  • Fact #17- In 2010, WikiLeaks received about €600,000 through PayPal donations, and about €696,000 through bank transfers.
  • Fact #18- One of the major WikiLeaks donors is the Wau Holland Foundation, which has given over €370,000 to WikiLeaks.
  • Fact #19- Since June 15, 2011, WikiLeaks has accepted donations through Bitcoin.

Well-known leaks related to human rights issues

  • Fact #20- In April 2010, WikiLeaks published a 39-minute video that included a 2007 U.S. helicopter airstrike on Baghdad in which Iraqi journalists were killed and children were seriously injured.  One of the U.S. attackers said it was the children’s parents fault for bringing their children with them.
  • Fact #21- In April 2011, WikiLeaks began publishing 779 secret files about prisoners in the prison at Guantanamo Bay.  These files showed more than 150 innocent people from Afghanistan and Pakistan were detained for years without being charged.

Recent WikiLeaks

  • Fact #22- On February 27, 2012, WikiLeaks began to publish some five million emails from Stratfor, a global intelligence company in Texas.
  • Fact #23- On July 5, 2012, WikiLeaks began to publish the Syria Files, which contain over two million emails from Syrian companies and politicians.

Possible upcoming WikiLeaks

  • Fact #24- In 2009 Assange said it had 5GB of documents revealing corruption within majors banks, including the Bank of America.  Bank of America’s stock fell 3% after the announcement.
  • Fact #25- In May 2010 WikiLeaks said it had a video of a massacre of Afghan civilians by the U.S. military.

Criticism

  • Fact #26- Some U.S. officials criticized WikiLeaks for releasing classified information that could compromise national security and diplomacy.
  • Fact #27- Some human rights organizations criticized WikiLeaks for not removing people’s names from sensitive documents.
  • Fact #28- Some journalists criticized WikiLeaks’ lack of discretion in releasing thousands of documents at a time without sufficient analysis.
  • Fact #29- Some Christians criticized WikiLeaks for publishing sensitive publications only meant for church leaders.

Praise

  • Fact #30- In 2008 WikiLeaks received the New Media Award from The Economist.
  • Fact #31- In 2009 WikiLeaks received the New Media Award from Amnesty International.
  • Fact #32- In 2010, WikiLeaks was listed first among websites “that could totally change the news,” by the New York Daily News.

“True information does good.”

-Julian Assange


Personal Notes:  It’s hard for me to know what to think about WikiLeaks.  While I like the idea of exposing corruption, I don’t appreciate some of the leaks Wikileaks released.  I think there is some private information that should be kept private.  Unless there is corruption to reveal, I don’t think it’s necessary to publish private information from good-willed organizations.  I’m grateful to know God is just and will take care of any injustices that happen in this life.


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #14 

The Day the Internet Died

When Hosni Mubarak Shut Off Cell Phones and the Internet in January 2011 Was the Moment When More Egyptians than Ever Went Out into the Streets


By the Narco News School of Authentic Journalism
An Oral History of the Egyptian Revolution

October 29, 2012

Publisher’s Note: As we were preparing this page for publication on October 29, the post-tropical storm that ravaged the east coast of the United States caused massive power outages and put more than eight million people in the dark. The New York City building that houses Narco News’ Internet server lost electricity, our server was successfully transferred to


This manual-in-progress is for journalists, community organizers and practitioners of civil resistance to help ourselves and each other develop better skills, strategies and tactics.
an onsite power generator, but soon after that flooding downed the fuel pumps to the generator, and all our websites were no longer available online until 6 a.m. this morning. It was an experience eerily relevant to the title of this page: The Day the Internet Died. One of the reasons we didn’t panic is that we had already heard the testimony of the Egyptians who speak on this page about their own experience – during the revolution of 2011 – when it was a regime, and not the weather, that shut down the entire Internet and cell phone system throughout the country. They triumphed in toppling a dictator not just in spite of the attack on their main communications systems, but also, paradoxically, at least in part because of it. If you doubt that, or think it incredible, you’ll probably find their testimonies about their own lived experience very interesting, or at least very challenging to the assumptions of many that technology – and not people – is what makes change happen today.

Since 2000, Narco News has reported about many social movements, community organizing and civil resistance campaigns. Some succeeded in their goals. Others did not. In this work we have found common practices shared by many victorious struggles, and common errors or missteps shared by many that did not succeed. The sum of lessons learned through reporting thousands of these stories in many lands today becomes the basis for a massive, free, online and multimedia resource that Narco News, with the scholars and professors of our school, have begun preparing for The School of Authentic Journalism’s Manual to Change the World. This page you are reading right now is the very first lesson presented of many to come. The Manual will feature more pages, like this one, with the testimony of the Egyptians on how they accomplished the first step of their revolution – toppling the dictator – and continue advancing toward the longer-term goal of toppling the dictatorship. The Manual will also include stories of how civil resistance and organizing battles in other lands were won, and also checklists and “how to” lessons from authentic journalists who reported them to share their skills and experiences so that anyone can learn and apply them – in writing and reporting, video and audio, and use of the Internet – to report on the social movements in the present and the future. With this Manual, we are taking another step forward in making the lessons and curriculum of the School of Authentic Journalism available to the entire world, gratis.

Applications to the April 2013 School of Authentic Journalism are due November 18. Consult this announcement for more information.

Egypt: The Day the Internet Died

In March 2011, just weeks after the Egyptian Revolution brought the fall of the dictator Hosni Mubarak, the Narco News School of Authentic Journalism went to Cairo to interview key participants about their direct lived experience during those historic moments.

We asked each of them these questions:

On Friday January 28 the regime turned off the Internet. Did that change your experience of the revolution?

If you are someone who had spent a lot of time online before then, how did you spend those newly free hours during the four or five days that there was no Internet?

And what do you think about claims by some international media that the Egypt resistance was a “Twitter revolution” or “Facebook revolution”?

Did the shut down of the Internet hurt the cause or did it help? Why or why not?

Hosam El Gohary (member of the Youth for Justice and Freedom Movement): What happened that day was really strange. We were surprised by it. Starting Thursday at nine pm all SMSservices were cut off and no one could send any text messages to any mobile network and no one could receive text messages. The regime and the Interior Ministry in particular announced that on Friday all communications would be cut off for emergency reasons. That meant that all mobile networks would cease operations: there wouldn’t be any mobile communications. There wouldn’t be Internet. There wouldn’t be anything and of course we wouldn’t be able to communicate. The regime did not want us to gather together and by turning off the Internet and cell phone systems they thought they would prevent us from reaching each other. They assumed that they would be able to separate us and keep us away from each other and that no one would be able to get to the others and therefore everybody going to the protest would not know where to go. They thought people would go all over the place and they would then be able to arrest them in groups or individually.
Ibrahim Mohammed (26-year-old communications worker, not affiliated with any organization or party): I work in one of the communications companies so of course I found out that the Internet would be cut, SMS services would be cut, the networks would be cut. So I started calling all my friends. That day, I had met people from various parties and movements, and also independent people, so I called them regardless of whichever one they were involved with. I started calling them and saying guys, take care, the internet will be cut at 12 o’clock, SMSservices will be cut at 10 p.m. and cell phone networks will be cut at 6 a.m.,so whoever wants to send a message to someone should go ahead and do so. And whoever wants to get to someone or to specify a locations should get to them before this happens.
Azza Soliman (homemaker):First, the Internet was cut off at night on January 27th. We felt afraid and worried, what will communication be like between people? And will we know how things are going? It was difficult, even the cell phones were cut off. But that didn’t scare us or make us say that we will not go down to the square. We said, “We will go down. We will go down!” My daughter and son went down by themselves and from early morning, they were in Tahrir Square.

Mohammed Abbas (youth organizer in January 2011 for the Muslim Brotherhood): We had of course the biggest support tools in Twitter and Facebook and 
we have to be clear about that. I mean, we had a million members on
 one page and 300,000 on another.
 The Rasd Network gets 50,000 user hits daily because it is solely a 
news network. People who report news from all over the world
 send it to them and they publish it. We were expecting cuts in communications in terms of the Internet and 
telephones. We knew it would happen. It first
 started with Facebook: They blocked Facebook
 and Twitter in Egypt. People of course began downloading alternate programs.

The Egyptian people are tireless and the message they gave is “whatever you do, we will still do what we want, and we won’t leave.” We also expected mobile 
communications to be shut off because anyone who would shut off the Internet would have to be
 so backwards it wouldn’t be a big leap at all for him to shut off mobile phones for
 everyone.
 And he (the person or people that shut off the internet) didn’t know
 who exactly was behind the protests. We did the utmost possible to be invisible, not to appear and not to reveal our identities. Who was moving things? The invitations were very organized 
but they didn’t know who was organizing them. The Muslim Brotherhood paid the price. I say this 
not because I’m part of the Brotherhood but because it’s a fact.
 The regime from Tuesday onward kept saying that it was the Brotherhood that 
was behind this simply because they couldn’t imagine that something so well 
orchestrated and large could be the work of just young people.
 They couldn’t imagine at all someone besides the Brotherhood carrying out something so
 large and organized, because it is the most organized 
group on the street.
 So they said it was the Brotherhood and on Wednesday all the leaders of
 the Brotherhood in Cairo and in all the other municipalities received
 threats. Some were threatened with being killed. They would summon them and then threaten to kill them. So we said everyone could make their own decision.
 Then the Brotherhood sent out a directive on Thursday, January 27,
 calling for obligatory participation for all members of the Brotherhood in
 Egypt on January 28th. The Brotherhood membership was required to go out into the main squares of their towns. The 
people who were not able to come to Cairo were told to go to their city and town squares. That was something we all knew. We started Friday morning the 28th at 9 a.m. with communications broken and the Internet cut off
 and the media was absent. 
Those who would be marching would only be those who had already been 
invited and responded to the invitation and those who would be there
 would participate with us while we walked down the streets. It was an 
epic day in every sense of the word. People were sacrificing themselves. I am not talking about the other people who were organized or us. It was everyone. And people were moving while they were chanting “peaceful” and they were met with tear gas bombs, rubber bullets and live ammunition.
Aalam Wassef (video maker, blogger, musician):Already there was a rumor that this would happen, and then it did happen indeed. We had taken all sorts of precautions on what kind of communication systems we would have. Then the Internet got cut off and that, I remember, lasted for six days. It was a very bad period but at the same time I think it really encouraged people to come out of their homes. Strategically it was probably a very wrong thing for the regime to do, because people were literally squeezed out of their homes because they had no access to information.
Marwa Farouk (attorney, Socialist Revival Current):It was a problem when the Internet and phones went down, but we had planned for this scenario. We had planned our meetings not over mobile phones but in groups that would meet in the mornings in separate places. And these groups would gather in a specific place that we had determined the night before. That night, the morning area of Imbaba was agreed on and we went around and informed more than one group about it and when the movement actually began I didn’t need my mobile phone. I had the people with me on the street so I didn’t need to call people.

Nadia Banhassi (24, pediatrician): The Internet was cut off at dawn then around 10 a.m. all communications failed. No cell phone network was working. I moved with the medical team that was with me and we left the downtown area and moved toward the rest of the people in our group. And because of the cuts in communication, we couldn’t find the group so we had the alternative of moving to the next station where perhaps I might find one of them. So I moved and found some of them and we began to gather ourselves.

We were in Sudan Street and after that we went straight to Imbaba via public transportation right after Friday prayers. We started to gather people around us to march from Imbaba and we succeeded in doing this. The people in the street, coming out of their homes, were responding to us in a completely unexpected manner. People were angry. They even protected us from police and security forces that were in Imbaba. We continued in the march from Imbaba until we reached the Kitkat Bridge. There we were met by the first batch of central security forces. They didn’t even wait for us to approach them. They started throwing tear gas canisters from the top of the bridge. It was like rain and people began to disassemble because of the gas so went in from Agouza Street so we all left and gathered ourselves again. So we continued until we reached Tahrir Street in Dokki and at the beginning of the Galaa Bridge another confrontation with Central Security Forces began but we succeeded because we had staggering numbers of people in the march. We succeeded in crossing the Galaa Bridge and entering the Cairo Club and the Cairo Opera House areas. This was around four pm and the beatings began around then. We were trying to cross the Kasr El Nile Bridge and the Central Security Forces pushed us back. Then we would cross again to be pushed back once again and so forth until around 8 p.m. Around then, people began to end up separated from each other so that you couldn’t find the people you know and you don’t really know the people around you. I had my first aid kit so and we were trying to provide emergency help for any injured person and we put in a lot of effort in helping all the injured people on the bridge but the wounds were serious because they were using live ammunition.

The cutting of the communications systems made it worse because most the event invitations that were sent to people were sent on Facebook and Twitter. So was the news that was released and sent to the world. All the networks and all websites were cut off completely and no one able to send anything. On January 25th at least we were able to send information on the spot about what was happening in Tahrir Square until midnight. So the world knew what was happening to us. But on the 28th the situation changed, we were totally cut off from the world. The whole world was detached from the butchery that was taking place.

Sayed Fathy (attorney, Halali Institute for Freedoms and the Front to Defend Egyptian Protesters):My assessment is that it had a positive effect. There was great stupidity and foolishness in cutting off the Internet and communications. It created a kind of curiosity for many families so they went down into the street, and many youths went down because they cant just stay home and become isolated from such an important and singular moment. They went down and participated.
Mahitab El Gilhany (Journalism student and medical engineer): Look, Sir, we are the reason this revolution succeeded: Those who went out into the street and the people who joined those who went out. Cutting off the Internet and Facebook is what caused people who only share things on the Internet to go down to the street. And that was a great success. The cutting of mobile cell service meant that those with kids or husbands or fiancées or anyone they know who was in the street – after the phones were cut they had no idea if they were alive or not – they then went down to the street. And that is the biggest proof that this revolution did not succeed because of Facebook. It succeeded from the street. This is part I of An Oral History of the Egyptian Revolution, from March 2011 interviews conducted in Egypt by Gregory Berger, Al Giordano, Joe Rizk and Naglaa Younes

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #15 

Bradley Manning Hints at Guilty Plea in WikiLeaks Case

by
Watch WikiSecrets, FRONTLINE’s investigation into Bradley Manning, Julian Assange and the largest intelligence breach in U.S. history, and The Private Life of Bradley Manning, a profile of the early years of the young soldier now accused of leaking more than half a million classified U.S. government documents.

Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst accused of providing thousands of military records and diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks, has signaled he may plead guilty to a portion of the 34 charges currently facing him.

Manning made the offer, a move known as “pleading by exceptions and substitutions,” through his attorney, David Coombs, at a pre-trial hearing on Wednesday in Fort Meade, Maryland. If accepted by the court, Manning could avoid prosecution for some of the more serious charges he is accused of, including alleged offenses under the Espionage Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

“To clarify, PFC Manning is not pleading guilty to the specifications as charged by the Government,” Coombs wrote in a statement. “Rather, PFC Manning is attempting to accept responsibility for offenses that are encapsulated within, or are a subset of, the charged offenses. The Court will consider whether this is a permissible plea.”

Even if the court OKs Manning’s offer, the prosecution can still decide not to accept it. If so, Manning would be free to rescind the offer without having it used against him in trial.

Manning also told the court Wednesday he is electing to stand trial by military judge, rather than a trial by jury, according to blogger Kevin Gosztola, who was at the hearing and first reported on the defense’s offer.

Manning is charged with leaking more than 260,000 diplomatic cables, 90,000 intelligence reports on the war in Afghanistan, and a video of a 2007 U.S. helicopter attack in Iraq that killed two employees of the Reuters news agency along with several other civilians. If convicted, he faces life in prison. His trial is scheduled to begin in February.

Bradley Manning, right, is escorted out of a courthouse in Fort Meade, Md in June. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #16 

http://www.thenation.com/article/171272/nobel-laureates-salute-bradley-manning


Nobel Laureates Salute Bradley Manning


Bradley Manning. (AP Photo, File)

As people who have worked for decades against the increased militarization of societies and for international cooperation to end war, we are deeply dismayed by the treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning.

We have dedicated our lives to working for peace because we have seen the many faces of armed conflict and violence, and we understand that no matter the cause of war, civilians always bear the brunt of the cost. With today’s advanced military technology and the continued ability of business and political elites to filter what information is made public, there exists a great barrier to many citizens being fully aware of the realities and consequences of conflicts in which their country is engaged.

About the Author

Adolfo Pérez Esquivel
Adolfo Pérez Esquivel received the 1980 Nobel Peace Prize for his work promoting nonviolent solutions to...
Mairead Maguire
Mairead Maguire, co-founder of Peace People, was awarded the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize for her actions to end conflict in...
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
Archbishop Desmond Tutu, widely regarded as “South Africa’s moral conscience,” was awarded the 1984...
 

Responsible governance requires fully informed citizens who can question their leadership. For those citizens worldwide who do not have direct, intimate knowledge of war, yet are still affected by rising international tensions and failing economies, the WikiLeaks releases attributed to Manning have provided unparalleled access to important facts.  

Revealing covert crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, this window into the realities of modern international relations has changed the world for the better. While some of these documents may demonstrate how much work lies ahead in terms of securing international peace and justice, they also highlight the potential of the Internet as a forum for citizens to participate more directly in civic discussion and creative government accountability projects.  

Questioning authority, as a soldier, is not easy.  But it can at times be honorable. The words attributed to Manning reveal that he went through a profound moral struggle between the time he enlisted and when he became a whistleblower. Through his experience in Iraq, he became disturbed by top-level policy that undervalued human life and caused the suffering of innocent civilians and soldiers. Like other courageous whistleblowers, he was driven foremost by a desire to reveal the truth.

Private Manning said in chat logs that he hoped the releases would bring “discussion, debates and reforms” and condemned the ways the “first world exploits the third.” Much of the world regards him as a hero for these efforts toward peace and transparency, and he has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize as a result. However, much as when high-ranking officials in the United States and Britain misled the public in 2003 by saying there was an imminent need to invade Iraq to stop it from using weapons of mass destruction, the world’s most powerful elites have again insulted international opinion and the intelligence of many citizens by withholding facts regarding Manning and WikiLeaks.

The military prosecution has not presented evidence that Private Manning injured anyone by releasing secret documents, and it has asserted in court that the charge of “aiding the enemy through indirect means” does not require it to do so. Nor has the prosecution denied that his motivations were conscientious; it has simply argued they are irrelevant. In ignoring this context and recommending a much more severe punishment for Bradley Manning than is given to US soldiers guilty of murdering civilians, military leadership is sending a chilling warning to other soldiers who might feel compelled by conscience to reveal misdeeds. It is our belief that leaders who use fear to govern, rather than sharing wisdom born from facts, cannot be just.

We Nobel Peace Prize laureates condemn the persecution Bradley Manning has suffered, including imprisonment in conditions declared “cruel, inhuman and degrading” by the United Nations, and call upon Americans to stand up in support of this whistleblower who defended their democratic rights. In the conflict in Iraq alone, more than 110,000 people have died since 2003, millions have been displaced and nearly 4,500 American soldiers have been killed. If someone needs to be held accountable for endangering Americans and civilians, let’s first take the time to examine the evidence regarding high-level crimes already committed, and what lessons can be learned. If Bradley Manning released the documents, as the prosecution contends, we should express to him our gratitude for his efforts toward accountability in government, informed democracy and peace.

To learn more about Bradley Manning’s case or to get involved, visit the Bradley Manning Support Network website.

In our September 17 issue, JoAnn Wypijewski examined the situation of the founder of Wikileaks, in “For Julian Assange: Justice Foreclosed.”

 


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #17 
Anonymous escalates its 'cyberwar' against Israel

Filed in: News - Security & Privacy

November 19, 2012



__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #18 

Update 11/19/12: Filmmaker Michael Moore, Nobel Peace Laureates and musician Graham Nash prioritize support for Bradley

Celebrities including filmmaker Michael Moore, musician Graham Nash, and Nobel Laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu are speaking up for Bradley. Punk luminary Ted Leo will perform a benefit show next weekend in DC. Come and join the movement!

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #19 
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/26/world/europe/wikileaks-assange-color/

Assange: How notoriety has changed a trapped man


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #20 
November 19th, 2012 8:46 AM

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear President Obama:

Good luck on your journeys overseas this week, and congratulations on decisively winning your second term as our president! The first time you won four years ago, most of us couldn't contain our joy and found ourselves literally in tears over your victory.

This time, it was more like breathing a huge sigh of relief. But, like the smooth guy you are, you scored the highest percentage of the vote of any Democrat since Lyndon Johnson, and you racked up the most votes for a Democratic president in the history of the United States (the only one to receive more votes than you was ... you, in '08!). You are the first Democrat to get more than 50% of the vote twice in a row since Franklin D. Roosevelt.

This was truly another historic election and I would like to take a few minutes of your time to respectfully ask that your second term not resemble your first term.

It's not that you didn't get anything done. You got A LOT done. But there are some very huge issues that have been left unresolved and, dammit, we need you to get some fight in you. Wall Street and the uber-rich have been conducting a bloody class war for over 30 years and it's about time they were stopped.

I know it is not in your nature to be aggressive or confrontational. But, please, Barack – DO NOT listen to the pundits who are telling you to make the "grand compromise" or move to the "center" (FYI – you're already there). Your fellow citizens have spoken and we have rejected the crazed ideology of this Republican Party and we insist that you forcefully proceed in bringing about profound change that will improve the lives of the 99%. We're done hoping. We want real change. And, if we can't get it in the second term of a great and good man like you, then really – what's the use? Why are we even bothering? Yes, we're that discouraged and disenchanted.

At your first post-election press conference last Wednesday you were on fire. The way you went all "Taxi Driver" on McCain and company ("You talkin' to me?") was so brilliant and breathtaking I had to play it back a dozen times just to maintain the contact high. Jesus, that look – for a second I thought laser beams would be shooting out of your eyes! MORE OF THAT!! PLEASE!!

In the weeks after your first election you celebrated by hiring the Goldman Sachs boys and Wall Street darlings to run our economy. Talk about a buzzkill that I never fully recovered from. Please – not this time. This time take a stand for all the rest of us – and if you do, tens of millions of us will not only have your back, we will swoop down on Congress in a force so large they won't know what hit them (that's right, McConnell – you're on the retirement list we've put together for 2014).

BUT – first you have to do the job we elected you to do. You have to take your massive 126-electoral vote margin and just go for it.

Here are my suggestions:

1. DRIVE THE RICH RIGHT OFF THEIR FISCAL CLIFF. The "fiscal cliff" is a ruse, an invention by the Right and the rich, to try and keep their huge tax breaks. On December 31, let ALL the tax cuts expire. Then, on January 1, put forth a bill that restores the tax cuts for 98% of the public. I dare the Republicans to vote against that! They can't and they won't. As for the spending cuts, the 2011 agreement states that, for every domestic program dollar the Republicans want to cut, a Pentagon dollar must also be cut. See, you are a genius! No way will the Right vote against the masters of war. And if by some chance they do, you can immediately put forth legislation to restore all the programs we, the majority, approve of. And for God's sake, man – declare Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid untouchable. They're not bankrupt or anywhere near it. If the rich paid the same percentage of Social Security tax on their entire income – the same exact rate everyone else pays – then there will suddenly be enough money in Social Security to last til at least the year 2080!

