U.S. Military in Iraq Tries to Intimidate Soldiers Into Not Reading Wikileaks

U.S. Military in Iraq Tries to Intimidate Soldiers Into Not Reading Wikileaks

gawker.com

U.S. soldiers in Iraq who try to read about the Wikileaks disclosures—or read coverage of them in mainstream news sites—on unclassified networks get a page warning them that they're about to break the law.

The federal government seems to have lost its mind in a manic game of internet whack-a-mole aimed at getting the Wikileaks State Department cables thrown down the memory hole: First, Sen. Joe Lieberman successfully nudged Amazon into kicking the site off its servers. Then the Library of Congress blocked the site for all employees and users of its computer terminals. Now we learn that

(visit the link for the full news article)

Wow this is something i find hard to belief. Is it true. Can our american counsins over the pond confirm this.
Simply righting about wikleaks on twitter or facebook can stop you getting a job!
Reading about it will flash up a law breakers warning.
These people must really be running scared if this is the case. Maybe they dont want the soliders reading it so they dont change there mind on who the enemy is...

gawker.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by purplemer

The White House Office of Management and Budget sent a memo Friday afternoon forbidding unauthorized federal government employees and contractors from accessing classified documents publicly available on WikiLeaks and other websites using computers or devices like BlackBerrys and smart phones.

The memo, sent to general counsels at various government agencies and obtained by CNN, explains that the publishing by WikiLeaks does "not alter the documents' classified status or automatically result in declassification of the documents."

"To the contrary, classified information, whether or not already posted on public websites or disclosed to the media remains classified, and must be treated as such by federal employees and contractors, until it is declassified by an appropriate U.S. Government authority," the memo said.

Source - CNN

I assume if contractors and employees (civilians) are being told that they can't read them then the miltary would be the same.

Also, PayPal just permenantly suspended the Wikileak donation account...

A statement on the PayPal site said: "PayPal has permanently restricted the account used by WikiLeaks due to a violation of the PayPal Acceptable Use Policy, which states that our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity. We've notified the account holder of this action."

Source - Reuters

Well it is true although the article is a little misleading.

[U.S. forces in Iraq have] not blocked any news websites from being read. Because of the Wikileaks release of secret documents and their easy availability on the web, USF-I has posted a warning page NIPRNet computers go to first. This page simply warns the user that the website they are about to view may contain classified documents and that such documents should not be viewed, downloaded, or distributed on NIPR computers. There is a button at the bottom of this warning page that then allows the user to go to the website.

The U.S. government always has the right to censor what can be downloaded to their computers. They are U.S. government property.

Unfortunately for the soldiers overseas, this means that the only devices available to them are not allowed to have wikileaks information on them. I think it's safe to say that most soldiers don't have their own personal laptops with them.

Originally posted by purplemer
Simply righting about wikleaks on twitter or facebook can stop you getting a job!

Employers (of all varieties, not just the U.S. government) have been using twitter, facebook and other writings for a very long time in determining who gets a job. This is not new with the wikileaks thing. What IS new about this is the fact that they're openly saying that this one (wikileaks writings) will stop their consideration of you.

Am i missing something here.. These are boys fighting for freedom, they dont even have the right to freedom of speech...!

Aren't disinfo sites like Wikileaks and Cryptome just honeypots set up to attract the rebels without a cause?

A quick scan of the sites yielded nothing of real importance AFAICS? I suppose if I couldn't use a variety of web tools to hunt down real controversial subject matter I might be attracted. Maybe I'm missing something, how does Wikileaks work? Are there search key criteria scattered around within the documents? Anagrams? Allegorical reference? Alphanumeric conversions? other coding techniques? SNAP Photo interrpretation?

reply to post by purplemer


It's becoming evident that few people, outside of politicians, have the right to freedom of speech.

Similarly, being accountable for ones actions applies to all but our political leaders.

Originally posted by purplemer
Am i missing something here.. These are boys fighting for freedom, they dont even have the right to freedom of speech...!

They do have freedom of speech, just not freedom to use US government property to disperse that speech. I know this sounds like splitting hairs, and maybe it is, but it is the LEGAL foundation for what the government is doing. Fighting this in a court would never hold up because it IS legal. These computers are their property so they can legally say how, when & where they can be used.

Originally posted by purplemer


Wow this is something i find hard to belief. Is it true. Can our american counsins over the pond confirm this.
Simply righting about wikleaks on twitter or facebook can stop you getting a job!
Reading about it will flash up a law breakers warning.
These people must really be running scared if this is the case. Maybe they dont want the soliders reading it so they dont change there mind on who the enemy is...

gawker.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

*Coming from a former military person with clearance*

Just because the classified info was released doesn't mean it was de-classified.

The military is trying to prevent those it is responsible for from breaking the law and the UCMJ.

Just because someone is in the military, they do not have the right to view materials they have no clearance to view.

