General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSnowden Documents Reveal Covert Surveillance & Pressure Tactics Aimed at WikiLeaks & Its Supporters
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/18/snowden-docs-reveal-covert-surveillance-and-pressure-tactics-aimed-at-wikileaks-and-its-supporters/The efforts detailed in documents provided previously by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden included a broad campaign of international pressure aimed not only at WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, but at what the U.S. government calls the human network that supports WikiLeaks. The documents also contain internal discussions about targeting the file-sharing site Pirate Bay and hacktivist collectives such as Anonymous.
One classified document from Government Communications Headquarters, Britains top spy agency, shows that GCHQ used its surveillance system to secretly monitor visitors to a WikiLeaks site. By exploiting its ability to tap into the fiber-optic cables that make up the backbone of the Internet, the agency confided to allies in 2012, it was able to collect the IP addresses of visitors in real time, as well as the search terms that visitors used to reach the site from search engines like Google.
Another classified document from the U.S. intelligence community, dated August 2010, recounts how the Obama administration urged foreign allies to file criminal charges against Assange over the groups publication of the Afghanistan war logs.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)bemildred
(90,061 posts)Do you see the fear of the internet? The fear of the people? Anybody who speaks up?
Just a general "file criminal charges"", anything will do.
And all the denials.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Snowden Documents Reveal Covert Surveillance and Pressure Tactics Aimed at WikiLeaks and Its Supporters"
...who knew that the governments were trying to shut down Wikileaks? News to me.
All the reassurances Americans heard that the broad authorities of the FISA Amendments Act could only be used to target foreigners seem a bit more hollow, Sanchez says, when you realize that the foreign target can be an entire Web site or online forum used by thousands if not millions of Americans.
Yeah, Glenn's a fan of the Cato Institute. More hyperbolic BS.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)Political dissidents and leakers. Governments-- particularly corrupt governments that just service a tiny plutocracy-- view these types as the real threat.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)their 'human network'. Those who accessed the wikileaks website which includes me and millions of other people.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Nailed it in a nutshell.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)AMY GOODMAN: Another document reveals the NSA considered designating WikiLeaks as a "malicious foreign actor."
...
When you read this, Julian welcome back to Democracy Now! what were your thoughts on being put on this "manhunting"their words"manhunting" list together with al-Qaeda?
JULIAN ASSANGE: Good morning, Amy.
Well, my first thought was, well, finally, we have some proof that we can present to the public for what we have long suspected for a variety of reasons. And it is strange to see your name in that context with people who are suspected of serious criminal acts of terrorism. Clearly, that is a massive overstep.
Weve heard a lot in the propaganda pushed on this issue by Clapper and others in the U.S. national security complex that, of course, this pervasive surveillance is justified by the need to stop U.S.stop terrorist attacks being conducted on the United States and its allies. But weve seen example after example come out over the last few months showing the National Security Agency and its partners, GCHQ, engaged in economic espionage.
And here we have an example where the type of espionage being engaged in is spying on a publisherWikiLeaks, the publishing organization, and a publisherme, personally. And the other material that came out in relation to GCHQ was from 2012, and that shows that GCHQ was spying on our service and our readers, so not just the publisher as an organization, not just the publisher as a person, but also the readers of a publisher. And thats clearly, I believe, not something that the United States population agrees with, let alone other people.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)The docs indicate a manhunt. And the docs indicate that the government discussed designating him as a malicious actor. No definitive answer whether they did or not. That is why we conduct investigations.
You could read the article.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)happen to think that's exactly what he should be designated.
Specifically, Assange's work with Manning went beyond journalism.....
After February 11: Unauthorized software on SIPRNET; the Collateral Murder, Rejkjavik-13 cable, and Defense Intelligence documents
Then, remember, Manning came to the US in January to February 2010. Adrian Lamo has long alleged that Manning got help from some folks in Boston. The timeline shows Manning returned to Iraq on February 11, which also happens to be the first date Manning is alleged to have put the first of two unauthorized pieces of software onto SIPRNET.
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2011/03/05/a-narrative-chronology-of-bradley-mannings-alleged-leaks/
Manning performed searches on behalf of Assange--
During the course of the governments direct examination of Fulton, prosecuting attorney Capt. Ashden Fein asked Fulton if, in the course of his work, Manning had a need to conduct searches on SIPRnet for certain keywords GITMO SOP, Julian Assange, WikiLeaks or whether he had reason to visit a specific part of the CENTCOM web site. Fulton replied no in all cases.
Another witness, fellow intelligence analyst Sgt. Chad Madaras, was later asked similar questions. Madaras and Manning shared computers at Forward Operating Base Hammer in Iraq, where they were deployed together. Madaras worked the day shift, and Manning mostly served on the night shift.