2. END ALL THE WARS NOW. Do not continue the war in Afghanistan (a thoroughly losing proposition if ever there was one) for two full more years! Why should one single more person have to die FOR NO REASON? Stop it. You know it's wrong. Bin Laden's dead, al Qaeda is decimated and the Afghans have to work out their own problems. Also, end the drone strikes and other covert military activities you are conducting in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Colombia and God knows where else. You think history is going to remember the United States as a great democracy? No, they're going to think of us as a nation that became addicted to war. They'll call us warlords. They'll say that in the 21st century America was so in need of oil that we'd kill anyone to get it. You know that's where this is going. This has to stop. Now.

3. END THE DRUG WAR. It is not only an abysmal failure, it has returned us to the days of slavery. We have locked up millions of African-Americans and Latinos and now fund a private prison-industrial complex that makes billions for a few lucky rich people. There are other ways to deal with the drugs that do cause harm – ways built around a sense of decency and compassion. We look like a bunch of sadistic racists. Stop it.

4. DECLARE A MORATORIUM ON HOME FORECLOSURES AND EVICTIONS. Millions of people are facing homelessness because of a crooked system enacted by the major banks and Wall Street firms. Put a pause on this and take 12 months to work out a different way (like, restructuring families' mortgages to reflect the true worth of their homes).

5. GET MONEY OUT OF POLITICS. You already know this one. The public is sick of it. Now's the time to act.

6. EXPAND OBAMACARE. Your health care law doesn't cover everyone. It is a cash cow for the insurance industry. Push for a single-payer system – Medicare for All – and include dentistry and mental health. This is the single biggest thing you could do to reduce the country's deficit.

7. RESTORE GLASS-STEAGALL. You must put back all the rigid controls on Wall Street that Reagan, Clinton and the Bushes removed – or else we face the possibility of another, much worse, crash. If they break the law, prosecute them the way you currently go after whistleblowers and medical marijuana dispensaries.

8. REDUCE STUDENT LOAN DEBT. No 22-year-old should have to enter the real world already in a virtual debtors' prison. This is cruel and no other democracy does this like we do. You were right to eliminate the banks as the profit-gouging lenders, but now you have to bring us back to the days when you and I were of college age and a good education cost us little or next to nothing. A few less wars would go a long to way to being able to afford this.

9. FREE BRADLEY MANNING. End the persecution and prosecution of an American hero. Bush and Cheney lied to a nation to convince us to go to war. Manning allegedly hacked the war criminals' files and then shared them with the American public (and the world) so that we could learn the truth about Iraq and Afghanistan. Our history is full of such people who "break the law" for the greater good of humanity. Army Specialist Bradley Manning deserves a medal, not prison.

10. ASK US TO DO SOMETHING. One thing is clear: none of the above is going to happen if you don't immediately mobilize the 63,500,000 who voted for you (and the other 40 million who are for you but didn't vote). You can't go this alone. You need an army of everyday Americans who will fight alongside you to make this a more just and peaceful nation. In your 2008 campaign, you were a pioneer in using social media to win the election. Over 15 million of us gave you our cell numbers or email addresses so you could send us texts and emails telling us what needed to be done to win the election. Then, as soon as you won, it was as if you hit the delete button. We never heard from you again. (Until this past year when you kept texting us to send you $25. Inspiring.) Whoever your internet and social media people were should have been given their own office in the West Wing – and we should have heard from you. Constantly. Need a bill passed? Text us and we will mobilize! The Republicans are filibustering? We can stop them! They won't approve your choice for Secretary of State? We'll see about that! You say you were a community organizer. Please – start acting like one.

The next four years can be one of those presidential terms that changed the course of America. I'm sure you will want to be judged on how you stood up for us, restored the middle class, ended the s***ting on the poor and made us a friend to the rest of the world instead of a threat. You can do this. We can do it with you. All that stands in the way is your understandable desire to sing "Kumbaya" with the Republicans. Don't waste your breath. Their professed love of America is negated by their profound hatred of you. Don't waste a minute on them. Fix the sad mess we're in. Go back and read this month's election results. We're with you.

P.S. President Obama – my cell number to text me at is 810-522-8398 and my email is MMFlint@MichaelMoore.com. I await my first assignment!

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #21 

Julian Assange's book an exercise in dystopian musings

WikiLeaks founder's Cypherpunks warns tool he relies on and used to make his name is 'global surveillance industry' target

Julian Assange speaks to reporters from the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy in London, in August. Photograph: Carl Court/AFP/Getty Images

Julian Assange's new book is not a manifesto, he writes in its introduction – "There is no time for that". Instead the short volume, entitled Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet and published on Monday, is intended to be what the Wikileaks founder calls "a watchman's shout in the night", warning of an imminent threat to all civilisation from "the most dangerous facilitator of totalitarianism we have ever seen" – the web.

Assange announced in October his intention to publish the book, based largely on the transcript of an interview conducted earlier in the year with three fellow "cutting-edge thinkers" on the web, and broadcast on the Russian state-controlled TV channel RT.

But in his introduction, written from the small room in the Ecuadorean embassy in London to which he has been confined for more than five months, the Australian has described for the first time how he views the context for its publication.

It is not an upbeat assessment: thanks to the "global surveillance industry" and states that seek to control the net, he writes, "within a few years, global civilisation will be a postmodern surveillance dystopia, from which escape for all but the most skilled individuals will be impossible. In fact, we may already be there."

Assange sought political asylum from Ecuador on 19 June in order to avoid imminent extradition to Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning in connection with alleged sex offences, including rape.

He has said that he fears onward extradition to the US, where a grand jury has been convened to investigate Wikileaks over its publication in 2010 of leaked US diplomatic cables, in this newspaper and elsewhere.

His request was later granted by Ecuador, which said he could stay inside the embassy for "two centuries" if necessary. Britain has said that if he tries to leave he will be arrested and extradited to Sweden, but that it would block any onward extradition request to the US if the Australian were to face a possible death penalty.

His experiences have influenced his world view, Assange acknowledges in his introduction. "While many writers have considered what the internet means for global civilisation, they are wrong … They are wrong because they have never met the enemy … We have met the enemy."

Jeremie Zimmermann, co-founder and spokesman for the French citizen advocacy group La Quadrature du Net (Squaring the Net) and one of Assange's named fellow authors, told the Guardian when the book was announced that it would cover "a wide range of issues: from surveillance to data protection, from corporate influence over politics to citizen participation and action, transparency and accountability, from liberalism to anarchism, from copyright enforcement to culture, from flying killing robots (drones) to representation of crime scenes depicting abuse of children (child porn)".

Also contributing to the book are Jacob Applebaum, a US-based computer security expert, and Andy Müller-Maguhn, a leading German hacker.

Zimmermann said he had insisted on a bottle of whisky and some cigars when the four met, "to make the discussion more 'fluid' (no pun intended), cozy and friendly".


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #22 

HACKER NEWS
http://www.ehackingnews.com/

http://thehackernews.com/




ARREST TRACKER FOR HACKERS

http://wiki.par-anoia.net/wiki/Main_Page




ANONYMOUS FAVORS THIS SITE FOR LEAKS

http://par-anoia.net/releases.html

Enemy of the State Article about Jeremy Hammond in The Rolling Stone (Oct 26, 2012 · PDF, 2MB · Mirror)


HOW TO REACH ANONYMOUS OR GET MORE INFO

http://anonuk.anonsource.org/index.php

http://anonsource.org/

http://anongroup.org/

http://anonnews.org/

http://www.hackthissite.org

http://www.cyberguerrilla.info/anonymous/


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #23 

Review: Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet

 


Cypherpunks1: Freedom and the Future of the Internet, by Julian Assange with Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Müller-Maguhn and Jérémie Zimmermann. OR Books, New York, 2012, 186 pages, Paper. Buy online

This is a highly informative book, perhaps the best published on the substance of WikiLeaks, its technology, philosophy, origin and purpose, rooted in the Cypherpunks resistance to authority through encryption and anonymizing technology. The trenchant and salient, wide-ranging discussion among Assange, Appelbaum, Müller-Maguhn and Zimmermann, is derived from a four-part RT series with additional editorial material and a summarizing prologue by Assange, "A Call to Cryptographic Arms."

It is an excellent introduction to the struggle for control of digital communications, economics and governance. A prime candidate for inclusion of reading lists of the enemies of authoritarian institutions, corporations and governments heavily invested in the Internet and aiming to control it by secret collusion for their purposes -- at the global public's expense, loss of privacy and reduced democracy. It claims to be a "watchman's warning" against the threat posed by the Internet and cellphone technology.

The panel asserts:

1. The internet is a threat to human civilization because of its panoptic surveillance and profiling of users.

2. "Strategic surveillance" gathers all online and cellphone data as distinguished from tactical surveillance with is specifically targeted.

3. Internet and cellphones allow surveillance more efficiently and pervasively than in the physical world.

4. Individuals can be surveilled more easily if they remain mesmerized by computers, cellphones and social media.

5. Encryption prevents access to private secrets by official and commercial online surveillance and by cellphones.

6. Protestors in Arab Spring went to the streets when cellphone and online systems were disabled and thereby escaped digital surveillance.

7. General purpose computers avoid the built-in controls of special purpose computers and devices.

8. Free software avoids the control of restrictive governmental and commercial software.

9. Free encryption and anonymizing technologies can protect against authoritarian aggression embedded in the equipment and operating systems of computers, cellphones, networks, internet service providers, financial institutions and governments.

10. Younger generations will need to invent and distribute ideas, critiques, code and technology against the legacy controls of older generations indoctrinated in submissive acceptance of authority.

11. Diverse, heterogenic concepts and technology will be required to oppose centralizing, homogenizing intents of the government- and commerce-dominated Internet and cellphones.

Evgeny Morozov and other net-negativists may scowl at the blind faith in encryption and anonymizing technology to save the Internet for its all too gullible users. Some cypherpunks are appalled at what WikiLeaks and Assange have become through excessive publicity and promotion by supporters and opponents.2 The book could be seen as a compendium of what not to do about communications security, privacy, secrecy and authoritarianism -- for that it is to be studied carefully.

For me, the greatest virtue of this book is its description of what comes after the lessons learned of Cypherpunks and WikiLeaks -- from the diverse initiatives nobody yet knows about due to deliberate avoidance of preening, crippling publicity.3

Read between the book's lines, there are undisclosed means and methods inside them to panic decrypting and surveilling authoritarians and their opponents into attacking each other.4

Admire the book's critique of those obsessed with being in the vanguard of protecting the public, covert authoritarians in power-seeking, monetizing cahoots.

Lesson one: Protect yourself by keeping quiet, offline and sans cell, avoiding vanguards.

These comments will change, provoked by this book.

Note 1: Wikipedia on Cypherpunks

Note 2: This Machine Kills Secrets, by Andy Greenberg.

Note 3: Archive of Cypherpunk mail list 1992-1998 (Zipped, 83MB).

Note 4: Julian Assange writes on the Cypherpunks mail list 1995-2002.

_____

Last week Amazon listed this book but today there is no listing (Amazon is a centralizing force criticized by the book, which may account for its USG-like censorship). Nor could a copy be found in three New York City bookstores. So we went to the publisher, OR Books, to buy a copy from its "R," Colin Robinson. from OR.


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #24 

Julian Assange: Cryptographic Call to Arms

 


Excerpted from Cypherpunks: Freedom and the Future of the Internet, by Julian Assange with Jacob Appelbaum, Andy Müller-Maguhn and Jérémie Zimmermann. OR Books, New York, 2012, 186 pages, Paper. Buy online. Cryptome review of the book.

Pages 1-7.

INTRODUCTION: A CALL TO CRYPTOGRAPHIC ARMS

This book is not a manifesto. There is not time for that. This book is a warning.

The world is not sliding, but galloping into a new transnational dystopia. This development has not been properly recognized outside of national security circles. It has been hidden by secrecy, complexity and scale. The internet, our greatest tool of emancipation, has been transformed into the most dangerous facilitator of totalitarianism we have ever seen. The internet is a threat to human civilization.

These transformations have come about silently, because those who know what is going on work in the global surveillance industry and have no incentives to speak out. Left to its own trajectory, within a few years, global civilization will be a postmodern surveillance dystopia, from which escape for all but the most skilled individuals will be impossible. In fact, we may already be there.

While many writers have considered what the internet means for global civilization, they are wrong. They are wrong because they do not have the sense of perspective that direct experience brings. They are wrong because they have never met the enemy.

No description of the world survives first contact with the enemy.

We have met the enemy.

Over the last six years WikiLeaks has had conflicts with nearly every powerful state. We know the new surveillance state from an insider's perspective, because we have plumbed its secrets. We know it from a combatant's perspective, because we have had to protect our people, our finances and our sources from it. We know it from a global perspective, because we have people, assets and information in nearly every country. We know it from the perspective of time, because we have been fighting this phenomenon for years and have seen it double and spread, again and again. It is an invasive parasite, growing fat off societies that merge with the internet. It is rolling over the planet, infecting all states and peoples before it.

What is to be done?

Once upon a time in a place that was neither here nor there, we, the constructors and citizens of the young internet discussed the future of our new world.

We saw that the relationships between all people would be mediated by our new world, and that the nature of states, which are defined by how people exchange information, economic value, and force, would also change.

We saw that the merger between existing state structures and the internet created an opening to change the nature of states.

First, recall that states are systems through which coercive force flows. Factions within a state may compete for support, leading to democratic surface phenomena, but the underpinnings of states are the systematic application, and avoidance, of violence. Land ownership, property, rents, dividends, taxation, court fines, censorship, copyrights and trademarks are all enforced by the threatened application of state violence.

Most of the time we are not even aware of how close to violence we are, because we all grant concessions to avoid it. Like sailors smelling the breeze, we rarely contemplate how our surface world is propped up from below by darkness.

In the new space of the internet what would be the mediator of coercive force?

Does it even make sense to ask this question? In this otherworldly space, this seemingly platonic realm of ideas and information flow, could there be a notion of coercive force? A force that could modify historical records, tap phones, separate people, transform complexity into rubble, and erect walls, like an occupying army?

The platonic nature of the internet, ideas and information flows, is debased by its physical origins. Its foundations are fiber optic cable lines stretching across the ocean floors, satellites spinning above our heads, computer servers housed in buildings in cities from New York to Nairobi. Like the soldier who slew Archimedes with a mere sword, so too could an armed militia take control of the peak development of Western civilization, our platonic realm.

The new world of the internet, abstracted from the old world of brute atoms, longed for independence. But states and their friends moved to control our new world -- by controlling its physical underpinnings. The state, like an army around an oil well, or a customs agent extracting bribes at the border, would soon learn to leverage its control of physical space to gain control over our platonic realm. It would prevent the independence we had dreamed of, and then, squatting on fiber optic lines and around satellite ground stations, it would go on to mass intercept the information flow of our new world -- its very essence even as every human, economic, and political relationship embraced it. The state would leech into the veins and arteries of our new societies, gobbling up every relationship expressed or communicated, every web page read, every message sent and every thought googled, and then store this knowledge, billions of interceptions a day, undreamed of power, in vast top secret warehouses, forever. It would go on to mine and mine again this treasure, the collective private intellectual output of humanity, with ever more sophisticated search and pattern finding algorithms, enriching the treasure and maximizing the power imbalance between interceptors and the world of interceptees. And then the state would reflect what it had learned back into the physical world, to start wars, to target drones, to manipulate UN committees and trade deals, and to do favors for its vast connected network of industries, insiders and cronies.

But we discovered something. Our one hope against total domination. A hope that with courage, insight and solidarity we could use to resist. A strange property of the physical universe that we live in.

The universe believes in encryption.

It is easier to encrypt information than it is to decrypt it.

We saw we could use this strange property to create the laws of a new world. To abstract away our new platonic realm from its base underpinnings of satellites, undersea cables and their controllers. To fortify our space behind a cryptographic veil. To create new lands barred to those who control physical reality, because to follow us into them would require infinite resources.

And in this manner to declare independence.

Scientists in the Manhattan Project discovered that the universe permitted the construction of a nuclear bomb. This was not an obvious conclusion. Perhaps nuclear weapons were not within the laws of physics. However, the universe believes in atomic bombs and nuclear reactors. They are a phenomenon the universe blesses, like salt, sea or stars.

Similarly, the universe, our physical universe, has that property that makes it possible for an individual or a group of individuals to reliably, automatically, even without knowing, encipher something, so that all the resources and all the political will of the strongest superpower on earth may not decipher it. And the paths of encipherment between people can mesh together to create regions free from the coercive force of the outer state. Free from mass interception. Free from state control.

In this way, people can oppose their will to that of a fully mobilized superpower and win. Encryption is an embodiment of the laws of physics, and it does not listen to the bluster of states, even transnational surveillance dystopias.

It isn't obvious that the world had to work this way. But somehow the universe smiles on encryption.

Cryptography is the ultimate form of non-violent direct action. While nuclear weapons states can exert unlimited violence over even millions of individuals, strong cryptography means that a state, even by exercising unlimited violence, cannot violate the intent of individuals to keep secrets from them.

Strong cryptography can resist an unlimited application of violence. No amount of coercive force will ever solve a math problem.

But could we take this strange fact about the world and build it up to be a basic emancipatory building block for the independence of mankind in the platonic realm of the internet? And as societies merged with the internet could that liberty then be reflected back into physical reality to redefine the state?

Recall that states are the systems which determine where and how coercive force is consistently applied.

The question of how much coercive force can seep into the platonic realm of the internet from the physical world is answered by cryptography and the cypherpunks' ideals.

As states merge with the internet and the future of our civilization becomes the future of the internet, we must redefine force relations.

If we do not, the universality of the internet will merge global humanity into one giant grid of mass surveillance and mass control.

We must raise an alarm. This book is a watchman's shout in the night.

On March 20, 2012, while under house arrest in the United Kingdom awaiting extradition, I met with three friends and fellow watchmen on the principle that perhaps in unison our voices can wake up the town. We must communicate what we have learned while there is still a chance for you, the reader, to understand and act on what is happening.

It is time to take up the arms of our new world, to fight for ourselves and for those we love.

Our task is to secure self-determination where we can, to hold back the coming dystopia where we cannot, and if all else fails, to accelerate its self-destruction.

-- Julian Assange, London, October 2012

 



__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #25 

Adrian Lamo on Hacker Cold War

 


Adrian Lamo sends:

I'm rewriting this, at least in part, after having Disqus lose it in whole. It's part response and part furtherance to and of Andrew Alan "weev" Auernheimer's Wired op-ed

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/hacking-choice-and-disclosure/

It bears repeating, so I might as well get it out at least the one time.

His piece kind of conflates netcentric and codecentric security disclosures, which are in no way equivalent in their risk or their objective morality. Both exist as a kind of potential energy in cyberspace, but as any reader of Neuromancer could tell you, one takes you into potentially dangerous territory.

I'd always taken the sort of view that says security issues will be eventually disclosed, so a public and effective disclosure is the best practice when they come up. But as conflicts of interest in cyberspace become more frequent and more muddled, he's right - disclosure may not always be the best policy.

I know, I'm as surprised as anyone that I found myself agreeing here, but do hear me out. Software exploits are no longer clever bits of data that could poke holes in data, but exist only to prove a concept (if, indeed, they ever were). More or less anything that can possibly be weaponized online is actively being weaponized, and it has been for some time.

We see the occasional end results ­ a hack here, a disclosure theree, a credit card fraud epidemic elsewhere. What is less public, and what infosec news (if they're aware of it) doesn't report is the interests that tie these things together. We all know about things like, say, China hacking Google, or (unrelatedly) Mitt Romney's tax theft being hoaxed. These things do not happen in a vacuum.

The reasons rarely come out because the actors, if ever identified, are rarely identified by legal process when they are either sufficiently connected (not unlikely past a certain point of criminal ambition) or because they are in some way state actors (or both). No one credibly believes that, say, Ehud Tenenbaum was on vacation in the decade between being praised for marathon hackery of US military networks by Israeli then-prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and being arrested again to face an unusually lenient sentence of time served for million-dollar fraudulent indiscretions that became too inconvenient to ignore.

Given these relationships, the security community may have taken a wrong turn at the Zimmermann-era furor over PGP & encryption being "munitions". Arms dealers enjoy a far more favorable and balanced relationship with their clients than many hackers do with their own governments. Netcentric disclosure is no longer worth it to many unless their target is politically, militarily, or economically convenient to their governments (flashbacks of Saddam Hussein's e-mail being hacked by a US national during the Second Gulf War) or sufficiently exigent as to justify the risk. And codecentric disclosure is at its base an acceptance of any use of that code which follows.

And yet hackers & security technicians are uniquely relied on for these soft conflicts of the electronic sort, but lack the vested, rigid interests and inertia of states. Agreement between various de facto combatant populations online could be achieved via this demographic long before their various states would ever come to the table. But as it stands now, these people are vastly more likely to be a tool of policy, not influencers of it. And they are likely to be penalized if they challenge the convention that governments hold a monopoly on legitimate use of force in cyberspace.

I've may have wandered a long way from what Andrew set out to say, but if I have, it's only further down the same path. Recognizing what goes on, especially with respect to how the Internet is being used and influenced, is both a form of personal responsibility for any citizen and a way to give them a stake in the interests previously excluded to them. Bluntly put, we are contributing to a hacker cold war. We are contributing to the use of force in cyberspace, but largely without a vote. Perhaps we should have written a Geneva convention for the Internet before we optimistically declared its independence. I hope dialogue between peoples will prove that doubt unfounded

 



__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
maynard

Registered:
Posts: 1,194
Reply with quote  #26 
The Humiliation of Bradley Manning
November 28, 2012

Exclusive: The pre-trial hearing on Pvt. Bradley Manning’s court martial for leaking classified documents about U.S. government wrongdoing has turned up evidence that even Manning’s Marine jailers were worried about the controversy over his degrading treatment in their custody, reports ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

By Ray McGovern

It is a bitter irony that Army Pvt. Bradley Manning, whose conscience compelled him to leak evidence about the U.S. military brass ignoring evidence of torture in Iraq, was himself the victim of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment while other military officers privately took note but did nothing.

That was one of the revelations at Manning’s pre-trial hearing at Ft. Meade, Maryland, on Tuesday, as Manning’s defense counsel David Coombs used e-mail exchanges to show Marine officers grousing that the Marines had been left holding the bag on Manning’s detention at their base in Quantico, Virginia, though he was an Army soldier.

A protester marching in support of Pvt. Bradley Manning. (Photo credit: bradleymanning.org)

At Quantico, Manning, who is accused of giving hundreds of thousands of pages of classified material to WikiLeaks, was subjected to harsh treatment. He was locked in a 6-foot-by-8-foot cell for 23 hours a day and was kept naked for long periods. His incarceration led the UN Rapporteur for Torture to complain that Manning was being subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

According to the e-mail evidence, the controversy over the rough handling of Manning prompted Quantico commander, Marine Col. Daniel Choike, to complain bitterly that not one Army officer was in the chain of blame. Choike’s lament prompted an e-mail reply from his commander, Lt. Gen. George Flynn, offering assurances that Choike and Quantico would not be left “holding the bag.”