Originally posted by purplemer
Am i missing something here.. These are boys fighting for freedom, they dont even have the right to freedom of speech...!

There is a difference. Civilians are allowed various graces when it comes to classified material because they don't know any better. We are trained on the handling of information, from Unclassified: FOUO to TS. It's even color-coded so it's kind of hard to screw up. These documents are classified, still, even though they have been publicly released. Were you to print off these documents and I were to come across them, I am given both the authority and liability of assuming control of those documents and turning them over to the designated personnel and filing a report with the security adviser.

Technically - you don't have the right to free-read, either. Or, more accurately, authorities within the government have the right to privacy that civilians like to cite so much when they get busted for possession of contraband. Rights go both ways - you want the right to privacy then you have to allow government agencies and employees a right to privacy.

I have a right to freedom of speech - within certain restrictions. I can't disrespect a superior, or, rather, once I do - punishment is his/her discretion (though, say, another one of my superiors observed me disrespecting this superior, they could decide to take 'corrective action'). I, however, have to be careful about participating in public demonstrations. Generally - members of the military are discouraged from participating in public demonstrations, usually because they are anti-military in nature and peace-activists tend to be pretty violent when they get riled up and smell the military coming off of you.

When in uniform, our actions are also much more regulated - no PDA, participation in public demonstrations, no walking and eating/drinking, no walking and talking on a phone, etc. When we are in uniform - people don't see a human being - they see -the- military. Just look at these forums - someone in a suit or uniform shows up at their door and # gets real. Some jackass shows up at a peace rally in uniform and suddenly "the soldiers hate the war, too!"

Y'all are sheeple, especially when you think you aren't. This is why us military members cannot have nice things - you all can't handle the uniform or the presence military members tend to bring with them (you can usually spot someone with military experience in a crowd - not even a tie-die shirt and shoulder-length hair can get rid of the military smell). Hell - I say I'm in the military, and suddenly I'm a shill, spook, etc. I can't just be a person who likes talking on forums and enjoys hanging around the conspiracy crowd, even if he doesn't buy most of it.

Let's face it - I'm a little too 'out there' for most normal conversations, and too 'down to earth' for conversations here. But this crowd is much more fun to be around. Life is much more enjoyable when you-tube proves everything.

But, no - we don't have a lot of the rights or graces the civilian population has. Kind of like how signing an NDA when going to work for various corporations sets bounds that you cannot cross without risking legal action. It's the same deal - we sign an 80-year NDA when we enlist. Average male life expectancy is only about 82-85 years old - somewhere in that range, and the minimum age you can enlist at is 16. There are things that some people have seen that have never been declassified (even though nothing about them is sensitive anymore - partly why the FOI system was established - so that people could request a check of documents relating to a subject or era and have them released if there was no reason to keep them classified), and - technically - can get them legally prosecuted if they talk about it.

Now, the law of enforcement is that you can only enforce laws to the extent the awareness and willingness of enforcement officers - and it's highly unlikely someone is going to land in hot water for telling 'nam stories at the bar, because that'd take one hell of a secret being told, or one hell of an asshole to head prosecution.

As for this wikileaks stuff - there's not much of a way for them to enforce most of it. What they don't want you doing is making matters worse and spreading links to it around, or telling others about the contents that are still classified. They don't have the resources to track down our personal computers and see what we've been reading in our own time. But it is technically illegal for me to read the documents, and a severe breach of handling procedure to 'distribute' digital copies, links to digital copies, or physical media containing classified information. As it is for anyone in the military.

Though, if you are on a government computer, every click you make is logged to your account. Donut do it.

reply to post by Iamonlyhuman


I dont think the government would get away with such tactics in the Uk with our amred forces. Maybe one day though, if this level of censorship increases...

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman

Originally posted by purplemer
Am i missing something here.. These are boys fighting for freedom, they dont even have the right to freedom of speech...!

They do have freedom of speech, just not freedom to use US government property to disperse that speech. I know this sounds like splitting hairs, and maybe it is, but it is the LEGAL foundation for what the government is doing. Fighting this in a court would never hold up because it IS legal. These computers are their property so they can legally say how, when & where they can be used.

edit on 4/12/2010 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

Are you really supporting TPTB and/or snake in the grass politicians filtering news?.. really?

The end result is censorship wrapped in flowery language that, surprise surprise.. favors the status quo of using "national security" as a guise for hiding politicians abhorrent and embarrassing behavior. Those ass-clowns represent US citizens to other countries, yet they behave almost nothing like the average US citizen..

I don't know about you, but I think people deserve to know US diplomats represent the values of the Crips & Bloods.. lol We wouldn't want the troops figuring that out, bad for business.

reply to post by GovtFlu

Are you really supporting TPTB and/or snake in the grass politicians filtering news?.. really?

I'm sure you want everyone in your community to know about the details of your job and your private exploits on top of that.

