Accessing wikileaks may put Americans in danger of breaking law

[Donnachaidh]

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301156?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

According to Executive Order 13526 signed by President Obama in 2009, classified information does not lose its security classification even if it is leaked. So what is the danger of accessing classified information?

Earlier this week reports surfaced that students at Columbia University received an email stating that accessing Wikileaks or blogging, writing, twittering, or communicating the information contained on Wikileaks could possibly inhibit their access to future government jobs. The email posted by The Arabist cited information from an anonymous employee of the state department. The Gawker later reported that State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson said that she was unaware of the directive. However, she did say that people should be cautious when writing about wikileaks and to not cross the line between talking about a current event and disseminating or reading classified information. The Gawker report also included criticism against the United States military for restricting access to wikileaks and warning military members against accessing information.

From the Gawker:

A tipster wrote to tell us that "the Army's unclassified, NIPRNET network in Iraq has blocked every major news website because of the Wikileaks issue," going on to say that Foxnews.com, CNN.com, MSNBC.com, the Huffington Post, and a variety of other sites are blocked on the Army's unclassified network. A spokesperson for U.S. forces in Iraq disputed that claim, saying that the web sites aren't actually blocked—it's just that attempts to access them on the unclassified network brings up a warning page saying that you're about to break the law.

While the Gawker suggests that the military must have "lost it," there is a method behind the madness.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301156?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#ixzz17RxCiJQo

[kenny blankenship]

1. So, Govt has progressed from lawfully controlling release of info it possesses and generates,

to asserting control and ownership over external truth itself, over the world of facts, and asserting control over the minds of its subjects, through what they may know of that world.

A momentous change, which all readers of Orwell should recognize.

[kestrel91316]

2. Time for a mass protest. Everyone in the US with a computer needs to access and read Wikileaks

documents. Daily. For the forseeable future.

Then, good luck seating a jury to try to get anybody convicted.

[pitohui]

7. nothing easier than to seat a jury to convict someone in such a case

even DU keeps track of ISPs so that if subpoena'd they can find out who left certain posts, we lost the battle a long time ago

no one is going to stand up for you if you break the law, and there is an easy line of proof showing you did so

there's no meaningful parole in federal prison

you're going to ruin your life to read some stuff online when it's that easy to prove what computer accessed what where and when?

as for juries, jury nullification doesn't exist, ask the hundreds of thousands of people convicted of marijuana crimes each year

juries do as instructed by judges, no one is going to give up her one and only life and risk a contempt charge to help someone they don't even know

we gave up that battle when we fell for the "oh the children" nonsense and gave up online privacy after a rash of invented child porn scares -- mostly, of course, the child porn in question never existed, and it was middle aged lonely hearts getting online w. middle aged manipulating fbi agents, but the lives destroyed were worth destroying as far as the gov't was concerned, since it scared "the concerned" into agreeing we cannot have any online privacy

again, even DU thinks this the way to go

and this was once considered a progressive site...but eventually everyone gets worn down, for sure a jury will convict if they can prove you broke federal law, it prob. won't even get to a jury -- you would prob. be forced to accept some deal to try to salvage some part of your life

there won't be any "mass" protest, the "mass" figures they are not going to throw away their one and only life on a losing cause

[rucky]

8. That's why we all need to do it.

If it's widespread, it'll be too big to prosecute.

Things you learn from a mortgage robo-signer ;)

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. In the wake of Valerie Plame, none of this shit means anything.

They're just going to pick somebody and make an example of them. No such thing as "we are a country of laws" or "no man is above the law."

Bush & Cheney got away with it, so, that old argument doesn't fly anymore.

All this means is that non-American hackers are going to have all the fun.

[MinneapolisMatt]

4. Seriously!

Perfectly said.

[DeSwiss]

5. K&R

"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels

[snagglepuss]

10. Bang on. nt

[tammywammy]

6. Yes, those with a security clearance, or wanting one in the future should not access Wikileaks

To do so will be accessing classified material on an unclassified network and also considered accessing classified material without a need-to-know. You would have to state as such on any application for a clearance and report it as an adverse action if you do have one.

Pretty standard for ALL classified information, not just Wikileaks.