However, concerns about possible repercussions from softening up Manning did little to ease the conditions that Manning faced. His Marine captors seemed eager to give him the business and make him an example to any other prospective whistleblowers. Only after a sustained public outcry was Manning transferred to the Army prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Though his treatment was less harsh there, Manning still has faced 2 ½ years of incarceration without trial and could face up to life imprisonment after a court martial into his act of conscience, i.e. releasing extensive evidence of wrongdoing by the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan and questionable foreign policies carried out by the U.S. State Department.

The release of the documents led to hundreds of news stories, including some that revealed the willful inaction of U.S. military brass when informed of torture inflicted on Iraqi prisoners held by the U.S.-backed Iraqi military.

Manning’s Conscience

As a young intelligence analyst in Iraq, Pvt. Manning grew disgusted with evidence passing through his computer terminal revealing the secretive dark side of the U.S. military occupation, including this pattern of high-level disinterest in Iraqi-on-Iraqi torture, which resulted from a directive known as Frago 242, guidelines from senior Pentagon officials not to interfere with abusive treatment of Iraqi government detainees.

As the UK Guardian reported in 2010 based on the leaked documents, Frago 242 was a “fragmentary order” summarizing a complex requirement, in this case, one issued in June 2004 ordering American troops not to investigate torture violations unless they involved members of the occupying coalition led by the United States.

When alleged abuse was inflicted by Iraqis on Iraqis, “only an initial report will be made … No further investigation will be required unless directed by HQ,” the Guardian reported, adding: “Frago 242 appears to have been issued as part of the wider political effort to pass the management of security from the coalition to Iraqi hands. In effect, it means that the [Iraqi] regime has been forced to change its political constitution but allowed to retain its use of torture.”

Some cases of torture were flagrant, according to the disregarded “initial” reports. For instance, the Guardian cited a log report of “a man who was detained by Iraqi soldiers in an underground bunker [and] reported that he had been subjected to the notoriously painful strappado position: with his hands tied behind his back, he was suspended from the ceiling by his wrists.

“The soldiers had then whipped him with plastic piping and used electric drills on him. The log records that the man was treated by US medics; the paperwork was sent through the necessary channels; but yet again, no investigation was required. …

“Hundreds of the leaked war logs reflect the fertile imagination of the torturer faced with the entirely helpless victim – bound, gagged, blindfolded and isolated – who is whipped by men in uniforms using wire cables, metal rods, rubber hoses, wooden stakes, TV antennae, plastic water pipes, engine fan belts or chains.

“At the torturer’s whim, the logs reveal, the victim can be hung by his wrists or by his ankles; knotted up in stress positions; sexually molested or raped; tormented with hot peppers, cigarettes, acid, pliers or boiling water – and always with little fear of retribution since, far more often than not, if the Iraqi official is assaulting an Iraqi civilian, no further investigation will be required.

“Most of the victims are young men, but there are also logs which record serious and sexual assaults on women; on young people, including a boy of 16 who was hung from the ceiling and beaten; the old and vulnerable, including a disabled man whose damaged leg was deliberately attacked. The logs identify perpetrators from every corner of the Iraqi security apparatus – soldiers, police officers, prison guards, border enforcement patrols.

“There is no question of the coalition forces not knowing that their Iraqi comrades are doing this: the leaked war logs are the internal records of those forces. There is no question of the allegations all being false. Some clearly are, but most are supported by medical evidence and some involve incidents that were witnessed directly by coalition forces.”

Possessing such evidence – and knowing that the U.S. high command was systematically ignoring these and other crimes – Manning was driven by a sense of morality to get the evidence to the American people and to the world.

Punishing Morality

For his act of conscience, Manning has become the subject of harsh incarceration himself, as some U.S. pundits and even members of Congress have called for his execution as a traitor. At minimum, however, he has been made an example to anyone else tempted to tell hard truths.

Many in Official Washington find nothing wrong with humiliating Manning with forced nudity and breaking down his psychiatric health through prolonged isolation. After all, they say, his release of classified information might have put the lives of some U.S. allies at risk (although there is no known evidence to support that concern).

There also are legal constraints upon the United States dishing out particularly nasty treatment to Pvt. Manning. Cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of prisoners is expressly banned by the UN Convention Against Torture, which was signed by President Ronald Reagan in 1988 and ratified by the Senate in 1994.

And there are no exceptions for “wartime” whistleblowers like Manning. Here’s what the Convention says: “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture” and “an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture” (Art. 2 (2-3)).”

Personally, when I attended the Tuesday proceeding, I dreaded sitting through another “pre-trial hearing,” having been bored stiff at earlier sessions. But it was a welcome surprise to witness first-hand proof that military courts can still hold orderly proceedings bereft (on Tuesday, at least) of “command influence.”

Most illuminating at Tuesday’s hearing was the central fact that the virtually indestructible nature of e-mail facilitates the kind of documentary evidence that lawyers lust after – whether they be attorneys, FBI investigators or just plain folks fed up with lies and faux history.

To the Marine Corps’ credit, I suppose, there was no evidence at the hearing that anyone had tried to expunge the e-mail correspondence revealing the fears about being left “holding the bag” on the harsh treatment of Manning.

E-Mail vs. Petraeus

So the availability of e-mail is the major new reality playing out in several major ways. As we have seen, former Gen. David Petraeus is a notable recent victim of the truth that can turn up in e-mail.

I used to call him “Petraeus ex Machina” for the faux-success of the celebrated “surge” in Iraq, which cost almost 1,000 additional U.S. troops dead (and many more Iraqis) to buy a “decent interval” for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to get out of town without a clear-cut military defeat hung around their necks.

As it turned out, “Petraeus ex Machina,” after a little more than a year as CIA director, was undone in a sex scandal exposed by the modern “machine” of e-mail.

More to the point, the torrent of e-mail and the “Collateral Murder” video that Manning now acknowledges giving to WikiLeaks as a matter of conscience were, of course, highly illuminating to students of real history. And the e-mails (and State Department cables) also were rather unflattering regarding the aims of U.S. policy and military actions around the globe.

So how did the White House, the State Department and military brass respond? There was a strongly felt need to make an object lesson of Bradley Manning to show what happens to people whose conscience prompts them to expose deceit and serious wrongdoing, especially through official documents that can’t be denied or spun.

In Manning’s case, he was delivered to the Marines, famous for their hard-headed determination to follow orders and to get the job done. So, his jailers took Manning’s clothes away and made him stand naked, supposedly out of concern that otherwise he might be “a risk to himself.” To further “protect” him, he was kept in a 23-hour lockdown in a tiny cell.

The treatment of Manning at Quantico was too much for State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley, a 26-year Air Force veteran and former colonel. Crowley was of the old school on the treatment of prisoners; his father, a B-17 pilot spent two years in a German POW camp.

On March 10, 2011, Crowley went public, telling an audience that Manning was being “mistreated” by the Defense Department; Crowley branded Manning’s treatment “ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid.”

Three days later, Crowley resigned with this parting shot: “The exercise of power in today’s challenging times and relentless media environment must be prudent and consistent with our laws and values.”

At Ft. Meade, the pre-trial hearings are continuing, including testimony about how the advice of health professionals regarding Manning was disregarded by the Marine officers and his jailers at Quantico. Later this week, Manning himself is expected to take the stand.

Again, the fair and orderly manner in which Tuesday’s hearing was conducted was a reassuring sign that not everyone is prepared to cave before “command influence.” The judge, Col. Denise Lind, upon whom all depends, listened attentively and asked several good questions at the end.

Let’s hope the kangaroos can be kept at bay.

Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was an Army infantry/intelligence officer in the early 60s, and then served for 27 years as a CIA analyst. He also serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).


Tags: Bradley Manning, Ray McGovern, WikiLeaks
21 comments on “The Humiliation of Bradley Manning”

__________________
A TAINTED DEAL http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1998/06/tainted-deal

 LA DEA; Murder of Kiki Camarena http://www.laweekly.com/news/how-a-dogged-la-dea-agent-unraveled-the-cias-alleged-role-in-the-murder-of-kiki-camarena-5750278  

"Several informed sources have told me that an appendix to this Report was removed at the instruction of the DOJ at the last minute. This appendix is reported to have information about a CIA officer, not agent or asset, but officer, based in the LA Station, who was in charge of Contra related activities. According to these sources, this individual was associated with running drugs to South Central L.A., around 1988. Let me repeat that amazing omission. The recently released CIA Report Vol II contained an appendix, which was pulled by the DOJ, that reported a CIA officer in the LA Station was hooked into drug running in South Central Los Angeles." Maxine Waters Oct, 1998
https://fas.org/irp/congress/1998_cr/h981013-coke.htm   

0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #27 
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/08/us/in-private-bradley-manning-case-jailers-become-the-accused.html

in WikiLeaks Case, Defense Puts the Jailers on Trial

Patrick Semansky/Associated Press

Pfc. Bradley Manning faces a potential life sentence if convicted of leaking documents.

FORT MEADE, Md. — In a half-empty courtroom here, with a crew of fervent supporters in attendance, Pfc. Bradley Manning and his lawyer have spent the last two weeks turning the tables on the government.

Related

Patrick Semansky/Associated Press

Private Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, has questioned officials about why he was held in isolation in Quantico, Va.

Private Manning faces a potential life sentence if convicted on charges that he gave WikiLeaks, the antisecrecy organization, hundreds of thousands of confidential military and diplomatic documents. But for now, he has been effectively putting on trial his former jailers at the Quantico, Va., Marine Corps base. His lawyer, David E. Coombs, has grilled one Quantico official after another, demanding to know why his client was kept in isolation and stripped of his clothing at night as part of suicide-prevention measures.

Mr. Coombs, a polite but relentless interrogator who stands a foot taller than his client, has laid bare deep disagreements inside the military: psychiatrists thought the special measures unnecessary, while jail commanders ignored their advice and kept the suicide restrictions in place. In a long day of testimony last week, Private Manning of the Army, vilified as a dangerous traitor by some members of Congress but lauded as a war-crimes whistle-blower on the political left, heartened his sympathizers with an eloquent and even humorous performance on the stand.

“He was engaged, chipper, optimistic,” said Bill Wagner, 74, a retired NASA solar physicist who is a courtroom regular, dressed in the black “Truth” T-shirt favored by Private Manning’s supporters.

Private Manning, who turns 25 on Dec. 17 and looks much younger, was quietly attentive during Friday’s court session, in a dress uniform, crew-cut blond hair and wire-rimmed glasses. If his face were not already familiar from television news, he might have been mistaken for a first-year law student assisting the defense team.

It seemed incongruous that he has essentially acknowledged responsibility for the largest leak of classified material in history. The material included a quarter-million State Department cables whose release may have chilled diplomats’ ability to do their work discreetly but also helped fuel the Arab Spring; video of American helicopter crews shooting people on the ground in Baghdad who they thought were enemy fighters but were actually Reuters journalists; field reports on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and confidential assessments of the detainees locked up at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

As the military pursues the case against Private Manning, the Justice Department continues to explore the possibility of charging WikiLeaks’ founder, Julian Assange, or other activists with the group, possibly as conspirators in Private Manning’s alleged offense. Federal prosecutors in Alexandria, Va., are still assigned to that investigation, according to law enforcement officials, but it is not clear how active they have been lately in presenting evidence to a grand jury.

The current tone of the legal proceedings against Private Manning is most likely temporary. His lawyer is asking the judge overseeing the case to throw out the charges on the ground that his pretrial treatment was unlawful, but that outcome appears unlikely.

As a fallback, Mr. Coombs is hoping the court will at least give Private Manning extra credit against any ultimate sentence for the time he spent held under harsh conditions at Quantico and earlier in Kuwait, where he was kept in what he described as “an animal cage.” After the uproar about his treatment, including public criticism from the State Department’s top spokesman and the United Nations’ top torture expert, military officials moved Private Manning in April 2011 from Quantico to a new prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., where he has not faced the same restrictions on clothing, sleeping conditions and conversation with other inmates.

As if to underscore the gravity of his legal predicament, Private Manning offered last month to plead guilty to lesser charges that could send him to prison for 16 years. Prosecutors have not said whether they are interested in such a deal, which would mean they would have to give up seeking a life sentence for the most serious charges: aiding the enemy and violating the Espionage Act.

Friday’s court session was attended by a dozen Manning loyalists, including Thomas A. Drake, the former National Security Agency official who was accused of leaking documents and pleaded guilty to a minor charge last year. They heard the commander of the Quantico brig, or military jail, explain why she refused Private Manning’s request to be taken off “prevention of injury” status.

(Page 2 of 2)

Chief Warrant Officer Denise Barnes, who was in charge of the brig for the last four months of Private Manning’s time there, said that the soldier declined her many requests to describe his emotional state in detail. Because of some odd behavior and two previous statements he had made that flagged him as a suicide risk, she said she was unwilling to change his status — despite the advice of military psychiatrists — until he opened up to her about how he was feeling.

Over the months she spent with him, speaking briefly with him each day, he grew less communicative and more monosyllabic, Ms. Barnes said.

“He did not clearly communicate to me, ‘I don’t want to kill myself,’ ” she said. “There was never an intent to punish Pfc. Manning.”

Ms. Barnes referred in passing to online attacks on her earlier this year by activists, one of whom called her a “sexual sadist.” She said she had no ill will against Private Manning “even though I was threatened and my family’s information was put out on the Internet.”

As Private Manning awaits a court-martial, now scheduled for March, Mr. Assange is holed up at Ecuador’s embassy in London, where he has lived since Ecuador granted him asylum in August. British officials have refused to grant him safe passage out of the country.

Mr. Assange faces no charges in connection with WikiLeaks but is wanted for questioning in Sweden in connection with allegations of sexual assault. He has expressed concern that Swedish authorities might extradite him to the United States.

From his embassy refuge, Mr. Assange has recently conducted a series of often-contentious television interviews with CNN, BBC and other news outlets, accusing the United States of torturing Private Manning. WikiLeaks supporters have theorized that the tough treatment of the soldier may have been designed to pressure him to testify against Mr. Assange.

No evidence has surfaced to support that theory. But if Private Manning’s offer to admit to reduced charges leads to serious plea negotiations, his cooperation in any future prosecution against WikiLeaks could conceivably be part of a deal.

 


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #28 

http://www.leakswiki.org/index.php?title=Main_Page
Main Page

LeaksWiki is a wiki about leaking organizations, the tools and methods used in leaking, and how leaking can improve in the future. The term leaking organization is used broadly to refer to any organization engaged in the disclosure of restricted information.

Contents

[edit] Rise of Leaking Organizations

Transparency is changing. Leaking websites and organizations are increasingly widespread. In large part, this rise of leaking organizations is likely due to the controversies around WikiLeaks. Leaking organizations are noteworthy because they separate the source from the release of the document or information and thus significantly alter the process of leaking, disclosure, and whistleblowing.[1] This separation has a few important implications. First, the separation of the source from the document release makes the leaking process safer for the source or whistleblower. Anonymous submission systems give the source anonymity in the initial transmission of documents and the disconnection of the source from the release makes the source less traceable. Second, the process becomes easier for the source to release any documents or more documents.[2] The intermediary leaking organization can study the documents in-depth, prepare them for release, work with media partners, and perhaps advocate for correction of a wrongdoing. Third, there is now a middleman in the process, the leaking organization.[3] However, this can be both a benefit and a detriment. The leaking organization can be an additional security risk to the source and innocent people mentioned in the leaked documents, but it is also a body often (but not always) independent of government agencies, companies, and mainstream media institutions. The independence of the leaking organization may sometimes make it easier for them to serve as an additional check on traditional institutions.[4] Fourth, there is now a group of people tasked primarily with determining how to make a leak successful and broadly defining what a successful release of leaked documents means.

Leaking organizations are enabled by technology, which explains why they are a fairly new phenomenon.[5] The anonymity of the source requires additional layers of separation between the leaking website and the source. Usually, these take the form of the Internet, encryption, tools like Tor, and other security technologies.[1] Technology also makes the leak more feasible and enables large leaks. Greenberg refers to these large leaks as 'megaleaks'. Large releases, like the Pentagon Papers, were possible before the Internet and the rise of leaking organizations but Megaleaks are only feasible because of the existence of computers, increasing information storage capacity, the ability for many people to view documents online, and faster uploads and downloads.[6] Leaking organizations further enable megaleaks by examining and preparing large leaks for release. They are a technology-enabled way of outsourcing parts of the whistleblowing or disclosure process. Some leaking organizations even outsource the process by using crowd sourcing in document processing.[2] Additionally, the people involved in leaking organizations and those reading the documents after release are only able to fully understand megaleaks because the Internet makes more information available to non-experts than ever before.[7] Leaking organizations are a way of taking power away from these experts and institutions who would have normally handled documents that are now leaked.

[edit] Spectrum of Transparency Ideologies

Leaking organizations can be powerful forces of social change. The ideal type of change varies based on the ideology of the specific leaking organization. Some organizations hope to correct specific wrongdoings. Others want to publicize certain information. Some seek to encourage a general culture of transparency. The specific ideology of a leaking organization determines how it views the leaking process, transparency, whistleblowing, and leaking itself. The model is not perfect, but leaking organizations can be roughly placed on a spectrum of ideologies from radical transparency to selective release. The diagram below shows this spectrum with leaking organizations placed on it.

Radical transparency means releasing absolutely everything. A radically transparent leaking organization would have a website that listed all data on all visitors and a submission form that automatically posted the document and the information of the source with no modifications. The people who run the organization would post all information they came across in their lives. This is impossible but it represents one extreme of the spectrum.

Selective release means releasing the minimum information possible and all information being released with a specific agenda. Technically, the spectrum could end at no release of information but this is a spectrum of leaking organizations which inherently release information. A FOIA-resistant government agency that begrudgingly declassified only information that would aid the organization, serve as propaganda, or harm an adversary would be close to the selective release end. This end of the spectrum represents both increased secrecy and leaking as an extension of authority.

Both extremes on the spectrum of transparency ideologies are quite problematic. Indeed, the extremes are actually similar enough[8] that the spectrum may be better portrayed as a loop. If a leaking organization released all information it possibly could, there would be too much information available for any of it to be useful, and few people would want to interact with the leaking organization for fear of their personal information being released. Thus, the leaking organization would stop receiving information. Similarly, an organization that released almost no information would be unable to interact with the world and would eventually shut down.

As a result, most or all leaking organizations fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum, but few can be placed exactly in the center of it. Organizations focused on transparency and promoting free information usually fall closer to the radical transparency end, while organizations whose priority is whistleblowing and correcting wrongdoings usually are closer to the selective release end. The exact placement on the spectrum also varies based on the goals and priorities of the leaking organization.

[edit] Suicidal Leaking Enticement

It is becoming far too common that websites or services purporting to disseminate information are designed for nefarious reasons. Some, like Cryptome, retain an image "Paypal Button" which is used by that entity for tracking every client to that site. Others, especially the trend oriented sites, have critical faults like Par-Anoia using the suicidal middleman Gmail for all communications. Wikileaks has an obvious design, to launder submissions selectively ensuring that their own organized crime syndicates are provided the information first and have ample opportunity for extortion or blackmail. Most other systems have similar implications -- as soon as their operation is known it becomes an immediate wiretap by consortiums of multinational entities, frequently employing an ISP or telcom level Man-In-Middle proxy route to molest and exploit all data sources. See also "Open Source Intelligence"

[edit] Leaking Process

The ideological placement of a leaking organization on the transparency spectrum significantly changes the leaking process. For example, Cryptome, a leaking organization closer to the radical transparency end of the spectrum, tries to avoid making changes or adding any information to the documents because it contributes to the problem of leaking as an extension of authority.[9] On the other hand, Juzne vesti, an organization closer to the selective release end, uses leaked documents as a supplement to articles that contain background information and their interpretations of a situation.[10] Despite these differences, leaking organizations seem to share a general process. This broad leaking process derived from my case studies is outlined in the chart below.



This diagram looks at the process primarily from the perspective of the leaking organization. The source leaks documents and post-release actions are there to capture steps the source or others take before and after the release in which the leaking organization may be involved. These vary widely, not only based on the organization, but also the source and leaked information.

The organization receives documents step involves the organization getting the documents from the source in some form. The method of transmission can vary widely, as can the documents transmitted. Documents here refers to any leaked information from millions of emails to a tip about corruption. The level of involvement of the leaking organization in this step also varies as some organizations advise sources on security practices and have secure submissions systems while others leave security to the source. Additionally, a few organizations find some of the documents they release.[11]

Leak processing is the intermediate step where leaking organizations prepare documents for release by making the information usable and safe. This is the primary focus of most leaking organizations and generally the most time consuming step.[12] There are three parts of this step and their exact order varies by organization and release: verification, redaction, and analysis/formatting. The verification sub-step involves tasks like checking the authenticity of a document and determining if the leak meets the organization's criteria for release. The redaction sub-step includes the removal of any information from names to metadata to parts of the document. The analysis/formatting step is any summary, addition of background information, mention of wrongdoings, or general preparation for release. The specific approach to these sub-steps depends on the organization.

The release step is the posting of documents, supplementary information, or articles from media partners. This could be followed by interviews about the release, advocacy for reform, or other post-release steps to help increase the effectiveness of the release. More information on the leaking process and examples of how each step is handled by different organizations can be found on the Leaking Process page.

Unfortuantely, the leaking process lacks transparency. The post-release steps are usually publicly visible and the pre-release steps are often documented on the organization's website, but the leak processing step is shrouded in mystery. Some generalities can be implied by release practices of the organization, but specific details must be pieced together like a puzzle from interviews, assumptions, and rumors. This should not be necessary and will lead to misunderstandings. This intermediary step is the primary function of leaking organizations, yet the most difficult.[13] Thus, it is important the organization improve the leak processing step as much as possible as it determines the effectiveness of a release and the leaking organization in general.[12] While the exact definition of effectiveness will vary based on the organization's transparency ideology and approach, leak processing is universally important.

It is crucial that the leaking organizations be more transparent. LeaksWiki is an attempt to increase transparency in the leaking with the goal of making leaking organizations more effective by improving their process within the context of their transparency ideology.