The government asked if Madaras had ever used their computers to search for some of the same terms, as well as the term JTF GITMO or the name Birgitta Jonsdottir, or if he had ever used the Net Centric Diplomacy Database. Madaras replied no in each case.
The implication of the questioning seemed to be that the government had found forensic evidence that Mannings workstation computers had been used to search these terms, though there was no testimony that stated this directly.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/manning-apache-video/
Understand that this search of Jonsdottir happened AFTER she was editing the Collateral Murder video, and BEFORE this was known to the public...in other words, Bradley Manning didn't pull these search terms out of his ass.
And asked Assange for help in cracking military codes...
In another chat, dated March 8, 2010, Manning asked Nathaniel Frank, believed to be Assange, about help in cracking the main password on his classified SIPRnet computer so that he could log on to it anonymously. He asked Frank if he had experience cracking IM NT hashes (presumably its a mistype and he meant NTLM for the Microsoft NT LAN Manager). Frank replied yes, that they had rainbow tables for doing that. Manning then sent him what looked like a hash.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/army-manning-hearing/#more-35191?tw_p=twt
As for Mr. Shamir, I think that anti-Semitic fascist's dealings are reprehensible:
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/20129410312450511.html
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Gotta give you credit for tenacity!
Well, back to my day job. Excuse me while I go artificially inseminate some cows.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)proven true, beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus Manning was convicted on the corresponding counts.
Sadly...it was only Manning who paid the price for doing Assange's web searches and the like.
I note you avoided Israel Shamir...because having a vicous anti-Semite as your bosom buddy, defender, and employee is indefensible.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)BRD, and formed the basis of conviction on several counts.
You aren't saying I am smearing Israel Shamir, are you? Dear sweet Jeebus...don't tell me you are defending that person.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)you are ruled by CRIMINALS.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)the documents. I had thought about donating to Wikileaks myself and I remember going over there to read some of the revelations recommended in DU posts.
How many of us who checked out Wikileaks are now in the data base of NSA as "suspects" to be monitored. I ended up not donating but what if I had donated using my credit card. Since I know I went over there a few times to read their document releases wouldn't that also put me in their data base. What about DU as a Website who had posters linking to Wikileaks? Would that mean that all posters here who logged in using a link from DU make DU or Daily Kos or other Website subject to surveillance?
These new revelations are very disturbing in that these programs are ongoing and not just old Bush era spying that some claim has been discontinued by the Obama administration. I doubt anything has been discontinued but has only morphed into ever more intrusive and complicated surveillance programs that can be covered up with clever words/twisted language from James Clapper, DiFi and others.
The whole article with new documented revelations and Assange's lawyer's reply is worth the long read.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)Even if the White House was told it stopped.
That's what happens when you allow your DNI to lie to congress without any consequences.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)MICHAEL RATNER: Well, what I was really shocked by was the extent the U.S. and U.K. have gone through to try and get and destroy WikiLeaks and Julian Assange and their network of supporters. I mean, its astounding. And its been going on for years. And it also, as Julian pointed out, tells us why he is in the Ecuadorean embassy and why Ecuador has given him asylum. He has every reason to heavily fear what would happen to him in this country, in the United States, if he were to be ever taken here. So I think, for me, thats a very, very critical point, justifies every reason why Ecuador gave him asylum.
And the document youre addressing, Amy, what they call the manhunt timeline, which is extraordinary because it groups him among, you know, a whole bunch of people who the U.S. considers terrorists, it also, interestingly, groups themgroups them among Palestinians, which is pretty interesting in itself. But to have Julian on that list as a manhunt timeline, and it says prosecute him wherever you can get him, is pretty extraordinary. It doesnt say you necessarily need a good reason to prosecute him; it just says, basically, prosecute him. And what its reminiscent, to me, is of the program that took place in this country in the '60s and the 70s, COINTELPRO, counterintelligence procedures, when the FBI said, "We have to basically destroy the black civil rights movement, the New Left and others, and prosecute them, get them however you can, get rid of them." And so, the manhunt timeline, even its name is chilling. But that's what it is. Its an effort to try and get WikiLeaks and their personnel, wherever they are in the world.
http://m.democracynow.org/stories/14207
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)This is a very troubling report, said Jameel Jaffer, American Civil Liberties Union deputy legal director. Publishers who disclose abuses of government power should not be subjected to invasive surveillance for having done so, and individuals should not be swept up into surveillance dragnets simply because theyve visited websites that report on those abuses. Further, the United States should not be urging allied countries to pursue prosecutions that would be unconstitutional if undertaken here at home.
https://www.aclu.org/national-security-technology-and-liberty/us-and-uk-targeted-wikileaks-surveillance-and-political
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Lots of conclusion without underlying support. Meaning that these conclusions may be exaggerated just like everything else on this topic.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Britain's Labour party isn't going to be any more kind to the bail jumpet, and his time in the embassy grows short.