Of course, you believe in "TPTB" - so I'd do better talking to the wall.

The end result is censorship wrapped in flowery language that, surprise surprise.. favors the status quo of using "national security" as a guise for hiding politicians abhorrent and embarrassing behavior.

No, it generally keeps people safe.

Wikileaks does the same thing - it -should- zealously guard its sources of information, particularly if they are recurring in nature. It should -not- release information that directly or indirectly identifies the sources that provided the information to wikileaks. Let's say I observe some embezzlement going on while performing my duties - something huge, massive - beyond the scale of "file a complaint with your chain of command" sort of thing, and it directly involves my representatives that I would, involve were the issue that far above my head. Let's say I turn to a site like wikileaks. Let's also say that I'm the only person with access to certain pieces of information that end up being turned over to wikileaks. If they release those bits of information - or reveal who I am directly - then I have been compromised and will not only be pissed at wikileaks for dropping the ball, but also unable to provide any further information.

That's why a lot of this stuff is classified. It has little to do with behavior and comments behind the scenes. Sure - that is some of it - but how many times have you gone home and called your boss various names, or a co-worker, or some other person you interact with in the line of some duty that you would never interact with on a normal basis?

Those ass-clowns represent US citizens to other countries, yet they behave almost nothing like the average US citizen..

I'm not sure what an average citizen is. I know a lot of different people with a lot of different personality types making all kinds of different pay/income. A few of my friends will address almost everything you say with sarcasm or diminutive humor of some kind; they are assholes and their default way of communicating. I have other friends who -never- use sarcasm or humor that comes at another person's expense, and are some of the most 'soft and fuzzy' people on the planet. They're all Americans - born and raised here.

As a side note - it's hilarious when the two mutually exclusive personalities end up in the same room with each other - they simply don't know how to handle it. "Lambchop" is trying to be helpful to the guy giving her the finger for no damned reason whatsoever, neither hates the other but both get the impression they are hated. Great stuff.

I don't know about you, but I think people deserve to know US diplomats represent the values of the Crips & Bloods.. lol We wouldn't want the troops figuring that out, bad for business.

Generally, the military considers diplomats a waste of time. The people who we need to fight are either too stupid to listen to diplomats or smart enough to use the system to get "aid and assistance" that amounts to being paid-off for not starting a war. The ones we don't need to fight, we need to develop a kindred relationship with and the only way to do that is to have exchange of goods, services, and tourists. So long as the Army or Marines aren't driving the humvees, the military make pretty good "pioneering tourists" to areas unfamiliar with the U.S.

Diplomats are, thus, unnecessary and turn a rather simple issue into an incomprehensibly complex and circular issue.

I'm over-simplifying, diplomats have their place - but the world places too much value on talking and not enough value on actually doing something. (This coming from a guy who usually ends up posting massive walls of text on forums - Irony has been served.)

reply to post by purplemer


This is exactly the kind of freedom our good men and women in the military are fighting for. It's freedom enough. At least if you don't mind feeling like a child being parented by the government and being told what to do.

reply to post by purplemer


Nothing like a good old bookburning to defend democracy and freedom

This is an old tradition in many free countries, right?

Well, we poor bastrds living in Europe without all those freedoms are feeling a bit jealous right now.....

No, seriously! What in the name of FSM is going on with the US, what on earth is in these leaks that make the US shake like a leaf on the last day of autumn?

Can they even open a news site and not get any info on wikileaks?

reply to post by Aim64C


You don't believe in TPTB?

Seriosly, do you know what it stands for?

Palm ------> Face = slap

I think the main reason for "attacking" this Wikileaks thing is not only about the data from Wikileaks, but also to prevent the rise of a "culture" of whistle-blowing.

I suspect that TPTB are more afraid for the snowball effect.

You see it every time a whistleblower steps up, at the end he is broken, ridiculed, sewed out of a job and unhappy.

The worst nightmare of TPTB is a society that rewards people for exposing dirty secrets from (powerfull) organizations.

I think that is what they are fighting, and now has become world wide. Internet died in 2010.

Originally posted by GovtFlu
Are you really supporting TPTB and/or snake in the grass politicians filtering news?.. really?

You're putting words in my mouth... This is what I said:

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
They do have freedom of speech, just not freedom to use US government property to disperse that speech. I know this sounds like splitting hairs, and maybe it is, but it is the LEGAL foundation for what the government is doing. Fighting this in a court would never hold up because it IS legal. These computers are their property so they can legally say how, when & where they can be used.

edit on 4/12/2010 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)

I am simply commenting on the legality of the US government's actions. I do not support all laws in this country. I do try to abide by them though even if I don't support them.

Originally posted by [davinci]
reply to post by purplemer

 

It's becoming evident that few people, outside of politicians, have the right to freedom of speech.

Similarly, being accountable for ones actions applies to all but our political leaders.

Star for that my friend...
kx