[edit] Sources

  1. 1.0 1.1 Greenberg, Andy. This Machine Kills Secrets.
  2. 2.0 2.1 Hood, Christopher. "From FOI World to WikiLeaks World: A New Chapter in the Transparency Story?
  3. Chen, Nadeemy. Wikileaks and its Spinoffs: new models of journalism or the new media gatekeepers?
  4. Lovink, Geert. Riemens, Patrice. Ten Theses on WikiLeaks
  5. Caryl, Christian. Why WikiLeaks Changes Everything
  6. Greenberg, Andy. An Interview with WikiLeaks' Julian Assange
  7. Noveck, Beth Simone. Wiki-Government
  8. Birchall, Clare. "Introduction to 'Secrecy and Transparency': The Politics of Opacity and Openness"
  9. Cryptome Interview
  10. Juzne vesti Interview
  11. Public Intelligence Interview
  12. 12.0 12.1 Why WikiLeaks' bid for radical transparency failed
  13. Roberts, Alasdair. "WikiLeaks: the illusion of transparency"

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #29 

Julian Assange Wants to Run for Senate (in Australia)

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has revealed his intention to run for the Australian senate on a new WikiLeaks party ticket in 2013, The Age's Philip Dorling reports, and his chances aren't as slim as you might imagine — despite his residence in Ecuador following allegations of rape in Sweden. Assange is currently living in political asylum in Ecuador, but that doesn't mean he can't be involved in Australian politics: "If Mr Assange were elected but he was unable to return to Australia to take up his position, a nominee would occupy a Senate seat," Dorling writes. Assange says his plans to register a WikiLeaks party are "significantly advanced," and that "a number of very worthy people admired by the Australian public" have said they'd be interested on running on a WikiLeaks ticket. And Australians might be interested in a WikiLeaks ticket, too! From Doring:

Opinion polls this year by UMR Research, the company the Labor Party uses for its internal polling, have suggested that Mr Assange could be a competitive Senate candidate in either NSW or Victoria, most likely fighting it out with the Australian Greens for the last of six seats up for grabs in each state in a half-Senate election

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #30 

Crowd Funding the Right to Know

Posted: 12/16/2012 11:38 pm

 

"A cantankerous press, an obstinate press, an ubiquitous press must be suffered by those in authority in order to preserve the even greater values of freedom of expression and the right of the people to know." -- Judge Murray Gurfein, Pentagon Papers case, June 17, 1971

In December 2010, WikiLeaks started publishing a selection of leaked U.S. State Department cables through the New York Times, the Guardian, and other traditional media, opening a deep crack in the thickening wall of secrecy that has been forming worldwide around the internal processes of democracy since 9/11. They helped catalyze the "Arab Spring." They struck a blow for the right of citizens everywhere to know what is being done in our names. And they thoroughly freaked out the U.S. Government, sending it into a security spasm of Cold War proportions.

It reminded us strongly of another era, when one of us, Daniel Ellsberg, was called "the most dangerous man in America" by the White House and prosecuted for revealing to the American people what was really going on in Vietnam. Efforts to stop the publication of the Pentagon Papers ended when the Supreme Court declared that the government cannot censor the media from publishing truthful information in the public interest, even if it's classified.

Thus, had the government tried to stop WikiLeaks in court, they would have failed. But they didn't have to. Instead, two individuals, Sen. Joe Lieberman and Rep. Peter King simply took it upon themselves to defund the truth. They successfully pressured Visa, Mastercard, Bank of America, and PayPal to stop processing donations to WikiLeaks, costing it 95 percent of its funding overnight.

When the private financial embargo was imposed on WikiLeaks, it was an act of censorship on them and on everyone who wanted to support their work. But against this extrajudicial sanction, there was no avenue of appeal. Even though Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced that there were no legal grounds to blacklist WikiLeaks, that didn't matter. Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, Bank of America, and PayPal are private corporations. They can do as they please. The closest thing they have to a Bill of Rights is a terms of service agreement no one reads.

While the Internet has broadly enabled those who would increase institutional transparency and accountability, responsible revelation requires more than the ability to dump documents online. Editorial processes are required to separate signal from noise and to expose the guilty without endangering the innocent. It takes actual journalism and actual journalism takes money.

We believe that not only does WikiLeaks need to survive, it must be joined by an array of others like it, edited transparency media that have so far failed to emerge, self-censoring victims of the chilling effects of the WikiLeaks blockade. Moreover, the watchdogs that do exist struggle for backers as brave as they are. The old media fear the fears of their advertisers. The new ones often depend on a few large foundations or donors, who, being from the elite themselves, may hesitate to part its curtains.

The answer, we believe, is to crowd-fund transparency, making it easy and relatively anonymous for the public to support the best watchdogs in one place, setting up a kind of United Way for the Truth.

To that end, a group of us that also includes Glenn Greenwald, Xeni Jardin, John Cusack, and Laura Poitras are launching The Freedom of the Press Foundation. Our goal is to collect deductible donations for a changing suite of scrappy public-interest organizations -- both new and existing -- focused on exposing mismanagement, cruelty, corruption, repression, and criminality in our increasingly opaque institutions.

Our first bundle of beneficiaries -- in addition to the still-beleaguered WikiLeaks -- will include MuckRock News, which streamlines Freedom of Information Act requests so that ordinary people can file them easily, The National Security Archive, which has been prying open the black boxes of classified information for years, and The UpTake, a combative Midwestern collective of citizen journalists focused on bringing transparency to state and local governments.

We hope our financial support and technical assistance will inspire a host of other edited and secure conduits for anonymously-provided documents that the citizens whose lives and liberties they impact have a natural right to see.

These channels are needed more than ever. In 2011, the U.S. Government classified over 92 million documents, four times more than were classified under George Bush in 2008. Moreover, President Obama's Justice Department has prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all the previous administrations combined.

When a government becomes invisible, it becomes unaccountable. To expose its lies, errors, and illegal acts is not treason, it is a moral responsibility. Leaks become the lifeblood of the Republic.

Whatever one's opinion of WikiLeaks, every American should be offended that two elected officials, merely by putting pressure on corporations, could financially strangle necessary expression without ever going to court. What happened to WikiLeaks is completely unacceptable in a democracy that values free speech and due process.

We intend to assure that it can't happen again.


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #31 

The Shameful Exploitation of Bradley Manning

Email    Print    Share

    
Posted on Dec 14, 2012
AP/Patrick Semansky
 

By Robert Scheer

Keep an American soldier locked up naked in a cage and driven half mad while deprived of all basic rights, and you will be instantly condemned as a barbaric terrorist. Unless the jailer is an authorized agent of the U.S. government, in which case even treatment approaching torture will go largely unnoticed. Certainly if a likable constitutional law professor happens to be president, all such assaults on human dignity will easily pass muster.

After being interned like some wild animal in that cage in Kuwait, Pfc. Bradley Manning was transferred to the Quantico, Va., Marine base and further subjected to conditions that his lawyer termed “criminal.” Not all that far from the White House, and yet our ever-enlightened president seems not to have noticed that this soldier, whose alleged criminal offense is that he attempted to inform the public of crimes committed in its name, has been held in an environment clearly created to destroy his very sense of self. 

As Manning’s lawyer, David Coombs, a lieutenant colonel in the Army reserves and a veteran of 12 years of active duty, put it: “Brad’s treatment at Quantico will forever be etched into our nation’s history as a disgraceful moment in time.” Coombs warned that the most serious charge facing his client, “aiding the enemy,” is a “scary proposition” designed to “silence a lot of critics of our government.”

Who is that “enemy” other than the public that came to be informed about the true nature of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by news reports based on a trove of documents allegedly made available to the WikiLeaks website by Manning? The documents were labeled secret, but as the many important news reports based on them revealed, they contained information that an enlightened public had a need and right to know. 

Yet for too many in the mainstream media, led by the example of the editors of The New York Times, the recent military courtroom proceedings where Manning’s lawyer finally got to document the government’s attempt to destroy his client were largely a nonevent. Conveniently so, given that the Times and other major news outlets that were thrilled to exploit the information that Manning uncovered are deeply afraid of being associated with the brave whistle-blower himself.

Advertisement

<a href='http://www.truthdig.com/banners/www/delivery/ck.php?n=abee66dc&cb=1375402643' target='_blank'><img src='http://www.truthdig.com/banners/www/delivery/avw.php?zoneid=8&cb=1375402643&n=abee66dc' border='0' alt='' /></a>
Not all, however. The British Guardian—which features Glenn Greenwald, today’s most compelling writer on civil liberties—has taken seriously the plight of the man alleged to be one of the paper’s sources. But why haven’t others? As Margaret Sullivan, the public editor of The New York Times, asked: “Why did readers of The Times have to turn to Ed Pilkington of The Guardian, or to one of the great number of other news organizations that sent reporters, to hear Private Manning tell of the Mordor into which he had been drawn—where he had to stand naked, in chains, in the ‘maximum custody’ brig at Quantico, Va., imploring his prison guards for something as simple as toilet paper, or, earlier, in a ‘cage’ in Kuwait?”

While the Times is to be applauded for running Sullivan’s devastating critique, the replies from individual editors responsible were lame. Asked why the paper didn’t send a reporter to cover this rare opportunity to learn Manning’s side of the story, Times Washington bureau chief David Leonhardt said, “We’ve covered him and will continue to do so. But as with any other legal case, we won’t cover every single proceeding.” 

Really? This is hardly just another legal case, for it goes to the heart of the First Amendment freedoms on which the Times has relied so heavily during its storied history. 

If the public had a right to know the information that Manning allegedly revealed, as the Times demonstrated by publishing important stories featuring it, then the source should be honored rather than scorned. As Sullivan wrote: “To its credit, The Times published article after article based on the very information that Private Manning provided to WikiLeaks, just as it had published the Pentagon Papers that Mr. [Daniel] Ellsberg leaked during the Vietnam War.”

Manning is in the same position as was Ellsberg, who four decades ago leaked to The New York Times details of government lies and crimes in Vietnam. Both men had access to material classified as secret, but both believed they had an obligation to puncture the veil of government secrecy when it was employed to deceive the public.

What is protected in the First Amendment is not the right of commercial enterprises to exploit the news for profit, but rather of citizens to become informed. That requires the courage of heroic sources, including Bradley Manning.


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #32 

WikiLeaks suspect Bradley Manning’s lawyer says client was treated like a ‘zoo animal’

By Julie Tate,December 11, 2012
U.S. Army Pfc. Bradley E. Manning (C) arrives for a hearing on Nov. 28, 2012… (Mark Wilson/GETTY IMAGES )

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning’s defense attorney argued Tuesday that the soldier’s former jailers at the Marine Corps brig at Quantico mistreated him to protect themselves from recriminations over their high-profile prisoner.

David E. Coombs said Quantico officials ignored the opinions of multiple health professionals that Manning was not a risk to himself or others and kept him isolated in a tiny cell 23 hours a day.

“They were more concerned with how [their actions] would appear to the Marine Corps and Quantico than if Manning was at risk of self harm,” Coombs said in his closing arguments in the pretrial hearing at Fort Meade.

 

Army Maj. Ashden Fein, one of the prosecutors, countered in his closing argument that the guards only intended to protect Manning. “Yes, they were cautious,” Fein said. “They wanted to get him to trial.”

Manning, 24, is accused of giving hundreds of thousands of classified military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks, an anti-secrecy organization. He faces life in prison if convicted of the most serious of the 22 charges against him, including aiding the enemy.

At Quantico, Manning was kept on either suicide watch or injury-prevention status for months. Every night for two months, he was stripped of his clothing and had to sleep in a gown known as a “suicide smock.”

Manning was monitored 24 hours a day and Quantico officials testified that he danced in his cell and played peekaboo with them, behavior they interpreted as unbalanced.

“The fact that Manning’s spirit is not broken is amazing,” Coombs said. “Being treated as a zoo animal for that period of time has to weigh heavily on the psyche.”

Coombs contends that Manning’s confinement was so harsh that the charges should be dropped or he should be given extra credit at sentencing.

After his arrest, Manning was called a traitor by some members of Congress and a hero by activists. Coombs said senior military officers tracked his confinement because they feared bad publicity.

 

“If the brig could have put him in a straitjacket and padded room, they would have done that,” he said.

The attorney said Marine Lt. Gen. George J. Flynn monitored Manning’s case from the outset and sent an e-mail to the brig commander saying that Manning was “a prime candidate to take his own life.”

Manning listened quietly, occasionally reviewing paperwork. He testified earlier that he considered suicide after he was arrested in May 2010 in Iraq. But he said he was not a danger to himself or anyone after those early days. Multiple health professionals agreed, but their opinions were set aside by the brig commander.

In arguing the military’s case, Fein said there was no evidence that Manning was subjected to extreme treatment. He reviewed the testimony of 14 guards, pointing out that all of them said their job was to protect Manning.

Fein acknowledged that Manning was held improperly on suicide watch on two occasions for a total of seven days. He said Manning should receive credit for those days at sentencing.

Manning is now being held at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. His next hearing is set for mid-January, and the court-martial will begin in mid-March.


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #33 

Bradley Manning's long quest for justice

History will judge harshly the US military's mistreatment of the alleged WikiLeaks whistleblower, who turns 25 this week

Supporters of Bradley Manning protest during his scheduled motion hearing, outside the gates of Fort Meade, Maryland. Photograph: Jose Luis Magana/Reuters

Pfc Bradley Manning was finally allowed to speak publicly, in his own defense, in a preliminary hearing of his court martial. Manning is the alleged source of the largest intelligence leak in US history. He was an intelligence analyst in the US army, with top secret clearance, deployed in Iraq. In April 2010, the whistleblower website WikiLeaks released a US military video of an Apache helicopter in Baghdad killing a dozen civilians below, including two Reuters employees, a videographer and his driver.

One month after the video was released, Manning was arrested in Iraq, charged with leaking the video and hundreds of thousands more documents. Thus began his ordeal of cruel, degrading imprisonment in solitary confinement that many claim was torture, from his detention in Kuwait to months in the military brig in Quantico, Virginia. Facing global condemnation, the US military transferred Manning to less abusive detention at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

As he now faces 22 counts in a court martial that could land him in prison for the rest of his life, his lawyer argued in court that the case should be thrown out, based on his unlawful pre-trial punishment.

Veteran constitutional attorney Michael Ratner was in the courtroom at Fort Meade, Maryland, that day Manning took the stand. He described the scene:

"It was one of the most dramatic courtroom scenes I've ever been in … When Bradley opened his mouth, he was not nervous. The testimony was incredibly moving, an emotional rollercoaster for all of us, but particularly, obviously, for Bradley and what he went through. But it was so horrible what happened to him over a two-year period. He described it in great detail in a way that was articulate, smart, self-aware."

Ratner said Manning described being kept in a cage in Kuwait:

"There were two cages. He said they were like animal cages. They were in a tent alone, just these two cages, side by side. One of them had whatever possessions he may have had; one of them, he was in, with a little bed for a rack and a toilet, dark, in this cage for almost two months."

Ratner quoted Manning from his testimony, recalling his words:

"For me, I stopped keeping track. I didn't know whether night was day or day was night. And my world became very, very small. It became these cages."

Ratner added: "It almost destroyed him."

After Kuwait, Manning was shipped to a brig in Quantico. Manning's civilian defense attorney, David Coombs, said earlier this month:

"Brad's treatment at Quantico will forever be etched, I believe, in our nation's history, as a disgraceful moment in time. Not only was it stupid and counterproductive. It was criminal."

The United Nations special rapporteur on torture, Juan Mendez, attempted to visit Manning, but then refused when the military said it could surveil and record the visit. He reported:

"Solitary confinement is a harsh measure which may cause serious psychological and physiological adverse effects on individuals regardless of their specific conditions."

Manning's cruel treatment was described by officials as necessary, as he was a suicide risk. Yet navy Capt William Hocter, a forensic psychiatrist at Quantico, said he was no such risk, but was ignored. Hocter testified:

"I had been a senior medical officer for 24 years at the time, and I had never experienced anything like this. It was clear to me they had made up their mind on a certain cause of action, and my recommendations had no impact."

This first phase of the court martial, which Coombs calls "the unlawful pretrial punishment motion phase", considered a defense motion to throw out the entire case. While that is unlikely, observers say, the defense asked, as an alternative, that the court consider crediting Manning with 10 days' reduction from any eventual sentence for each day he spent suffering cruel and degrading punishment in Kuwait and Quantico, which could, in theory, trim six years from his prison time.

Bradley Manning is charged with releasing the WikiLeaks trove of documents, which included the Baghdad massacre video, two separate, massive tranches of documents relating to US military records from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and, perhaps most importantly, the huge release of more than 250,000 US State Department cables, dubbed "Cablegate". In an August 2010 assessment, then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said the document release "has not revealed any sensitive intelligence sources and methods compromised by the disclosure."

Manning has offered to plead guilty to releasing the documents, but not to the more serious charges of espionage or aiding the enemy.

Manning turns 25, in prison, 17 December, which is also the second anniversary of the day a young Tunisian set himself on fire in protest of his country's corrupt government, sparking the Arab Spring. A year ago, as Time magazine named the protester as the "Person of the Year", legendary Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg offered praise that rings true today:

"The Time magazine cover gives protester, an anonymous protester, as 'Person of the Year,' but it is possible to put a face and a name to that picture of 'Person of the Year.' And the American face I would put on that is Private Bradley Manning."

• Denis Moynihan contributed research to this column.

© 2012 Amy Goodman; distributed by King Features Syndicate

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #34 

WikiLeaks, Hollywood’s Next Muse

Focus World

Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, in the film “We Steal Secrets.” Several moviemakers are eager to tell his story.

LOS ANGELES — At the end of Alex Gibney’s not-quite-finished documentary “We Steal Secrets” — about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks — is a screen crawl describing the fate of Pfc. Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst who now faces trial for the release of confidential military and diplomatic documents.

Focus World

Julian Assange in the film “We Steal Secrets.”

“He was found guilty of TK, and sentenced to TK years” in prison, the line says.

“TK” is journalistic shorthand for facts yet to come. The syntax suggests that Mr. Gibney doesn’t see much ahead.

But it is Private Manning, even more than Mr. Assange, who has the breakout role in this first of several Hollywood films about the little-known people who grew larger than the most powerful of governments by using the Internet to broadcast their secrets.

Set for debut at the Sundance Film Festival next month, “We Steal Secrets” is a collaboration between the producer Marc Shmuger, who until 2009 was a chairman of Universal Pictures, and Mr. Gibney, a prolific documentarian who won an Oscar for “Taxi to the Dark Side.”

After leaving Universal, Mr. Shmuger started a film company, Global Produce. But he spent much of 2010 transfixed by reports about Mr. Assange, an Australian computer hacker who stepped into the limelight as a self-appointed czar of government and corporate transparency — and ultimately as a fugitive from authorities in Sweden, where he is wanted for questioning related to allegations of sexual assault. He is avoiding extradition from Britain by claiming asylum in Ecuador’s embassy in London.

Mr. Shmuger found an e-mail address for Mr. Gibney, whom he did not know, and proposed a documentary. Mr. Gibney, who had just finished “Client 9: The Rise and Fall of Eliot Spitzer” and always has prospective projects to pursue, recalls trying to avoid adding this one.

“It couldn’t have come at a worse time,” said Mr. Gibney, who spoke from New York this week in a joint interview with Mr. Shmuger, who is based here.

But Mr. Gibney, like Mr. Shmuger, was soon captivated by the unlikely characters and bizarre narrative that are promising to make the WikiLeaks story the subject of not one movie, but many.

“Underground: The Julian Assange Story,” an Australian television film about the young Mr. Assange, was screened at the Toronto International Film Festival in September.

In January, DreamWorks Studios and Participant Media plan to begin shooting a dramatic feature film to be directed by Bill Condon. It will be based on a script by Josh Singer and two books: “Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World’s Most Dangerous Website,” by a former Assange colleague, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, and “WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy,” by David Leigh and Luke Harding.

HBO also had plans for an Assange movie, but Nancy Lesser, a spokeswoman for the channel, said the film has been delayed. Mark Boal, the writer and a producer of “Zero Dark Thirty,” continues to work on a possible Assange drama based on a New York Times Magazine article, “The Boy Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest” by Bill Keller.

In an e-mail, Mr. Keller, a former executive editor of The Times, said Mr. Boal recently asked whether he had any interest in writing the script for that one. “I told him I thought screenplays were outside my skill set,” Mr. Keller said.

“We Steal Secrets” has moved more quickly than the dramas, threatening at times to outpace events. Mr. Manning’s trial, for instance, had been expected by some to occur this year. But it has been delayed — perhaps to keep it out of the presidential campaign, Mr. Gibney suggested this week — and is now scheduled for March.

Focus Features expects to release “We Steal Secrets” through its FocusWorld label in the months after Sundance, which runs Jan. 17 to 27. Mr. Shmuger’s company will have another film, a comedy called “The Spectacular Now,” at the festival.

Running more than two hours, the documentary is a relatively full retelling of Mr. Assange’s story. It ranges from his youthful hacking into a network connected to an American rocket launch, through an arrest for entering government and business computers in the 1990s, to his rise as the overlord of WikiLeaks, the online organization that helped whistle-blowers post documents while remaining anonymous.

The film promises to break ground, particularly with its deep exploration of the sex case in Sweden. Mr. Gibney has asked to avoid spoilers on this point, but his narrative and supporting research are not friendly toward those who would see Sweden’s pursuit of Mr. Assange as cover for a supposed American agenda to prosecute or smear him.

Mr. Gibney tells on-screen of rejecting Mr. Assange’s demands for money in exchange for an interview and says that the market rate for an interview was $1 million.  Instead, that became an example of what one figure in the film calls “noble cause corruption” — a tendency to excuse transgressions supposedly done in the service of good. (A query was sent this week to an Assange representative for comment on this article, but Mr. Assange did not respond.)

But the film also takes issue with what Mr. Gibney considers shabby treatment of Mr. Assange by The Times, which cooperated with him in publishing many WikiLeaks revelations, but later described him with what Mr. Gibney called “derision.”

Mr. Keller, in his e-mail, said “being a source doesn’t buy you reverent treatment as a subject.” Mr. Assange’s release of secret documents, Mr. Keller added, is “entitled to the same First Amendment protection as the stories we wrote.”

Still, it is Private Manning who steals the spotlight in “We Steal Secrets.” Relying in part on information from the legal proceeding against him, the film traces his loneliness and confusion over sexual identity, and his unease with conduct and incidents he saw described in secret documents. The film also deals with communications he had with a cyberfriend who ultimately betrayed him to authorities.

Though widely condemned for perhaps exposing both civilians and government operatives around the world to mortal danger, Private Manning, in Mr. Gibney’s view, deserves empathy.

“We explore him as a human being far more fully than anyone else has,” he said this week.

In fact, Mr. Shmuger and Mr. Gibney have acquired rights to the book “Private: Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks, and the Biggest Exposure of Official Secrets in American History,” by Denver Nicks, and are hoping to give Mr. Manning a full-blown dramatic film of his own.

“We’re looking for a screenwriter,” said Mr. Shmuger.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: December 20, 2012

 

An earlier version of this article referred imprecisely to what Alex Gibney says in “We Steal Secrets” about Julian Assange’s demands for money in exchange for collaborating on the film. While he says that he rejected the demands, and that the market rate for an interview was $1 million, he does not specifically say that he rejected a demand from Mr. Assange for a $1 million fee for an interview. An earlier version of the photographs with this review, using information from a publicist, carried erroneous credits. They are by Focus World, not Focus Features.


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #35 
December 20, 2012, 6:34 PM
Julian Assange praises Bradley Manning in rare speech


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57560360/julian-assange-praises-bradley-manning-in-rare-speech/

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #36 

Happy Birthday Bradley! Write him a letter of support!
Bradley Manning will turn 25 on December 17th. It will be his third birthday in prison without trial. His court martial is scheduled for March, 2013.


http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/happy-birthday-bradley-write-him-a-letter-of-support

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #37 

Various matters: cyberwar, last gasps, and hate speech

An Obama official seems to justify an Iranian attack on the US; Panetta channels Cheney; Tom Friedman writes from expertise

  • There are several brief matters worth noting today:

    1) It seems that a leading Obama official just endorsed the right of Iran to attack the US and Israel:

    The Washington Post, today ("US official says cyberattacks can trigger self-defense rule"):

    "Cyberattacks can amount to armed attacks triggering the right of self-defense and are subject to international laws of war, the State Department's top lawyer said Tuesday.

    "Spelling out the US government's position on the rules governing cyberwarfare, Harold Koh, the department's legal adviser, said a cyber-operation that results in death, injury or significant destruction would probably be seen as a use of force in violation of international law.

    "In the United States' view, any illegal use of force potentially triggers the right of national self-defense, Koh said …

    "In our view, there is no threshold for a use of deadly force to qualify as an 'armed attack' that may warrant a forcible response,' he said … Koh also said that in responding to an attack, an action need not be taken in cyberspace, but it must be a necessary action and one that is proportionate, avoiding harm to civilians."

    New York Times, 1 June 2012 ("Obama Order Sped Up Wave of Cyberattacks Against Iran"):

    "From his first months in office, President Obama secretly ordered increasingly sophisticated attacks on the computer systems that run Iran's main nuclear enrichment facilities, significantly expanding America's first sustained use of cyberweapons, according to participants in the program.

    "Mr Obama decided to accelerate the attacks – begun in the Bush administration and code-named Olympic Games – even after an element of the program accidentally became public in the summer of 2010 because of a programming error that allowed it to escape Iran's Natanz plant and sent it around the world on the Internet. Computer security experts who began studying the worm, which had been developed by the United States and Israel, gave it a name: Stuxnet …

    "It appears to be the first time the United States has repeatedly used cyberweapons to cripple another country's infrastructure, achieving, with computer code, what until then could be accomplished only by bombing a country or sending in agents to plant explosives.

    "Mr Obama, according to participants in the many Situation Room meetings on Olympic Games, was acutely aware that with every attack he was pushing the United States into new territory, much as his predecessors had with the first use of atomic weapons in the 1940s, of intercontinental missiles in the 1950s and of drones in the past decade."

    Of course, Koh's argument would only constitute a defense of Iran's right to attack the US if the rights claimed by the US applied to other countries, so there's nothing to worry about.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/19/cyberwar-last-gasps-hate-speech


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #38 




Tuesday, Apr 10, 2012 6:21 PM UTC
The liberal betrayal of Bradley Manning
Guest Post: Why have liberals not rallied to the WikiLeaks source's defense?
By Glenn Greenwald

more

Topics: News
The liberal betrayal of Bradley ManningBradley Manning (Credit: Reuters/Jose Luis Magana)

[Glenn Greenwald is on vacation this week and three writers will be filling in for him.]

By Charles Davis

More than three years into the presidency of Barack Obama, it’s almost a cliché now to ask: What if George W. Bush did it? From dramatically escalating the war in Afghanistan to institutionalizing the practice of indefinite imprisonment, Obama has dashed hopes he would offer a change from the Bush’s national security policies – but he hasn’t faced a whole lot of resistance from liberals who once decried those policies as an affront to American values.

Like those on the right who now crow about fascism but spent the Bush years gleefully declaring left-wing celebrities “enemies of the state,” many of those on the liberal-left treat issues of war and civil liberties as useful merely for partisan purposes. When a Democrat’s in power those issues become inconvenient. And usually ignored.

Former dean of the Yale Law School Harold Koh, for instance, used to rail against the imperial presidency, speaking of the horror of torture and “indefinite detention without trial.” Now a legal adviser for the Obama State Department, he recently declared that “justice” can be delivered with or with out a trial. Indeed, “Drones also deliver.” Don’t expect much more than a yawn from Democratic pundits, though, much less any calls for impeachment. It’s an election year, after all. And what, would you rather Mitt Romney be the guy drone-striking Pakistani tribesmen?

“Obama and the Democrats being in power in Washington defangs a lot of liberal criticism,” Chase Madar, a civil rights attorney in New York, told me in an interview. Indeed, but with a few exceptions – Michael Moore, Dennis Kucinich, The Nation – those who would be inclined to defend Manning were Bush still in office are the ones either condemning him or condoning his treatment, which has included spending the better part of a year in torturous solitary confinement, an all too common feature of American prisons. Even his progressive defenders, remaining loyal to the Democratic Party, tend to downplay Obama’s role in the Bradley Manning affair; his authorizing the abuse of an American hero is certainly no means not to vote for him again.

“The whole civil libertarian message only really seems to catch fire among liberals when there’s a Republican in the White House,” says Madar. When there’s not a bumbling Texan to inveigh against, all the sudden issues that were morally black and white become complex, and liberal media starts finding nuance where there wasn’t any before.

That much is clear in the case of Manning, the young soldier accused of leaking State Department cables and evidence of war atrocities to WikiLeaks. Under different conditions, he might be a liberal hero. After all, much – though certainly not all – of what he exposed, from the killing of Iraqi civilians to US complicity in torture by the Iraqi government, happened during the Bush years. But it is the Obama administration that is imprisoning him. It is Barack Obama who pronounced him guilty before he so much as had a trial (which he’s still waiting for after almost two years in captivity). And so justifications must be made.

One popular way is by attacking Manning’s character, by arguing that unlike Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked top secret Pentagon documents detailing U.S. failures in Vietnam, Manning – who, if the charges against him are true, didn’t leak a single piece of top secret information – was simply a troubled young man. The New York Times, for instance, published a piece that spent several thousand words to essentially say he did it because he had “delusions of grandeur.” And because he was gay, probably.

Alyssa Rosenberg, a blogger for the Center for American Progress, declared her “main opinion of Bradley Manning” to be that “it sounds like he has pretty serious emotional problems and turned out not to be a particularly effective whistleblower.” Conveniently, Manning is to blame for the fact the WikiLeaks revelations did not alter the behavior of the American empire, not the institutions of state power so often fawned over by Rosenberg and her colleagues as fundamentally good and just.

Joy Reid, a Democratic pundit who often appears on MSNBC, likewise dwells on Manning’s alleged emotional problems and gayness. Because he allegedly divulged to a hacker-turned-informant that he was struggling with his gender identity, Reid – ignoring all the inconvenient comments about being outraged by torture and civilian deaths – argued that Manning was no hero at all, but rather “a guy seeking anarchy as a salve for his own personal, psychological torment” caused by his sexuality. In this case one might well ask: What if Rick Santorum said it?

When the Nixon administration sought to discredit Ellsberg back in 1971, it played by the same book as Reid and other Obama loyalists unwilling to believe their president is persecuting a hero, breaking into his psychiatrist’s office in a vain attempt to uncover evidence of mental illness. Today, the liberal media does the government’s work for it.

A lot of that, obviously, has to do with partisanship. Though Ellsberg’s leaks primarily exposed the lies of Nixon’s Democratic predecessor’s, he was the target of a loathed Republican administration, so liberals rallied to his defense; there was a president to take down, after all. By contrast, the treatment of Manning – labeled “appropriate” by Obama; as “cruel” and “inhuman” by the UN special rapporteur on torture – threatens the mainstream liberal narrative about the American state. If a Democratic president is torturing a whistle-blower who primarily exposed atrocities authorized by his Republican predecessor, it’s almost as if . . . well, best not to think about that.

But it’s just brand loyalty that explains the liberal condemnations of Manning – or the even more common silence. As Madar, who just wrote a book on the alleged WikiLeaks source, “The Passion of Bradley Manning,” notes, when it comes to Manning and the broader issue of Obama’s continuation of Bush’s war on terror, it’s about more than simple party politics.

“There’s a long tradition of liberals, especially in the first few decades after the Cold War, of being opposed to, say, the vulgar witch-hunting, hysterical anti-communism of Joseph McCarthy,” says Madar, “but being supportive of the much more professional anti-communism of, say, Harvard University.” You can see the same dynamic at play now. Bush’s imperialism was crude and unilateral, so it was condemned; Obama’s is more sophisticated and multilateral, so it’s condoned – or cheered.

Similarly, those on the right who condemn Manning do so in a manner repellent to the more refined liberal palette. Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, for instance – in the midst of selling his children’s book, Can’t Wait Till Christmas! – declared that for Manning, “anything less than execution is too kind a penalty.”

How uncouth. How vulgar. On the center-left, the position is much more sensible: don’t outright murder the guy, at least not without a show trial, but don’t you dare let him see the light of day again. As Obama himself pronounced, “He broke the law,” which is something that must be obeyed by everyone but bankers and torturers and presidents. We can’t just expose the state-sanctioned torture and murder of innocents willy-nilly. We can’t just listen to our own consciences when confronted with institutional evil. That’d be anarchy. Which is bad.

To be fair, liberals can’t really be blamed for their reaction to Manning. What he did was fundamentally radical, not reformist. He didn’t settle for working within a system explicitly designed to thwart the exposure of wrongdoing, through a chain of command that callously ignores concern for non-American life. Having access to evidence of grotesque crimes no one around him seemed to care about, he engaged in direct action, exposing them for the benefit of the world and those paying for them, the U.S. taxpayer.

“[I]f you had free reign over classified networks for long periods of time,” Manning reportedly wrote to the man who ultimately turned him in, “and you saw incredible things, awful things… things that belonged in the public domain, and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington DC… what would you do? ” We know what his answer was. And we know what the guardians of establishment liberalism would have had him do: Nothing.

Judge for yourself which is more defensible.
Continue Reading Close

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #39 
Assange: Google, Facebook run 'side projects' for US spooks

alert
print

Labels Facebook 'undreamt of even by the worst'

By Simon Sharwood, APAC Editor • Get more from this author

Posted in Security, 4th December 2012 02:42 GMT

WikiMartyr-in-waiting Julian Assange has emitted another screed in which he shares his belief that democracy is being dangerously undermined by government monitoring of the internet, and that Facebook and Google are helping those efforts.

Chatting with RT, Assange has outlined his belief that nations now conduct surveillance on a massive scale, because “it is cheaper to intercept every individual rather that it is to pick particular people to spy upon.”

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/04/assange_says_google_facebook_pass_data_to_us_intelligence/

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #40 

Saluting Bradley Manning with Daniel Ellsberg & Kevin Gosztola

Thursday, Jan 31, 2013 7:30p

KPFA Radio 94.1 FM and Courage to Resist present

Saluting Bradley Manning: with Daniel Ellsberg & Patricia Ellsberg & Kevin Gosztola
Truth & Consequences: The U.S. vs Bradley Manning

$12 advance tickets: http://www.brownpapertickets.com/event/306699 :: 800-838-3006
or Pegasus Books (3 locations), Marcus Books, Mrs. Dalloway’s, Moe’s Books, Walden Pond, DIESEL, A Bookstore, and Modern Times ($15 door)
Information: http://www.kpfa.org/events KPFA benefit

Note: This is not only a book event, but
… Show more

Creator: kenpreston

Performers at this Event
Patricia Ellsberg
Patricia Marx Ellsberg, Daniel’s wife, was a nationally syndicated reporter for public radio and an opponent of the Vietnam War when she first dated Ellsberg, who was working at the Pentagon, in 1965....
Location & Nearby Info
First Congregational Church Berkeley
Dana between Channing and Durant
Berkeley, CA 94701

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #41 

Obama declares Manning guilty without trial

Published: 26 April, 2011, 00:54
Edited: 21 December, 2011, 18:53

 
 

President Barack Obama in the Situation Room of the White House. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

(18.9Mb) embed video

In a conversation about alleged WikiLeaks leaker US President Barack Obama commented on Pfc. Bradley Manning saying, “He broke the law.”

The words from Obama’s mouth come as Manning is held in prison awaiting further charges and a military trial. Manning has entered no official plea and no court proceedings have begun. Yet, the US president dubbed him guilty of breaking the law.

Many argue no truly fair or impartial trial is even possible at this point. Some hold there would never be a fair trial since the media had already convicted manning in the court of public opinion. Now that the Military’s commander-in-chief has spoke on the matter is even more unlikely the military trial will be fair and impartial.

Military officers on a potential jury now know that their commander and chief believes Manning to be guilty. To find otherwise would amount to undermining his view.

Kevin Zeese, an attorney, the director of Come Home America and an advisor to the Bradley Manning Support Network explained this directly obstructs the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

That was a very clear error by President Obama,” he remarked. “This makes it very hard for Private Manning to have a fair trial in the military.”

Many people the world over are actively supporting Manning and protesting his detention and mistreatment at the hands of the US Department of Defense.

It is highly unlikely, Zeese argued, that a military officer or enlistee would site on a jury and pas a verdict that is in opposition to the words of the President. It could possibly be bad for their future careers. This eliminates any possibility of a fair trial.

Manning, if guilty, merely released low-level secrets to the American public who had a right to know what their government was doing, he said. He did not sell or trade dangerous secretes to foreign governments.

That’s not a traitor to me, that’s a patriot,” said Zeese.


__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #42 
Posted at 02:39 PM ET, 04/21/2011
California donors ambush President Obama with Bradley Manning protest song; D.C. statehood activists take note
By The Reliable Source


Naomi Pitcairn of Oakland is detained on Third Street after protesting and leaving a fundraiser at the St. Regis in San Francisco on Thursday. (Lea Suzuki/ The Chronicle)

(Updated with new details, 4:45 p.m.)

Now, this is putting money where your mouth is:

A group of protesters apparently paid tens of thousands of dollars to attend Thursday’s breakfast fundraiser for President Obama and the DNC — then stood up and delivered a song about the treatment of Bradley Manning, the imprisoned army private who gave classified documents to Wikileaks.

Obama was delivering remarks to 150 donors at the St. Regis in San Francisco when an unidentified woman in a white suit stood up and said, “Mr. President, we wrote you a song.”

According to the White House pool report, Obama tried to convince the woman to wait until the end of his speech, but she and a half-dozen others at her table began singing, “Dear Mr. President, we honor you today sir. . .”

At first, the president didn’t realize it was a protest, and looked over to Nancy Pelosi to see if she was in on the surprise. Pelosi clearly was not, and the women continued (according to lyrics handed out later to reporters):

It takes a lot of Benjamins to run a campaign

I paid my dues, where’s our change?

We’ll vote for you in 2012, yes that’s true

Look at the Republicans — what else can we do

Even though we don’t know if we’ll retain our liberties

In what you seem content to call a free society

Yes it’s true that Terry Jones is legally free

To burn a people’s holy book in shameful effigy

But at another location in this country

Alone in a 6x12 cell sits Bradley

23 hours a day is night

The 5th and 8th Amendments say this kind of thing ain’t right

We paid our dues, where’s our change?

They held up signs reading, “Free Bradley Manning,” and the ringleader stripped off her white jacket to show a black T-shirt with the same message. At that point, the Secret Service escorted her out. Others at the table walked out, but some stayed until the end of Obama’s speech and applauded at the end. (Hey, why not stay? One of the activists told the San Francisco Chronicle she shelled out $76K to get her group in.)

“That was a nice song,” said Obama dryly. “Now where was I?” Later, press secretary Jay Carney said the president thought it was “funny” and told him, “You don’t get that every day.”

Taking note back in D.C.: Former Mayor Sharon Pratt and her predecessor Walter Washington’s widow Mary. The two women went to the White House Thursday in an attempt to hand-deliver a letter — co-signed by Vince Gray, Tony Williams and Marion Barry — asking Obama to put the city’s “Taxation without Representation” plates on his official vehicles. (Clinton did, Bush removed them, and Obama has thus far rebuffed efforts to get involved.) But Secret Service told them they wouldn’t take a letter by hand — mail only. Pratt told us they’re hoping to get it to him in person, “at an event or wherever — we’re determined it’s going to get his attention.” How about at a fancy fundraiser? “That’s an option we need to consider. We need to exhaust all options, to let them know it matters to us.”

A video of the protest, courtesy of the San Francisco Chronicle.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/reliable-source/post/big-ticket-donors-ambush-president-obama-with-bradley-manning-protest-song/2011/04/21/AFE5akJE_blog.html
By The Reliable Source | 02:39 PM ET, 04/21/2011

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #43 
Why Naomi Pitcairn paid to crash Obama fundraiser
Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross
Published 4:00 am, Saturday, April 23, 2011

1 of 2
View: Larger | Hide

Naomi Pitcairn of Oakland is escorted by San Francisco Police Officers after protesting at a fundraiser fro President Barack Obama at the St. Regis in San Francisco, Calif., Thursday, April 21, 2011. Obama told supporters on he is pressing ahead with hisagenda in a difficult political environment in Washington and that "change turned out to be a lot tougher than expected" Obama addressed about 200 people who paid up to $35,800 apiece for the fundraiser at the San Francisco hotel, the first of four fundraiser of the day. Photo: Lea Suzuki, The Chronicle
Naomi Pitcairn of Oakland is escorted by San Francisco Police Officers after protesting at a fundraiser fro President Barack Obama at the St. Regis in San Francisco, Calif., Thursday, April 21, 2011. Obama told supporters on he is pressing ahead with hisagenda in a difficult political environment in Washington and that "change turned out to be a lot tougher than expected" Obama addressed about 200 people who paid up to $35,800 apiece for the fundraiser at the San Francisco hotel, the first of four fundraiser of the day. Photo: Lea Suzuki, The Chronicle


0
inShare
Comments (0)
Larger | Smaller
Printable Version
Email This
Font
       

Naomi Pitcairn, the ringleader of the East Bay serenaders who disrupted President Obama'sbreakfast fundraiser to protest the treatment of accused WikiLeaks source Pfc. Bradley Manning, says she's actually a big supporter of the president.

In fact, records show she gave $28,500 to Obama's Victory Fund in 2008.

"He's the best shot we have," said Pitcairn, a fourth-generation heir to the Pittsburgh Plate Glass fortune.

Pitcairn and fellow anti-war activists disrupted Obama's big-ticket gathering at San Francisco's St. Regis Hotel on Thursday with an a cappella song: "We paid our dues ... where's our change?"

The cost of the group's tickets was over $76,000, which Pitcairn said she fully intends to pay.

Before getting tossed from the event, the 51-year-old Pitcairn casually rubbed elbows with the president, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Gov. Jerry Brownand a host of other movers and shakers in what she called the "extra special, rich people room."

Her main topic of conversation with the various politicos was legalizing marijuana.

"I told the president that I had smoked marijuana, and he said that was good," she said. "So I may not have the approval of the DEA, but I do have the approval of the president, to his face."

When she pressed Feinstein on the legalization issue, the senator "was very gracious" but made it clear that she was talking to the wrong person.

Pitcairn said she asked Brown what he thought about imprisoned Bradley Manning.

"Who's that?" the governor asked.

Bouncing ball: San Francisco political mover and shaker Darius Anderson, who is part of the team trying to put high rises on Treasure Island, was at the Capitol last week trying to broker a deal to keep the NBA's Sacramento Kings from moving to Anaheim.

The main pitch: If brothers Joe and Gavin Maloof can't make the team profitable in Sacramento, then Anderson's mentor, friend and business partner - billionaire grocery magnate Ron Burkle - is more than eager to take over.

Meanwhile, the San Francisco Giants are actively talking to the new owners of the Warriors about a joint deal to put up a basketball arena down by AT&T Park.

Trash talk: Barely two weeks on the job and Oakland Mayor Jean Quan's handpicked interim city administrator has signed the city up for a 2 1/2-year extension on an $81 million garbage contract without so much as a word to the City Council or even the city attorney.

The Waste Management deal is "a huge, huge contract - one of the biggest franchise deals we have," Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente said.

At the very least, he said, it deserved a public airing since residents will have to pay the garbage bills.

Acting administrator Lamont Ewell says he made the call, in part, because the city - which is facing a $58 million deficit - needs the $29 million it will get from the deal, including $4.8 million that goes into the general fund.

But not everybody at City Hall is convinced there was a need to rush - at least not without first considering whether any competitors like Recology, which handles San Francisco's hauling, might have been interested in submitting a rival bid.

Karen Boyd, the spokeswoman for the administrator's office, said the renewed contract only allows Waste Management to raise rates 1.5 percent next year - a real bargain compared with the 23 percent increase that San Mateo just paid in its new contract or the 45 percent hikes of neighboring Emeryville and Castro Valley.

Hope they're right. Because thanks to budget cuts, Oakland had neither the time nor staff to negotiate a new deal.

Shining stars: Lots of retooling these days on the BART police force.

Officer Marysol Domenici, who was fired for allegedly lying about the Oscar Grant shooting two years ago only to be ordered reinstated by an outside arbitrator, has returned to work with back pay.

Newcomer Police Chief Kenton Rainey has just sworn in three new deputy chiefs, including two hired from outside the department.

And now BART police have new gold star badges to make them look more like real cops.

All in the name of putting a new shine on the department's image.

And finally: Overheard at District Attorney George Gascón's $500-a-head fundraiser the other night at Harris' steak house: former 49ers exec Carmen Policy saying he never saw any of the kind of "back of the bus" sexcapades described by newly fired Niners radio announcer and ex-player Gary Plummer.

"Yeah," shot back PR consultant Sam Singer, "that's because you were team president and could afford a hotel room."

Chronicle columnists Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross appear Sundays, Mondays and Wednesdays. Matier can be seen on the KPIX-TV morning and evening news. He can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call (415) 777-8815, or e-mail matierandross@sfchronicle.com.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/matier-ross/article/Why-Naomi-Pitcairn-paid-to-crash-Obama-fundraiser-2374407.php

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #44 
Protesters sing for Obama at fundraiser
Paying attendees broke out in song as President Obama addressed a crowd at a San Francisco hotel. They used the tune to lament the treatment of Pfc. Bradley Manning, accused of passing classified information to WikiLeaks.
April 22, 2011|By James Oliphant, Washington Bureau

Reporting from Washington — As free speech goes, it was anything but.

Protesters disrupted a big-ticket fundraiser for President Obama at a San Francisco hotel Thursday, serenading the president with a song about Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, the soldier accused of passing classified information to the website WikiLeaks.
Ads by Google

What Happens When You DieNew scientific theory says death isn't the end RobertLanza.com
Brain Training GamesImprove memory with scientifically designed brain exercises. http://www.lumosity.com

Obama was speaking to the crowd of about 200 supporters when Oakland activist Naomi Pitcairn stood up and declared that she and others at her table had written a song for the president.

Brushing off his suggestion to wait, the 10 people seated at the table burst into a refrain that lamented the Pentagon's detention of Manning, described as abuse by human rights advocates. The song also touched on the cost of a ticket to the president's fundraiser, and on Florida Rev. Terry Jones, who recently burned a copy of the Koran, sparking a deadly reaction in Afghanistan.

"Each of us brought you $5,000 / It takes a lot of Benjamins to run a campaign / I paid my dues / Where's our change?" they sang.

The group held up small signs that read "Free Bradley Manning."

Obama appeared somewhat displeased, as did House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), also in attendance. But the president ultimately seemed to take the disruption in stride.

Pitcairn, who told reporters she paid the $76,000 for the group at her table to attend the breakfast event, was escorted from the ballroom by the Secret Service. Two other attendees at the table left on their own. The rest of the singers remained.

Tickets for the event ranged from $5,000 to $35,800.

"That was a nice song," Obama said when the protest was over. "Now, where was I?"

Aides later said Obama found the interruption "funny" and that it had energized his morning. He did not address Manning's treatment.

james.oliphant@latimes.com

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #45 
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/01/us/bradley-manning-admits-giving-trove-of-military-data-to-wikileaks.html?_r=0&pagewanted=print


Soldier Admits Providing Files to WikiLeaks
Alex Wong/Getty Images

Pfc. Bradley Manning pleaded guilty to 10 criminal counts in connection with the leak to WikiLeaks.
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: February 28, 2013

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Save
E-mail
Share
Print
Reprints

FORT MEADE, Md. — Pfc. Bradley Manning on Thursday confessed in open court to providing vast archives of military and diplomatic files to the antisecrecy group WikiLeaks, saying that he released the information to help enlighten the public about “what happens and why it happens” and to “spark a debate about foreign policy.”
Multimedia
WikiLeaks Archive — Cables Uncloak U.S. Diplomacy
INTERACTIVE FEATURE: The War Logs
National Twitter Logo.
Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors
Enlarge This Image
Jim Watson/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Pfc. Bradley Manning in April 2012. His guilty pleas Thursday exposed him to up to 20 years in prison.

Appearing before a military judge for more than an hour, Private Manning read a statement recounting how he joined the military, became an intelligence analyst in Iraq, decided that certain files should become known to the American public to prompt a wider debate about foreign policy, downloaded them from a secure computer network and then ultimately uploaded them to WikiLeaks.

“No one associated with WLO” — an abbreviation he used to refer to the WikiLeaks organization — “pressured me into sending any more information,” Private Manning said. “I take full responsibility.”

Before reading the statement, Private Manning pleaded guilty to 10 criminal counts in connection with the huge amount of material he leaked, which included videos of airstrikes in Iraq and Afghanistan in which civilians were killed, logs of military incident reports, assessment files of detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and a quarter-million cables from American diplomats stationed around the world.

The guilty pleas exposed him to up to 20 years in prison. But the case against Private Manning, a slightly built 25-year-old who has become a folk hero among antiwar and whistle-blower advocacy groups, is not over. The military has charged him with a far more serious set of offenses, including aiding the enemy, and multiple counts of violating federal statutes, including the Espionage Act. Prosecutors now have the option of pressing forward with proving the remaining elements of those charges.

That would involve focusing only on questions like whether the information he provided counted as the sort covered by the Espionage Act — that is, whether it was not just confidential but also could be used to injure the United States or aid a foreign nation.

Private Manning described himself as thinking carefully about the kind of information he was releasing, and taking care to make sure that none of it could cause harm if disclosed.

The only material that initially gave him pause, he said, were the diplomatic cables, which he portrayed as documenting “back-room deals and seemingly criminal activity.”

But he decided to go forward after discovering that the most sensitive cables were not in the database. He was also motivated, he said, by a book about “open diplomacy” after World War I and “how the world would be a better place if states would not make secret deals with each other.”

“I believed the public release of these cables would not damage the United States,” he said. “However, I did believe the release of the cables might be embarrassing.”

Private Manning said the first set of documents he decided to release consisted of hundreds of thousands of military incident reports from Afghanistan and Iraq. He had downloaded them onto a disk because the network connection at his base in Iraq kept failing, and he and his colleagues needed regular access to them.

Those reports added up to a history of the “day-to-day reality” in both war zones that he believed showed the flaws in the counterinsurgency policy the United States was then pursuing. The military, he said, was “obsessed with capturing or killing” people on a list, while ignoring the impact of its operations on ordinary people.

Private Manning said he put the files on a digital storage card for his camera and took it home with him on a leave in early 2010. He then decided to give the files to a newspaper.

“I believed if the public — in particular the American public — had access to the information” in the reports, “this could spark a debate about foreign policy in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said.

Private Manning said he first called The Washington Post and spoke to an unidentified reporter for about five minutes. He decided that the reporter did not seem particularly interested because she said The Post would have to review the material before making any commitment.

He said he then tried to reach out to The New York Times by calling a phone number for the newspaper’s public editor — an ombudsman who is not part of the newsroom — and leaving a voice mail message that was not returned.

In January 2010, around the time when Mr. Manning called the public editor’s line, voice mail messages were checked by Michael McElroy, the assistant to Clark Hoyt, then the public editor. Both Mr. Hoyt, now the editor at large at Bloomberg News, and Mr. McElroy, now a staff editor at The Times, said on Thursday that they had no recollection of hearing such a message.

“We got hundreds of calls a week, and I tried to go through them all,” Mr. McElroy said. “If I’d heard something like that, I certainly hope I would have flagged it immediately.”

Private Manning eventually decided to release the information by uploading it to WikiLeaks. To do it, he said, he used a broadband connection at a Barnes & Noble store because his aunt’s house in a Maryland suburb, where he was staying, had lost its Internet connection in a snowstorm.

In February 2010, after he returned to Iraq, Private Manning sent more files to WikiLeaks, including a helicopter gunship video of a 2007 episode in Iraq in which American forces killed a group of men, including two Reuters journalists, and then fired again on a van that pulled up to help the victims.

Private Manning said the video troubled him, both because of the shooting of the second group of people, who “were not a threat but merely good Samaritans,” and because of what he described as the “seemingly delightful blood lust” expressed by the airmen in the recording. He also learned that Reuters had been seeking the video without success.

Private Manning said he copied the files from the secure network onto disks, which he took back to his quarters and transferred to his personal laptop before uploading them to WikiLeaks — initially through its Web site, and later using a directory the group designated for him on a “cloud drop box” server.

One set of files, he said, described the arrest by the Iraqi police, supported by Americans, of 15 people for printing “anti-Iraqi” pamphlets. None were tied to militants, he said, and the pamphlets were “merely a scholarly critique” of government corruption. To his frustration, WikiLeaks did not publish those files.

After that episode, Private Manning said, he became interested in detainees, which led him to the Guantánamo files. He said the United States was holding detainees who were “innocent, low-level foot soldiers, or didn’t have useful intelligence and who would be released” if they were still in the war zone.

At the same time, he was increasingly engaged in online conversations with someone from WikiLeaks who he said he assumed was a senior figure like Julian Assange, its founder, whose name he mispronounced as “as-sahn-JAY.” He said he greatly valued those talks because he felt isolated in Iraq. But, in retrospect, he said the relationship was “artificial.” He did not elaborate.

The judge, Col. Denise Lind, pressed Private Manning to explain how he could admit that his actions were wrong if his motivation was the “greater good” of enlightening the public. Private Manning replied, “Your Honor, regardless of my opinion or my assessment of documents such as these, it’s beyond my pay grade — it’s not my authority to make these decisions” about releasing confidential files.

Scott Shane contributed reporting from Washington.



https://www.rmda.army.mil/foia/FOIA_ReadingRoom/Detail.aspx?id=83

http://www.armycourtmartialdefense.info/

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #46 

Bradley Manning: the face of heroism

The 25-year-old Army Private, this generation's Daniel Ellsberg, pleads guilty today to some charges and explains his actions

Share
inShare7
Email

Glenn Greenwald
Glenn Greenwald        
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 28 February 2013 20.38 GMT        
Jump to comments (638)

Bradley Manning at Fort Meade, Maryland
Bradley Manning at Fort Meade, Maryland. Photograph: Mark Wilson/Getty Images

(updated [Friday])

In December, 2011, I wrote an Op-Ed in the Guardian arguing that if Bradley Manning did what he is accused of doing, then he is a consummate hero, and deserves a medal and our collective gratitude, not decades in prison. At his court-martial proceeding this afternoon in Fort Meade, Manning, as the Guaridan's Ed Pilkington reports, pleaded guilty to having been the source of the most significant leaks to WikiLeaks. He also pleaded not guilty to 12 of the 22 counts, including the most serious - the capital offense of "aiding and abetting the enemy", which could send him to prison for life - on the ground that nothing he did was intended to nor did it result in harm to US national security. The US government will now almost certainly proceed with its attempt to prosecute him on those remaining counts.

Manning's heroism has long been established in my view, for the reasons I set forth in that Op-Ed. But this was bolstered today as he spoke for an hour in court about what he did and why, reading from a prepared 35-page statement. Wired's Spencer Ackerman was there and reported:

"Wearing his Army dress uniform, a composed, intense and articulate Pfc. Bradley Manning took 'full responsibility' Thursday for providing the anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks with a trove of classified and sensitive military, diplomatic and intelligence cables, videos and documents. . . .

"Manning's motivations in leaking, he said, was to 'spark a domestic debate of the role of the military and foreign policy in general', he said, and 'cause society to reevaluate the need and even desire to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore their effect on people who live in that environment every day.'

"Manning explain[ed] his actions that drove him to disclose what he said he 'believed, and still believe . . . are some of the most significant documents of our time' . . . .

"He came to view much of what the Army told him — and the public — to be false, such as the suggestion the military had destroyed a graphic video of an aerial assault in Iraq that killed civilians, or that WikiLeaks was a nefarious entity. . . .

"Manning said he often found himself frustrated by attempts to get his chain of command to investigate apparent abuses detailed in the documents Manning accessed. . . ."

Manning also said he "first approached three news outlets: the Washington Post, New York Times and Politico" before approaching WikiLeaks. And he repeatedly denied having been encouraged or pushed in any way by WikiLeaks to obtain and leak the documents, thus denying the US government a key part of its attempted prosecution of the whistleblowing group. Instead, "he said he took 'full responsibility' for a decision that will likely land him in prison for the next 20 years — and possibly the rest of his life."

This is all consistent with what Manning is purported to have said in the chat logs with the government snitch who pretended to be a journalist and a pastor in order to assure him of confidentiality but then instead reported him. In those chats, Manning explained that he was leaking because he wanted the world to know what he had learned: "I want people to see the truth … regardless of who they are … because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public." When asked by the informant why he did not sell the documents to a foreign government for profit - something he obviously could have done with ease - Manning replied that he wanted the information to be publicly known in order to trigger "worldwide discussion, debates, and reforms". He described how he became deeply disillusioned with the Iraq War he had once thought noble, and this caused him to re-examine all of his prior assumptions about the US government. And he extensively narrated how he had learned of serious abuse and illegality while serving in the war - including detaining Iraqi citizens guilty of nothing other than criticizing the Malaki government - but was ignored when he brought those abuses to his superiors.

Manning is absolutely right when he said today that the documents he leaked "are some of the most significant documents of our time". They revealed a multitude of previously secret crimes and acts of deceit and corruption by the world's most powerful factions. Journalists and even some government officials have repeatedly concluded that any actual national security harm from his leaks is minimal if it exists at all. To this day, the documents Manning just admitted having leaked play a prominent role in the ability of journalists around the world to inform their readers about vital events. The leaks led to all sorts of journalism awards for WikiLeaks. Without question, Manning's leaks produced more significant international news scoops in 2010 than those of every media outlet on the planet combined.

This was all achieved because a then-22-year-old Army Private knowingly risked his liberty in order to inform the world about what he learned. He endured treatment which the top UN torture investigator deemed "cruel and inhuman", and he now faces decades in prison if not life. He knew exactly what he was risking, what he was likely subjecting himself to. But he made the choice to do it anyway because of the good he believed he could achieve, because of the evil that he believed needed urgently to be exposed and combated, and because of his conviction that only leaks enable the public to learn the truth about the bad acts their governments are doing in secret.

Heroism is a slippery and ambiguous concept. But whatever it means, it is embodied by Bradley Manning and the acts which he unflinchingly acknowledged today he chose to undertake. The combination of extreme government secrecy, a supine media (see the prior two columns), and a disgracefully subservient judiciary means that the only way we really learn about what our government does is when the Daniel Ellsbergs - and Bradley Mannings - of the world risk their own personal interest and liberty to alert us. Daniel Ellberg is now widely viewed as heroic and noble, and Bradley Manning (as Ellsberg himself has repeatedly said) merits that praise and gratitude every bit as much.
UPDATE [Friday]

In the New Republic this morning, Harvard Law Professor Yochai Benkler has a superb article warning of the radical theories being used to prosecute Manning, entitled "The Dangerous Logic of the Bradley Manning Case". Among other things, he explains that a conviction on the "aiding and abetting the enemy" charge "would dramatically elevate the threat to whistleblowers" and "the consequences for the ability of the press to perform its critical watchdog function in the national security arena will be dire". That, of course, is precisely why the Obama administration is doing it. That's the feature, not a bug. He concludes: "what a coup for Al Qaeda" that the US has obliterated its core freedoms under the pretense of national security.

Meanwhile, the outstanding independent journalist Alexa O'Brien was present at the court-martial proceeding and has created a transcript of Manning's statement, here. Among other things, he describes his reaction when he first saw the video of the Apache helicopters in Baghdad shooting at journalists and then those who came to rescue them ("The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have. They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring to them as quote 'dead bastards' unquote and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers"). The US government, its media and other assorted apologists have tried to malign Manning as a reckless and emotionally unstable malcontent who could not possibly have read what he leaked or made an informed choice to do so. Just read what he says to understand how thoughtful, rational, and deliberate of an act this was: "The more I read, the more I was fascinated with the way that we dealt with other nations and organizations. I also began to think the documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity that didn't seem characteristic of the de facto leader of the free world. . . .The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public."

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #47 
Bradley Manning’s Uncommon Courage
March 1, 2013

With the Iraq invasion’s tenth anniversary just days away, one of its darkest legacies is how the perpetrators escaped accountability and how the innocent and the truth-tellers suffered punishment, including Pfc. Bradley Manning who acknowledges trying to expose war crimes, writes Marjorie Cohn.

By Marjorie Cohn

Bradley Manning has pleaded guilty to 10 charges including possessing and willfully communicating to an unauthorized person all the main elements of the WikiLeaks disclosure. The charges carry a total of 20 years in prison. For the first time, Manning spoke publicly about what he did and why. His actions, now confirmed by his own words, reveal Manning to be a very brave young man.

When he was 22 years old, Pfc. Bradley Manning gave classified documents to WikiLeaks. They included the “Collateral Murder” video, which depicts U.S. forces in an Apache helicopter killing 12 unarmed civilians, including two Reuters journalists, and wounding two children.

A protester marching in support of whistleblower Bradley Manning.

“I believed if the public, particularly the American public, could see this it could spark a debate on the military and our foreign policy in general as it applied to Iraq and Afghanistan,” Manning told the military tribunal during his guilty plea proceeding. “It might cause society to reconsider the need to engage in counter terrorism while ignoring the human situation of the people we engaged with every day.”

Manning said he was frustrated by his inability to convince his chain of command to investigate the Collateral Murder video and other “war porn” documented in the files he provided to WikiLeaks: “I was disturbed by the response to injured children.”

Manning was bothered, too, by the soldiers depicted in the video who “seemed to not value human life by referring to [their targets] as ‘dead bastards.’” People trying to rescue the wounded were also fired upon and killed. A U.S. tank drove over one body, cutting the man in half.

The actions of American soldiers shown in that video amount to war crimes under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit targeting civilians, preventing the rescue of the wounded, and defacing dead bodies.

No one at WikiLeaks asked or encouraged Manning to give them the documents, Manning said. “No one associated with the WLO [WikiLeaks Organization] pressured me to give them more information. The decision to give documents to WikiLeaks [was] mine alone.”

Before contacting WikiLeaks, Manning tried to interest the Washington Post in publishing the documents but the newspaper was unresponsive. He tried unsuccessfully to contact the New York Times.

During his first nine months in custody, Manning was kept in solitary confinement, which is considered torture as it can lead to hallucinations, catatonia and suicide. Manning maintained his not guilty pleas to 12 additional charges, including aiding the enemy and espionage, for which he could get life imprisonment.

Manning’s actions are not unlike those of Daniel Ellsberg, whose release of the Pentagon Papers helped to expose the government’s lies and end the Vietnam War.

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law and co-author of “Rules of Disengagement: The Politics and Honor of Military Dissent” (with Kathleen Gilberd). She testifies at military hearings about the illegality of the wars, the duty to obey lawful orders, and the duty to disobey unlawful orders. See http://www.marjoriecohn.com.

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #48 
Pfc. Bradley E. Manning's Statement for the Providence Inquiry
By Alexa O'Brien on February 28, 2013 11:59 AM |
Thumbnail image for 210px-Bradley_Manning_US_Army.jpg

This statement below was read by Private First Class Bradley E. Bradley at a providence inquiry for his formal plea of guilty to one specification as charged and nine specifications for lesser included offenses. He pled not guilty to 12 other specifications. This rush transcript was taken by journalist Alexa O'Brien at the Article 39(a) session of United States v. Pfc. Bradley Manning on February 28, 2013 at Fort Meade, MD, USA.

Judge Lind: Pfc. Manning you may read your statement.

Pfc. Bradley Manning: Yes, your Honor. I wrote this statement in the confinement facility. The following facts are provided in support of the providence inquiry for my court martial, United States v. Pfc. Bradley E. Manning.

Personal Facts.

I am a twenty-five year old Private First Class in the United States Army currently assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, HHC, US Army Garrison (USAG), Joint Base Myer, Henderson Hall, Fort Meyer, Virginia.

My [missed word] assignment I was assigned to HHC, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, NY. My primary military occupational specialty or MOS is 35 Foxtrot intelligence analyst. I entered active duty status on 2 October 2007. I enlisted with the hope of obtaining both real world experience and earning benefits under the GI Bill for college opportunities.

Facts regarding my position as an intelligence analyst.

In order to enlist in the Army I took the Standard Armed Services Aptitude Battery or [ASVAB?]. My score on this battery was high enough for me to qualify for any enlisted MOS positon. My recruiter informed me that I should select an MOS that complimented my interests outside the military. In response, I told him that I was interested in geopolitical matters and information technology. He suggested that I consider becoming an intelligence analyst.

After researching the intelligence analyst position, I agreed that this would be a good fit for me. In particular, I enjoyed the fact that an analyst could use information derived from a variety of sources to create work products that informed the command of its available choices for determining the best course of action or COA's. Although the MOS required working knowledge of computers, it primarily required me to consider how raw information can be combined with other available intelligence sources in order to create products that assisted the command in it's situational awareness or SA.

I accessed that my natural interest in geopolitical affairs and my computer skills would make me an excellent intelligence analyst. After enlisting I reported to the Fort Meade military entrance processing station on 1 October 2007. I then traveled to and reported at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri on 2 October 2007 to begin basic combat training or BCT.

Once at Fort Leonard Wood I quickly realized that I was neither physically nor mentally prepared for the requirements of basic training. My BCT experience lasted six months instead of the normal ten weeks. Due to medical issues, I was placed on a hold status. A physical examination indicated that I sustained injuries to my right soldier and left foot.

Due to those injuries I was unable to continue 'basic'. During medical hold, I was informed that I may be out processed from the Army, however, I resisted being chaptered out because I felt that I could overcome my medical issues and continue to serve. On 2[8 or 20?] January 2008, I returned to basic combat training. This time I was better prepared and I completed training on 2 April 2008.

I then reported for the MOS specific Advanced Individual Training or AIT on 7 April 2008. AIT was an enjoyable experience for me. Unlike basic training where I felt different from the other soldiers, I fit in did well. I preferred the mental challenges of reviewing a large amount of information from various sources and trying to create useful or actionable products. I especially enjoyed the practice of analysis through the use of computer applications and methods that I was familiar with.

I graduated from AIT on 16 August 2008 and reported to my first duty station, Fort Drum, NY on 28 August 2008. As an analyst, Significant Activities or SigActs were a frequent source of information for me to use in creating work products. I started working extensively with SigActs early after my arrival at Fort Drum. My computer background allowed me to use the tools of organic to the Distributed Common Ground System-Army or D6-A computers to create polished work products for the 2nd Brigade Combat Team chain of command.

The non-commissioned officer in charge, or NCOIC, of the S2 section, then Master Sergeant David P. Adkins recognized my skills and potential and tasked me to work on a tool abandoned by a previously assigned analyst, the incident tracker. The incident tracker was viewed as a back up to the Combined Information Data Network Exchange or CIDNE and as a unit, historical reference to work with.

In the months preceding my upcoming deployment, I worked on creating a new version of the incident tracker and used SigActs to populate it. The SigActs I used were from Afghanistan, because at the time our unit was scheduled to deploy to the Logar and Wardak Provinces of Afghanistan. Later my unit was reassigned to deploy to Eastern Baghdad, Iraq. At that point, I removed the Afghanistan SigActs and switched to Iraq SigActs.

As and analyst I viewed the SigActs as historical data. I believed this view is shared by other all-source analysts as well. SigActs give a first look impression of a specific or isolated event. This event can be an improvised explosive device attack or IED, small arms fire engagement or SAF engagement with a hostile force, or any other event a specific unit documented and recorded in real time.

In my perspective the information contained within a single SigAct or group of SigActs is not very sensitive. The events encapsulated within most SigActs involve either enemy engagements or causalities. Most of this information is publicly reported by the public affairs office or PAO, embedded media pools, or host nation HN media.

As I started working with SigActs I felt they were similar to a daily journal or log that a person may keep. They capture what happens on a particular day in time. They are created immediately after the event, and are potentially updated over a period of hours until final version is published on the Combined Information Data Network Exchange. Each unit has it's own Standard Operating Procedure or SOP for reporting recording SigActs. The SOP may differ between reporting in a particular deployment and reporting in garrison.

In garrison a SigAct normally involves personnel issues such as driving under the influence or DUI incidents or an automobile accident involving the death or serious injury of a soldier. The reports starts at the company level and goes up to the battalion, brigade, and even up to the division level.

In deployed environment a unit may observe or participate in an event and a platoon leader or platoon sergeant may report the event as a SigAct to the company headquarters and the radio transmission operator or RTO. The commander or RTO will then forward the report to the battalion battle captain or battle non-commissioned officer or NCO. Once the battalion battle captain or battle NCO receives the report they will either (1) notify the battalion operations officer or S3; (2) conduct an action, such as launching a quick reaction force; or (3) record the event and report and further report it up the chain of command to the brigade.

The reporting of each event is done by radio or over the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network or SIPRNet, normally by an assigned soldier, usually junior enlisted E-4 and below. Once the SigAct is recorded, the SigAct is further sent up the chain of command. At each level, additional information can either be added or corrected as needed. Normally within 24 to 48 hours, the updating and reporting or a particular SigAct is complete. Eventually all reports and SigActs go through the chain of command from brigade to division and division to corp. At corp level the SigAct is finalized and [missed word].

The CIDNE system contains a database that is used by thousands of Department of Defense--DoD personel including soldiers, civilians, and contractors support. It was the United States Central Command or CENTCOM reporting tool for operational reporting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Two separate but similar databases were maintained for each theater-- CIDNE-I for Iraq and CIDNE-A for Afghanistan. Each database encompasses over a hundred types of reports and other historical information for access. They contain millions of vetted and finalized directories including operational intelligence reporting.

CIDNE was created to collect and analyze battle-space data to provide daily operational and Intelligence Community (IC) reporting relevant to a commander's daily decision making process. The CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases contain reporting and analysis fields for multiple disciplines including Human Intelligence or HUMINT reports, Psychological Operations or PSYOP reports, Engagement reports, Counter Improvised Explosive Device or CIED reports, SigAct reports, Targeting reports, Social and Cultural reports, Civil Affairs reports, and Human Terrain reporting.

As an intelligence analyst, I had unlimited access to the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A databases and the information contained within them. Although each table within the database is important, I primarily dealt with HUMINT reports, SigAct reports and Counter IED reports, because these reports were used to create a work-product I was required to published as an analyst.

In working on an assignment I looked anywhere and everywhere for information. As an all-source analyst, this was something that was expected. The D6-A systems had databases built in, and I utilized them on a daily basis. This simply was--the search tools available on the D6-A systems on SIPRNet such as Query Tree and the DoD and Intellink search engines.

Primarily, I utilized the CIDNE database using the historical and HUMINT reporting to conduct my analysis and provide a back up for my work product. I did statistical analysis on historical data including SigActs to back up analysis that were based on HUMINT reporting and produce charts, graphs, and tables. I also created maps and charts to conduct predictive analysis based on statistical trends. The SigAct reporting provided a reference point for what occurred and provided myself and other analysts with the information to conclude possible outcome.

Although SigAct reporting is sensitive at the time of their creation, their sensitivity normally dissipates within 48 to 72 hours as the information is either publicly released or the unit involved is no longer in the area and not in danger.

It is my understanding that the SigAct reports remain classified only because they are maintained within CIDNE-- because it is only accessible on SIPRnet. Everything on CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A to include SigAct reporting was treated as classified information.

Facts regarding the storage of SigAct Reports.

As part of my training at Fort Drum, I was instructed to ensure that I create back ups of my work product. The need to create back ups was particularly acute given the relative instability and reliability of the computer systems we used in the field during deployment. These computer systems included both organic and theater provided equipment (TPE) D6-A machines.

The organic D6-A machines we brought with us into the field on our deployment were Dell [missed word] laptops and the TPE D6-A machines were Alienware brand laptops. The [M90?] D6-A laptops were the preferred machine to use as they were slightly faster and had fewer problems with dust and temperature than the theater provided Alienware laptops. I used several D6-A machines during the deployment due to various technical problems with the laptops.

With these issues several analysts lost information, but I never lost information due to the multiple backups I created. I attempted to backup as much relevant information as possible. I would save the information so that I or another analyst could quickly access it whenever a machine crashed, SIPRnet connectivity was down, or I forgot where the data was stored.

When backing up information I would do one or all of the following things based on my training:

[(1)] Physical back up. I tried to keep physical back up copies of information on paper so that the information could be grabbed quickly. Also, it was easier to brief from hard copies of research and HUMINT reports.

(2) Local drive back up. I tried to sort out information I deemed relevant and keep complete copies of the information on each of the computers I used in the Temporary Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility or T-SCIF, including my primary and secondary D6-A machines. This was stored under my user profile on the desktop.

[(3)] Shared drive backup. Each analyst had access to a 'T' drive-- what we called 'T' drive shared across the SIPRnet. It allowed others to access information that was stored on it. S6 operated the 'T' drive.

[(4)] Compact disk rewritable or CD-RW back up. For larger datasets I saved the information onto a re-writable disk, labeled the disks, and stored them in the conference room of the T-SCIF. This redundancy permitted us to not worry about information loss. If the system crashed, I could easily pull the information from a secondary computer, the 'T' drive, or one of the CD-RWs.

If another analysts wanted to access my data, but I was unavailable she could find my published products directory on the 'T' drive or on the CD-RWs. I sorted all of my products or research by date, time, and group; and updated the information on each of the storage methods to ensure that the latest information was available to them.

During the deployment I had several of the D6-A machines crash on me. Whenever one of the computer crashed, I usually lost information but the redundancy method ensured my ability to quickly restore old backup data and add my current information to the machine when it was repaired or replaced.

I stored the backup CD-RW with larger datasets in the conference room of the T-SCIF or next to my workstation. I marked the CD-RWs based on the classification level and its content. Unclassified CD-RWs were only labeled with the content type and not marked with classification markings. Early on in the deployment, I only saved and stored the SigActs that were within or near operational environment.

Later I thought it would be easier to just to save all of the SigActs onto a CD-RW. The process would not take very long to complete and so I downloaded the SigActs from CIDNE-I onto a CD-RW. After finishing with CIDNE-I, I did the same with CIDNE-A. By retrieving the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigActs I was able to retrieve the information whenever I needed it, and not rely upon the unreliable and slow SIPRnet connectivity needed to pull. Instead, I could just find the CD-RW and open up a pre-loaded spreadsheet.

This process began in late December 2009 and continued through early January 2010. I could quickly export one month of the SigAct data at a time and download in the background as I did other tasks.

The process took approximately a week for each table. After downloading the SigAct tables, I periodically updated them, by pulling the most recent SigActs and simply copying them and pasting them into the database saved on the CD-RW. I never hid the fact that I had downloaded copies of both the SigAct tables from CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A. They were stored on appropriately labeled and marked CD-RW, stored in the open.

I viewed this the saving copies of CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A as for both for my use and the use of anyone within the S2 section during the SIPRnet connectivity issues.

In addition to the SigAct tables, I had a large repository of HUMINT reports and Counter IED reports downloaded from CIDNE-I. These contained reports that were relevant to the area in and around our operational environment in Eastern Baghdad and the Diyala Province of Iraq.

In order to compress the data to fit onto a CD-RW, I used a compression algorithm called 'bzip2'. The program used to compress the data is called 'WinRAR'. WinRAR is an application that is free, and can be easily downloaded from the internet via the Non-Secure Internet Relay Protocol Network or NIPRnet. I downloaded WinRAR on NIPRnet and transfered it to the D6-A machine user profile desktop using a CD-RW. I did not try to hide the fact that I was downloading WinRAR onto my SIPRnet D6-A machine or computer.

With the assistance of the bzip2 algorithm using the WinRAR program, I was able to fit All of the SigActs onto a single CD-RW and relevant HUMINT and Counter ID reports onto a separate CD-RW.

Facts regarding my knowledge of the WikiLeaks Organization or WLO.

I first became vaguely aware of the WLO during my AIT at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, although I did not fully pay attention until the WLO released purported Short Messaging System or SMS messages from 11 September 2001 on 25 November 2009. At that time references to the release and the WLO website showed up in my daily Google news open source search for information related to US foreign policy.

The stories were about how WLO published about approximately 500,000 messages. I then reviewed the messages myself and realized that the posted messages were very likely real given the sheer volume and detail of the content.

After this, I began conducting research on WLO. I conducted searched on both NIPRnet and SIPRnet on WLO beginning in late November 2009 and early December 2009. At this time I also began to routinely monitor the WLO website. In response to one of my searches in 2009, I found the United States Army Counter Intelligence Center or USACIC report on the WikiLeaks organization. After reviewing the report, I believed that this report was possibly the one that my AIT referenced in early 2008.

I may or may not have saved the report on my D6-A workstation. I know I reviewed the document on other occasions throughout early 2010, and saved it on both my primary and secondary laptops. After reviewing the report, I continued doing research on WLO. However, based upon my open-source collection, I discovered information that contradicted the 2008 USACIC report including information that indicated that similar to other press agencies, WLO seemed to be dedicated to exposing illegal activities and corruption.

WLO received numerous award and recognition for its reporting activities. Also, in reviewing the WLO website, I found information regarding US military SOPs for Camp Delta at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and information on the then outdated rules of engagement for ROE in Iraq for cross-border pursuits of former members of Saddam Hussein [missed word] government.

After seeing the information available on the WLO website, I continued following it and collecting open sources information from it. During this time period, I followed several organizations and groups including wire press agencies such as the Associated Press and Reuters and private intelligence agencies including Strategic Forecasting or Stratfor. This practice was something I was trained to do during AIT, and was something that good analysts were expected to do.

During the searches of WLO, I found several pieces of information that I found useful in my work product in my work as an analyst, specifically I recall WLO publishing documents related to weapons trafficking between two nations that affected my OP. I integrated this information into one or more of my work products.

In addition to visiting the WLO website, I began following WLO using Instand Relay Chat or IRC Client called 'XChat' sometime in early January 2010.

IRC is a protocol for real time internet communications by messaging and conferencing, colloquially referred to as chat rooms or chats. The IRC chat rooms are designed for group communication discussion forums. Each IRC chat room is called a channel-- similar to a Television where you can tune in or follow a channel-- so long as it is open and does not require [missed word].

Once you [missed word] a specific IRC conversation, other users in the conversation can see that you have joined the room. On the Internet there are millions of different IRC channels across several services. Channel topics span a range of topics covering all kinds of interests and hobbies. The primary reason for following WLO on IRC was curiosity-- particularly in regards to how and why they obtained the SMS messages referenced above. I believed that collecting information on the WLO would assist me in this goal.

Initially I simply observed the IRC conversations. I wanted to know how the organization was structured, and how they obtained their data. The conversations I viewed were usually technical in nature but sometimes switched to a lively debate on issue the particular individual may have felt strongly about.

Over a period of time I became more involved in these discussions especially when conversations turned to geopolitical events and information technology topics, such as networking and encryption methods. Based on these observations, I would describe the WL organization as almost academic in nature. In addition to the WLO conversations, I participated in numerous other IRC channels acros at least three different networks. The other IRC channels I participated in normally dealt with technical topics including with Linux and Berkley Secure Distribution BSD operating systems or OS's, networking, encryption algorithms and techniques and other more political topics, such as politics and [missed word].

I normally engaged in multiple IRC conversations simultaneously--mostly publicly, but often privately. The XChat client enabled me to manage these multiple conversations across different channels and servers. The screen for XChat was often busy, but its screens enabled me to see when something was interesting. I would then select the conversation and either observe or participate.

I really enjoyed the IRC conversations pertaining to and involving the WLO, however, at some point in late February or early March of 2010, the WLO IRC channel was no longer accessible. Instead, regular participants of this channel switched to using the Jabber server. Jabber is another internet communication [missed word] similar but more sophisticated than IRC.

The IRC and Jabber conversations, allowed me to feel connected to others even when alone. They helped pass the time and keep motivated throughout the deployment.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the SigActs.

As indicated above I created copies of the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables as part of the process of backing up information. At the time I did so, I did not intend to use this information for any purpose other than for back up. However, I later decided to release this information publicly. At that time, I believe and still believe that these tables are two of the most significant documents of our time.

On 8 January 2010, I collected the CD-RW I stored in the conference room of the T-SCIF and placed it into the cargo pocket of my ACU or Army Combat Uniform. At the end of my shift, I took the CD-RW out of the T-SCIF and brought it to my Containerized Housing Unit of CHU. I copied the data onto my personal laptop. Later at the beginning of my shift, I returned the CD-RW back to the conference room of the T-SCIF. At the time I saved the SigActs to my laptop, I planned to take them with me on mid-tour leave and decide what to do with them.

At some point prior to my mid-tour, I transfered the information from my computer to a Secure Digital memory card from my digital camera. The SD card for the camera also worked on my computer and allowed me to store the SigAct tables in a secure manner for transport.

I began mid-tour leave on 23 January 2010, flying from Atlanta, Georgia to Reagan National Airport in Virginia. I arrived at the home of my aunt, Debra M. Van Alstyne, in Potomac, Maryland and quickly got into contact with my then boyfriend, Tyler R. Watkins. Tyler, then a student at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, and I made plans for me to visit him him Boston, Massachusetts [missed word].

I was excited to see Tyler and planned on talking to Tyler about where our relationship was going and about my time in Iraq. However, when I arrived in the Boston area Tyler and I seemed to become distant. He did not seem very excited about my return from Iraq. I tried talking to him about our relationship but he refused to make any plans.

I also tried to raising the topic of releasing the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigAct tables to the public. I asked Tyler hypothetical questions about what he would do if he had documents that he thought the public needed access to. Tyler really didn't have a specific answer for me. He tried to answer the questions and be supportive, but seemed confused by the question in this context.

I then tried to be more specific, but he asked too many questions. Rather than try to explain my dilemma, I decided to just drop the conversation. After a few days in Waltham, I began to feel really bad. I was over staying my welcome, and I returned to Maryland. I spent the remainder of my time on leave in the Washington, DC area.

During this time a blizzard bombarded the mid-atlantic, and I spent a significant period of time essentially stuck in my aunt's house in Maryland. I began to think about what I knew and the information I still had in my possession. For me, the SigActs represented the on the ground reality of both the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I felt that we were risking so much for people that seemed unwilling to cooperate with us, leading to frustration and anger on both sides. I began to become depressed with the situation that we found ourselves increasingly mired in year after year. The SigActs documented this in great detail and provide a context of what we were seeing on the ground.

In attempting to conduct counter-terrorism or CT and counter-insurgency COIN operations we became obsessed with capturing and killing human targets on lists and of not being suspicious of and avoiding cooperation with our Host Nation partners, and ignoring the second and third order effects of accomplishing short-term goals and missions. I believe that if the general public, especially the American public, had access to the information contained within the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables this could spark a domestic debate on the role of the military and our foreign policy in general as [missed word] as it related to Iraq and Afghanistan.

I also believed the detailed analysis of the data over a long period of time by different sectors of society might cause society to reevaluate the need or even the desire to even to engage in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency operations that ignore the complex dynamics of the people living in the effected environment everyday.

At my aunt's house I debated what I should do with the SigActs-- in particular whether I should hold on to them-- or expose them through a press agency. At this point I decided that it made sense to try to expose the SigAct tables to an American newspaper. I first called my local news paper, The Washington Post, and spoke with a woman saying that she was a reporter. I asked her if the Washington Post would be interested in receiving information that would have enormous value to the American public.

Although we spoke for about five minutes concerning the general nature of what I possessed, I do not believe she took me seriously. She informed me that the Washington Post would possibly be interested, but that such decisions were made only after seeing the information I was referring to and after consideration by senior editors.

I then decided to contact [missed word] the most popular newspaper, The New York Times. I called the public editor number on The New York Times website. The phone rang and was answered by a machine. I went through the menu to the section for news tips. I was routed to an answering machine. I left a message stating I had access to information about Iraq and Afghanistan that I believed was very important. However, despite leaving my Skype phone number and personal email address, I never received a reply from The New York Times.

I also briefly considered dropping into the office for the Political Commentary blog, Politico, however the weather conditions during my leave hampered my efforts to travel. After these failed efforts I had ultimately decided to submit the materials to the WLO. I was not sure if the WLO would actually publish these SigAct tables [missed a few words]. I was concerned that they might not be noticed by the American media. However, based upon what I read about the WLO through my research described above, this seemed to be the best medium for publishing this information to the world within my reach.

At my aunts house I joined in on an IRC conversation and stated I had information that needed to be shared with the world. I wrote that the information would help document the true cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of the individuals in the IRC asked me to describe the information. However, before I could describe the information another individual pointed me to the link for the WLO web site online submission system. After ending my IRC connection, I considered my options one more time. Ultimately, I felt that the right thing to do was to release the SigActs.

On 3 February 2010, I visited the WLO website on my computer and clicked on the submit documents link. Next I found the submit your information online link and elected to submit the SigActs via the onion router or TOR anonymizing network by special link. TOR is a system intended to provide anonymity online. The software routes internet traffic through a network of servers and other TOR clients in order to conceal the user's location and identity.

I was familiar with TOR and had it previously installed on a computer to anonymously monitor the social media website of militia groups operating within central Iraq. I followed the prompts and attached the compressed data files of CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigActs. I attached a text file I drafted while preparing to provide the documents to the Washington Post. It provided rough guidelines saying 'It's already been sanitized of any source identifying information. You might need to sit on this information-- perhaps 90 to 100 days to figure out how best to release such a large amount of data and to protect its source. This is possibly one of the more significant documents of our time removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of twenty-first century asymmetric warfare. Have a good day.'

After sending this, I left the SD card in a camera case at my aunt's house in the event I needed it again in the future. I returned from mid-tour leave on 11 February 2010. Although the information had not yet been publicly by the WLO, I felt this sense of relief by them having it. I felt I had accomplished something that allowed me to have a clear conscience based upon what I had seen and read about and knew were happening in both Iraq and Afghanistan everyday.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of 10 Reykjavik 13.

I first became aware of the diplomatic cables during my training period in AIT. I later learned about the Department of State or DoS Net-centric Diplomacy NCD portal from the 2/10 Brigade Combat Team S2, Captain Steven Lim. Captain Lim sent a section wide email to the other analysts and officer in late December 2009 containing the SIPRnet link to the portal along with the instructions to look at the cables contained within them and to incorporate them into our work product.

Shortly after this I also noticed the diplomatic cables were being reported to in products from the corp level US Forces Iraq or US-I. Based upon Captain Lim's direction to become familiar with its contents, I read virtually every published cable concerning Iraq.

I also began scanning the database and reading other random cables that piqued my curiosity. It was around this time-- in early to mid-January of 2010, that I began searching the database for information on Iceland. I became interested in Iceland due to the IRC conversations I viewed in the WLO channel discussing an issue called Icesave. At this time I was not very familiar with the topic, but it seemed to be a big issue for those participating in the conversation. This is when I decided to investigate and conduct a few searches on Iceland and find out more.

At the time, I did not find anything discussing the Icesave issue either directly or indirectly. I then conducted an open source search for Icesave. I then learned that Iceland was involved in a dispute with the United Kingdom and the Netherlands concerning the financial collapse of one or more of Iceland's banks. According to open source reporting much of the public controversy involved the United Kingdom's use of anti-terrorism legislation against Iceland in order to freeze Icelandic access for payment of the guarantees for UK depositors that lost money.

Shortly after returning from mid-tour leave, I returned to the Net Centric Diplomacy portal to search for information on Iceland and Icesave as the topic had not abated on the WLO IRC channel. To my surprise, on 14 February 2010, I found the cable 10 Reykjavik 13, which referenced the Icesave issue directly.

The cable published on 13 January 2010 was just over two pages in length. I read the cable and quickly concluded that Iceland was essentially being bullied diplomatically by two larger European powers. It appeared to me that Iceland was out viable options and was coming to the US for assistance. Despite the quiet request for assistance, it did not appear that we were going to do anything.

From my perspective it appeared that we were not getting involved due to the lack of long term geopolitical benefit to do so. After digesting the contents of 10 Reykjavik 13 I debated whether this was something I should send to the WLO. At this point the WLO had not published or acknowledged receipt of the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A tables. Despite not knowing that the SigActs were a priority for the WLO, I decided the cable was something that would be important. I felt that I would be able to right a wrong by having them publish this document. I burned the information onto a CD-RW on 15 February 2010, took it to my CHU, and saved it onto my personal laptop.

I navigated to the WLO website via a TOR connection like before and uploaded the document via the secure form. Amazingly, when WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13 within hours, proving that the form worked and that they must have received the SigAct tables.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team or AW team video.

During the mid-February 2010 time frame the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division targeting analysts, then Specialist Jihrleah W. Showman discussed a video that Ms. Showman had found on the 'T' drive.

The video depicted several individuals being engaged by an aerial weapons team. At first I did not consider the video very special, as I have viewed countless other war porn type videos depicting combat. However, the recording of audio comments by the aerial weapons team crew and the second engagement in the video of an unarmed bongo truck troubled me.

As Showman and a few other analysts and officers in the T-SCIF commented on the video and debated whether the crew violated the rules of engagement or ROE in the second engagement, I shied away from this debate, instead conducting some research on the event. I wanted to learn what happened and whether there was any background to the events of the day that the event occurred, 12 July 2007.

Using Google I searched for the event by its date by its general location. I found several new accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained that Reuters had requested for a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. Reuters wanted to view the video in order to understand what had happened and to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the reoccurrence of the tragedy and believed there was a compelling need for the immediate release of the video.

Despite the submission of the FOIA request, the news account explained that CENTCOM replied to Reuters stating that they could not give a time frame for considering a FOIA request and that the video might no longer exist. Another story I found written a year later said that even though Reuters was still pursuing their request. They still did not receive a formal response or written determination in accordance with FOIA.

The fact neither CENTCOM or Multi National Forces Iraq or MNF-I would not voluntarily release the video troubled me further. It was clear to me that the event happened because the aerial weapons team mistakenly identified Reuters employees as a potential threat and that the people in the bongo truck were merely attempting to assist the wounded. The people in the van were not a threat but merely 'good samaritans'. The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have.

The dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring to them as quote "dead bastards" unquote and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers. At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety. The individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to the location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the wounded person to pick up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For me, this seems similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.

While saddened by the aerial weapons team crew's lack of concern about human life, I was disturbed by the response of the discovery of injured children at the scene. In the video, you can see that the bongo truck driving up to assist the wounded individual. In response the aerial weapons team crew-- as soon as the individuals are a threat, they repeatedly request for authorization to fire on the bongo truck and once granted they engage the vehicle at least six times.

Shortly after the second engagement, a mechanized infantry unit arrives at the scene. Within minutes, the aerial weapons team crew learns that children were in the van and despite the injuries the crew exhibits no remorse. Instead, they downplay the significance of their actions, saying quote 'Well, it's their fault for bringing their kid's into a battle' unquote.

The aerial weapons team crew members sound like they lack sympathy for the children or the parents. Later in a particularly disturbing manner, the aerial weapons team verbalizes enjoyment at the sight of one of the ground vehicles driving over a body-- or one of the bodies. As I continued my research, I found an article discussing the book, The Good Soldiers, written by Washington Post writer David Finkel.

In Mr. Finkel book, he writes about the aerial weapons team attack. As, I read an online excerpt in Google Books, I followed Mr. Finkel's account of the event belonging to the video. I quickly realize that Mr. Finkel was quoting, I feel in verbatim, the audio communications of the aerial weapons team crew.

It is clear to me that Mr. Finkel obtained access and a copy of the video during his tenue as an embedded journalist. I was aghast at Mr. Finkel's portrayal of the incident. Reading his account, one would believe the engagement was somehow justified as 'payback' for an earlier attack that lead to the death of a soldier. Mr. Finkel ends his account by discussing how a soldier finds an individual still alive from the attack. He writes that the soldier finds him and sees him gesture with his two forefingers together, a common method in the Middle East to communicate that they are friendly. However, instead of assisting him, the soldier makes an obscene gesture extending his middle finger.

The individual apparently dies shortly thereafter. Reading this, I can only think of how this person was simply trying to help others, and then he quickly finds he needs help as well. To make matter worse, in the last moments of his life, he continues to express his friendly gesture-- only to find himself receiving this well known gesture of unfriendliness. For me it's all a big mess, and I am left wondering what these things mean, and how it all fits together. It burdens me emotionally.

I saved a copy of the video on my workstation. I searched for and found the rules of engagement, the rules of engagement annexes, and a flow chart from the 2007 time period-- as well as an unclassified Rules of Engagement smart card from 2006. On 15 February 2010 I burned these documents onto a CD-RW, the same time I burned the 10 Reykjavik 13 cable onto a CD-RW. At the time, I placed the video and rules for engagement information onto my personal laptop in my CHU. I planned to keep this information there until I redeployed in Summer 2010. I planned on providing this to the Reuters office in London to assist them in preventing events such as this in the future.

However, after the WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13 I altered my plans. I decided to provide the video and the rules of engagement to them so that Reuters would have this information before I re-deployed from Iraq. On about 21 February 2010, I described above, I used the WLO submission form and uploaded the documents. The WLO released the video on 5 April 2010. After the release, I was concern about the impact of the video and how it would been received by the general public.

I hoped that the public would be as alarmed as me about the conduct of the aerial weapons team crew members. I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan are targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure cooker environment of what we call asymmetric warfare. After the release I was encouraged by the response in the media and general public, who observed the aerial weapons team video. As I hoped, others were just as troubled-- if not more troubled that me by what they saw.

At this time, I began seeing reports claiming that the Department of Defense an CENTCOM could not confirm the authenticity of the video. Additionally, one of my supervisors, Captain Casey Fulton, stated her belief that the video was not authentic. In her response, I decided to ensure that the authenticity of the video would not be questioned in the future. On 25 February 2010, I emailed Captain Fulton, a link to the video that was on our 'T' drive, and a copy of the video published by WLO that was collected by the open source center, so she could compare them herself.

Around this time frame, I burned a second CD-RW containing the aerial weapons team video. In order to made it appear authentic, I placed a classification sticker and wrote Reuters FOIA REQ on its face. I placed the CD-RW in one of my personal CD cases containing a set of 'Starting Out in Arabic CD's.' I planned on mailing out the CD-RW to Reuters after our re-deployment, so they could have a copy that was unquestionably authentic.

Almost immediately after submitting the aerial weapons team video and rules of engagement documents I notified the individuals in the WLO IRC to expect an important submission. I received a response from an individual going by the handle of 'ox'-- at first our conversations were general in nature, but over time as our conversations progressed, I accessed this individual to be an important part of the WLO.

Due to the strict adherence of anonymity by the WLO, we never exchanged identifying information. However, I believe the individual was likely Mr. Julian Assange [he pronounced it with three syllables], Mr. Daniel Schmidt, or a proxy representative of Mr. Assange and Schmidt.

As the communications transfered from IRC to the Jabber client, I gave 'ox' and later 'pressassociation' the name of Nathaniel Frank in my address book, after the author of a book I read in 2009.

After a period of time, I developed what I felt was a friendly relationship with Nathaniel. Our mutual interest in information technology and politics made our conversations enjoyable. We engaged in conversation often. Sometimes as long as an hour or more. I often looked forward to my conversations with Nathaniel after work.

The anonymity that was provided by TOR and the Jabber client and the WLO's policy allowed me to feel I could just be myself, free of the concerns of social labeling and perceptions that are often placed upon me in real life. In real life, I lacked a closed friendship with the people I worked with in my section, the S2 section.

In my section, the S2 section supported battalions and the 2nd Brigade Combat Team as a whole. For instance, I lacked close ties with my roommate to his discomfort regarding my perceived sexual orientation. Over the next few months, I stayed in frequent contact with Nathaniel. We conversed on nearly a daily basis and I felt that we were developing a friendship.

Conversations covered many topics and I enjoyed the ability to talk about pretty much everything, and not just the publications that the WLO was working on. In retrospect that these dynamics were artificial and were valued more by myself than Nathaniel. For me these conversations represented an opportunity to escape from the immense pressures and anxiety that I experienced and built up through out the deployment. It seems that as I tried harder to fit in at work, the more I seemed to alienate my peers and lose respect, trust, and support I needed.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of documents related to the detainments by the Iraqi Federal Police or FP, and the Detainee Assessment Briefs, and the USACIC United States Army Counter Intelligence Center report.

On 27 February 2010, a report was received from a subordinate battalion. The report described an event in which the Federal Police or FP detained 15 individuals for printing anti-Iraqi literature. On 2 March 2010, I received instructions from an S3 section officer in the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division Tactical Operation Center or TOC to investigate the matter, and figure out who the quote 'bad guys' unquote were and how significant this event was for the Federal Police.

Over the course of my research I found that none of the individuals had previous ties to anti-Iraqi actions or suspected terrorist militia groups. A few hours later, I received several [playlist?] from the scene-- from this subordinate battalion. They were accidentally sent to an officer on a different team on the S2 section and she forwarded them to me.

These photos included picture of the individuals, pallets of unprinted paper and seized copies of the final printed material or the printed document; and a high resolution photo of the printed material itself. I printed up one [missed word] copy of a high resolution photo-- I laminated it for ease of use and transfer. I then walked to the TOC and delivered the laminated copy to our category two interpreter.

She reviewed the information and about a half and hour later delivered a rough written transcript in English to the S2 section. I read the transcript and followed up with her, asking her for her take on the content. She said it was easy for her to transcribe verbatim, since I blew up the photograph and laminated it. She said the general nature of the document was benign. The document, as I had sensed as well, was merely a scholarly critique of the then current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

It detailed corruption within the cabinet of al-Maliki's government and the financial impact of his corruption on the Iraqi people. After discovering this discrepancy between the Federal Police's report and the interpreter's transcript, I forwarded this discovery to the top OIC and the battle NCOIC. The top OIC and the overhearing battle captain informed me that they didn't need or want to know this information anymore. They told me to quote "drop it" unquote and to just assist them and the Federal Police in finding out, where more of these print shops creating quote' anti-Iraqi literature' unquote.

I couldn't believe what I heard and I returned to the T-SCIF and complained to the other analysts and my section NCOIC about what happened. Some were sympathetic, but no one wanted to do anything about it.

I am the type of person who likes to know how things work. And, as an analyst, this means I always want to figure out the truth. Unlike other analysts in my section or other sections within the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, I was not satisfied with just scratching the surface and producing canned or cookie cutter assessments. I wanted to know why something was the way it was, and what we could to correct or mitigate a situation.

I knew that if I continued to assist the Baghdad Federal Police in identifying the political opponents of Prime Minister al-Maliki, those people would be arrested and in the custody of the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police and very likely tortured and not seen again for a very long time-- if ever.

Instead of assisting the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police, I decided to take the information and expose it to the WLO, in the hope that before the upcoming 7 March 2010 election, they could generate some immediate press on the issue and prevent this unit of the Federal Police from continuing to crack down in political opponents of al-Maliki.

On 4 March 2010, I burned the report, the photos, the high resolution copy of the pamphlet, and the interpreters hand written transcript onto a CD-RW. I took the CD-RW to my CHU and copied the data onto my personal computer. Unlike the times before, instead of uploading the information through the WLO website submission form. I made a Secure File Transfer Protocol or SFTP connection to a file drop box operated by the WLO.

The drop box contained a folder that allowed me to upload directly into it. Saving files into this directory. Allowed anyone with log in access to server to view and download them. After uploading these files to the WLO, on 5 March 2010, I notified Nathaniel over Jabber. Although sympathetic, he said that the WLO needed more information to confirm the event in order for it to be published or to gain interest in the international media.

I attempted to provide the specifics, but to my disappointment, the WLO website chose not to publish this information. At the same time, I began sifting through information from the US Southern Command or SOUTHCOM and Joint Task Force Guantanamo, Cuba or JTF-GTMO. The thought occurred to me-- although unlikely, that I wouldn't be surprised if the individuals detainees by the Federal Police might be turned over back into US custody-- and ending up in the custody of Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

CONTINUED

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
hannah

Registered:
Posts: 797
Reply with quote  #49 
CONTINUED

As I digested through the information on Joint Task Force Guantanamo, I quickly found the Detainee Assessment Briefs or DABs. I previously came across the document's before in 2009 but did not think much about them. However, this time I was more curious in this search and I found them again.

The DABs were written in standard DoD memorandum format and addressed the commander US SOUTHCOM. Each memorandum gave basic and background information about a detainee held at some point by Joint Task Force Guantanamo. I have always been interested on the issue of the moral efficacy of our actions surrounding Joint Task Force Guantanamo. On the one hand, I have always understood the need to detain and interrogate individuals who might wish to harm the United States and our allies, however, I felt that what we were trying to do at Joint Task Force Guantanamo.

However, the more I became educated on the topic, it seemed that we found ourselves holding an increasing number of individuals indefinitely that we believed or knew to be innocent, low level foot soldiers that did not have useful intelligence and would be released if they were still held in theater.

I also recall that in early 2009 the, then newly elected president, Barack Obama, stated that he would close Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and that the facility compromised our standing over all, and diminished our quote 'moral authority' unquote.

After familiarizing myself with the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I agree. Reading through the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I noticed that they were not analytical products, instead they contained summaries of tear line versions of interim intelligence reports that were old or unclassified. None of the DABs contained the names of sources or quotes from tactical interrogation reports or TIR's. Since the DABs were being sent to the US SOUTHCOM commander, I assessed that they were intended to provide very general background information on each of the detainees and not a detailed assessment.

In addition to the manner in which the DAB's were written, I recognized that they were at least several years old, and discussed detainees that were already released from Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Based on this, I determined that the DAB's were not very important fro either an intelligence or a national security standpoint. On 7 March 2010, during my Jabber conversation with Nathaniel, I asked him if he thought the DAB's were of any use to anyone.

Nathaniel indicated, although he did not believe that they were of political significance, he did believe that they could be used to merge into the general historical account of what occurred at Joint Task Force Guantanamo. He also thought that the DAB's might be helpful to the legal counsel of those currently and previously held at JTF-GTMO.

After this discussion, I decided to download the data. I used an application called Wget to download the DAB's. I downloaded Wget off of the NIPRnet laptop in the T-SCIF, like other programs. I saved that onto a CD-RW, and placed the executable in my 'My Documents' directory on my user profile, on the D6-A SIPRnet workstation.

On 7 March 2010, I took the list of links for the detainee assessment briefs, and Wget downloaded them sequentially. I burned the data onto a CD-RW, and took it into my CHU, and copied them onto my personal computer. On 8 March 2010, I combined the Detainee Assessment Briefs with the United States Army Counterintelligence Center reports on the WLO, into a compressed IP file. Zip files contain multiple files which are compressed to reduce their size.

After creating the zip file, I uploaded the file onto their cloud drop box via Secure File Transfer Protocol. Once these were uploaded, I notified Nathaniel that the information was in the 'x' directory, which had been designated for my own use. Earlier that day, I downloaded the USACIC report on WLO.

As discussed about, I previously reviewed the report on numerous occasions and although I saved the document onto the work station before, I could not locate it. After I found the document again, I downloaded it to my work station, and saved it onto the same CD-RW as the Detainee Assessment Briefs described above.

Although my access included a great deal of information, I decided I had nothing else to send to WLO after sending the Detainee Assessment Briefs and the USACIC report. Up to this point I had sent them the following: the CIDNE-I and CIDNE-A SigActs tables; the Reykjavik 13 Department of State Cable; the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team video and the 2006-2007 rules of engagement documents; the SigAct report and supporting documents concerning the 15 individuals detained by the Baghdad Federal Police; the USSOUTHCOM and Joint Task Force Guantanamo Detainee Assessment Briefs; a USACIC report on the WikiLeaks website and the WikiLeaks organization.

Over the next few weeks I did not send any additional information to the WLO. I continued to converse with Nathaniel over the Jabber client and in the WLO IRC channel. Although I stopped sending documents to WLO, no one associated with the WLO pressures me into giving more information. The decisions that I made to send documents and information to the WLO and the website were my own decisions, and I take full responsibility for my actions.

Facts regarding the unauthorized disclosure of Other Government Documents.

One 22 March 2010, I downloaded two documents. I found these documents over the course of my normal duties as an analysts. Based on my training and the guidance of my superiors, I look at as much information as possible.

Doings so provided me with the ability to make connections that others might miss. On several occasions during the month of March, I accessed information from a Government entity. I read several documents from a section within this Government entity. The content of two of these documents upset me greatly. I had difficulty believing what this section was doing.

On 22 March 2010, I downloaded the two documents that I found troubling. I compressed them into a zip file named blah.zip and burned them onto a CD-RW. I took the CD-RW to my CHU and saved the file to my personal computer.

I uploaded the information to the WLO website using the designated prompts.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of the Net Centric Diplomacy Department of State Cables.

In late March of 2010, I received a warning over Jabber from Nathaniel, that the WLO website would be publishing the aerial weapons team video. He indicated that the WLO would be very busy and the frequency and intensity of our Jabber conversations decrease significantly. During this time, I had nothing but work to distract me.

I read more of the diplomatic cables published on the Department of State Net Centric Diplomacy. With my insatiable curiosity and interest in geopolitics I became fascinated with them. I read not only the cables on Iraq, but also about countries and events that I found interesting.

The more I read, the more I was fascinated with the way that we dealt with other nations and organizations. I also began to think the documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity that didn't seem characteristic of the de facto leader of the free world.

Up to this point,during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn't harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.

In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.

The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.

The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS [missed word] caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.

The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.

The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.

I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption.

I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States, however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations.

In many ways these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip. I believed exposing this information might make some within the Department of State and other government entities unhappy. On 22 March 2010, I began downloading a copy of the SIPDIS cables using the program Wget, described above.

I used instances of the Wget application to download the Net Centric Diplomacy cables in the background. As I worked on my daily tasks, the Net centric Diplomacy cables were downloaded from 28 March 2010 to 9 April 2010. After downloading the cables, I saved them on to a CD-RW.

These cables went from the earliest dates in Net Centric Diplomacy to 28 February 2010. I took the CD-RW to my CHU on 10 April 2010. I sorted the cables on my personal computer, compressed them using the bzip2 compression algorithm described above, and uploaded them to the WLO via designated drop box described above.

On 3 May 2010, I used Wget to download and update of the cables for the months of March 2010 and April 2010 and saved the information onto a zip file and burned it to a CD-RW. I then took the CD-RW to my CHU and saved those to my computer. I later found that the file was corrupted during the transfer. Although I intended to re-save another copy of these cables, I was removed from the T-SCIF on 8 May 2010 after an altercation.

Facts regarding the unauthorized storage and disclosure of Garani, Farah Province Afghanistan 15-6 Investigation and Videos.

[NB Pfc. Manning plead 'not guilty' to the Specification 11, Charge II for the Garani Video as charged by the government, which alleged as November charge date. Read more here.]

In late March 2010, I discovered a US CENTCOM directly on a 2009 airstrike in Afghanistan. I was searching CENTCOM I could use as an analyst. As described above, this was something that myself and other officers did on a frequent basis. As I reviewed the incident and what happened. The airstrike occurred in the Garani village in the Farah Province, Northwestern Afghanistan. It received worldwide press coverage during the time as it was reported that up to 100 to 150 Afghan civilians-- mostly women and children-- were accidentally killed during the airstrike.

After going through the report and the [missed word] annexes, I began to review the incident as being similar to the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team engagements in Iraq. However, this event was noticeably different in that it involved a significantly higher number of individuals, larger aircraft and much heavier munitions. Also, the conclusions of the report are more disturbing than those of the July 2007 incident.

I did not see anything in the 15-6 report or its annexes that gave away sensitive information. Rather, the investigation and its conclusions were-- what those involved should have done, and how to avoid an event like this from occurring again.

After investigating the report and its annexes, I downloaded the 15-6 investigation, PowerPoint presentations, and several other supporting documents to my D6-A workstation. I also downloaded three zip files containing the videos of the incident. I burned this information onto a CD-RW and transfered it to the personal computer in my CHU. I did later that day or the next day-- I uploaded the information to the WL website this time using a new version of the WLO website submission form.

Unlike other times using the submission form above, I did not activate the TOR anonymizer. Your Honor, this concludes my statement and facts for this providence inquiry.
Categories:

Bradley Manning,
WikiLeaks
http://www.alexaobrien.com/secondsight/wikileaks/bradley_manning/pfc_bradley_e_manning_providence_hearing_statement.html

__________________
Test your connection for leaks:
http://ip-check.info/?lang=en

Use TAILS
https://tails.boum.org/

How to boot from USB and other great stuff:
http://www.rmprepusb.com/

Open pdf and word files online instead of on your puter'
http://view.samurajdata.se/

USE the net more securely:
https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/blog/2014/04/help-support-little-known-privacy-tool-has-been-critical-journalists-reporting-nsa
https://www.torproject.org/download/download

http://www.theintelligencenews.com/


"The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes......"



"There's a war out there, old friend. A world war. And it's not about who's got the most bullets. It's about who controls the information.... it's all about the information!"
0
maynard

Registered:
Posts: 1,194
Reply with quote  #50 
The Danger of Suppressing the Leaks
By MARGARET SULLIVAN
Published: March 9, 2013

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/public-editor/the-danger-of-suppressing-the-leaks.html

IMAGINE if American citizens never learned about the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Imagine not knowing about the brutal treatment of terror suspects at United States government “black sites.” Or about the drone program that is expanding under President Obama, or the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping of Americans.



This is a world without leaks.

And a world without leaks — the secret government information slipped to the press — may be the direction we’re headed in. Since 9/11, leakers and whistle-blowers have become an increasingly endangered species. Some, like the former C.I.A. official John Kiriakou, have gone to jail. Another, Pfc. Bradley Manning, is charged with “aiding the enemy” for the masses of classified information he gave to Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks. He could face life in prison.

The government has its reasons for cracking down. Obama administration officials have consistently cited national security concerns and expressed their intention to keep prosecuting leakers.

“The government has legitimate secrets that should remain secrets,” Michael V. Hayden, the former C.I.A. director, said in a telephone interview.

Journalists tend to view the situation differently, and not just because they want, in the oft-heard phrase, “to sell newspapers.” They see leaks — which have many motivations, not all altruistic — as vital to news gathering.

Declan Walsh, a reporter who wrote many WikiLeaks-based stories for The Guardian before coming to The Times, calls leaks “the unfiltered lifeblood of investigative journalism.” He wrote in an e-mail from his post in Pakistan: “They may come from difficult, even compromised sources, be ridden with impurities and require careful handling to produce an accurate story. None of that reduces their importance to journalism.”

Readers whom I hear from on this topic tend to express one of two opposite viewpoints: 1) The Times should relentlessly find out and print whatever it can about clandestine government activities, and 2) The Times has no business determining what is in the best interest of national security, or pursuing classified information that is passed along illegally.

Whatever one’s view, one fact is clear: Leakers are being prosecuted and punished like never before. Consider that the federal Espionage Act, passed in 1917, was used only three times in its first 92 years to prosecute government officials for press leaks. But the Obama administration, in the president’s first term alone, used it six times to go after leakers. Now some of them have gone to jail.

The crackdown sends a loud message. Scott Shane, who covers national security for The Times, says that message is being heard — and heeded.

“There’s definitely a chilling effect,” he told me. “Government officials who might otherwise discuss sensitive topics will refer to these cases in rebuffing a request for background information.”

And that, says Michael Leiter, is as it should be. Mr. Leiter, the former director of the United States National Counterterrorism Center, says the prosecutions are “intended to have a deterrent effect. We’ve come too far toward willy-nilly leaking of sensitive information.”

Many observers, though, see a useful middle ground. “This is often looked at as a battle of good versus evil, and both sides see it that way,” Mr. Hayden said. “But that’s not the case.” He believes that for a national security effort to succeed, it must not only be “operationally effective, technologically possible and lawful,” it must also be “politically sustainable.”

The latter requires public support, he said, “which is only shaped by informed debate.” You can’t have debate without knowledge, and given the growing penchant for overclassification, that’s where the press steps in.

Mr. Shane looks back on a Pentagon Papers affidavit written in 1971 by Max Frankel, then The Times’s Washington bureau chief and later its executive editor, which described Washington reality: “The government hides what it can, pleading necessity as long as it can, and the press pries out what it can, pleading a need and a right to know. When the government loses a secret or two, it simply adjusts to a new reality. When the press loses a quest or two, it simply reports (or misreports) as best it can.”

David McCraw, the lawyer for The Times’s newsroom, said, “The system works because of restraint on both sides.” Dean Baquet, the managing editor, agreed: “We’ve proven that we can be responsible with information. In fact, sometimes we even overdo it.”

But the ramped-up prosecutions threaten this fragile ecosystem that has served the public pretty well.

Private Manning’s extreme treatment, in particular, worries Mr. Walsh and others because of the example it sets. (That case is in a class by itself, of course, with the wholesale transfer of some 700,000 documents. The Times reported many articles from the material, as did others.)

Many observers are quick to note a double standard for leak prosecutions: tightly controlled leaks from the highest levels ruffle no feathers.

Chris Hedges, an author, columnist and former Times reporter, thinks powerful institutions like The Times ought to push back harder — showing solidarity, including “legal common cause” with Mr. Manning and Mr. Assange, providing more detailed coverage of leak prosecutions, and crusading in editorials. “Beyond what’s right, even enlightened self-interest should dictate it,” he told me.

To its credit, The Times repeatedly has gone to court to seek material related to the drone program and other issues, has covered Mr. Kiriakou’s case heavily, and consistently has written editorials defending press rights.

“Obviously, everybody in the industry could do more,” Mr. McCraw said of legal efforts. “Resources are limited, but we’re picking the best possible shots.”

The Times needs to keep pressing on all these fronts, and with more zeal in print than it has so far. If news organizations don’t champion press interests, who will?

In the meantime, the chilling effect continues apace. That is troubling for journalists, but even worse for citizens, who should not be in the dark about what their government is doing.

Follow the public editor on Twitter at twitter.com/sulliview and read her blog at publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com. The public editor can also be reached by e-mail: public@nytimes.com.
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on March 10, 2013, on page SR12 of the New York edition with the headline: The Danger of Suppressing the Leaks.

__________________
A TAINTED DEAL http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1998/06/tainted-deal

 LA DEA; Murder of Kiki Camarena http://www.laweekly.com/news/how-a-dogged-la-dea-agent-unraveled-the-cias-alleged-role-in-the-murder-of-kiki-camarena-5750278  

"Several informed sources have told me that an appendix to this Report was removed at the instruction of the DOJ at the last minute. This appendix is reported to have information about a CIA officer, not agent or asset, but officer, based in the LA Station, who was in charge of Contra related activities. According to these sources, this individual was associated with running drugs to South Central L.A., around 1988. Let me repeat that amazing omission. The recently released CIA Report Vol II contained an appendix, which was pulled by the DOJ, that reported a CIA officer in the LA Station was hooked into drug running in South Central Los Angeles." Maxine Waters Oct, 1998
https://fas.org/irp/congress/1998_cr/h981013-coke.htm   

0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

? ?
Copyright ? 2001-2004 Who?s A Rat. All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission is prohibited.
?