[JackRiddler]

11. . (dupe)

[JackRiddler]

12. "Watch what you click on the New York Times!" (an Ari Fleischer variation).

Hey, it's all in the rules.

And the security fetishists and government flappers wonder what makes people want to break their cult into a million pieces?

[tammywammy]

13. Yes, it's in the rules when you sign up for a clearance

You don't look at classified information for the heck of it and this is more than Wikileaks.

If you don't like the rules, you don't have to sign up for it.

Manning will go to prison for the rest of his life for disclosing classified documents.

[msanthrope]

14. I won't be surprised if Manning is death penalty case. n/t

[JackRiddler]

15. Don't bring Manning into this example as though it's relevant.

This is about any bozo reading something you can find on the open Internet. This is about clicking on a link at the New York Times.

It is about applying these rules illogically, but in the spirit of authoritarianism.

It is about extending every rule, and every moral approbation and possibly empty threat, to cover and intimidate everyone, whether they're voluntarily in the imperial expeditionary forces or not.

They want to criminalize the presence of these documents anywhere on the Web (at this point, since they're out, irrational threats and a few example punishments are aimed to deter future leaks).

This logic can never stop at merely placing Alice in Wonderland rules only on those who willingly volunteer to serve in the imperial expeditionary forces. It will inevitably target press freedom, Internet freedom and the mere possession of electronic files you didn't steal or leak yourself.

[tammywammy]

16. It's not illogic

These files are still classified. They haven't been downgraded to unclassified. They're being treated just like any other classified document. I wouldn't look at them for a few reasons, including the fact that I would be accessing classified documents on an unclassified network and I don't have a need-to-know. If I released classified information to someone without an appropriate security clearance or without a need-to-know, I could lose my clearance (and thus my job) and suffer a fine and/or prison.

A person without a clearance is free to look at these documents. Those with a clearance should already know why they cannot look at them, but there are reminders going around that looking at them would be adverse and a reportable action.

This isn't about extending any rules, the rules have already been in place. The fact that it's on the internet doesn't mean it's unclassified, it's still considered classified and the rules following the Wikileak documents are the same as with eveyr other classified document.

[JackRiddler]

17. It's voodoo.

I don't care what the military rules say. Being a free-thinking human and a sovereign citizen should come before being an order-following machine, and no oath can alienate you from your innate freedom. This is a restriction on reading of public domain material. Everything published in the papers is public domain, even if it's still classified according to the voodoo of the government rules. This is the difference between reality and magical thinking.

Furthermore, you write:

"A person without a clearance is free to look at these documents."

That is exactly what is being challenged here. The pronouncements of the State Department already say that citizens shouldn't be looking at the documents. There are calls to hang Assange, there are active efforts to shut down Wikileaks and the hundreds of mirror sites that have now arisen. Lieberman today went after the New York Times (who tried so hard to be obedient.)

By the way, avert your eyes!

P U B L I C D O M A I N

S E C R E T ANKARA 000126

SIPDIS

FOR BACKGROUND

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/22/2020
TAGS: PREL PGOV MASS MARR TU AF PK IR IZ IS AM
SUBJECT: SECRETARY GATES' TURKEY BILATERAL VISIT:
SCENESETTER

Classified By: Ambassador James F. Jeffrey, Reasons 1.4 (a,b,d)

¶1. (S) PM Erdogan welcomed President Obama's reiteration of
support to the fight against the PKK during the December 7
meeting in the Oval Office, but the Secretary should expect
questions about how we will operationalize that commitment as
plans to withdraw from Iraq move forward. A key issue will
be how to reduce the gap between the time when the U.S. is no
longer able to provide ISR support and when we will be able
to help Turkey acquire its own capability. On missile
defense, we will look for the Secretary's help in advancing
our work with Turkey to persuade the Turks to allow a key
radar system to be based here. The Turks are struggling to
define what they will need in terms of NATO political cover
to lessen the high cost - both in terms of domestic politics
and in relations with Iran - that Erdogan's government
believes it will have to pay should they agree.

¶2. (S) Although our agenda with Turkey is broad and complex,
the following issues are likely to come up during the
Secretary's trip:

"Need To Raise"
----------------

- Our commitment to continue sharing real-time intelligence
to support Turkey's counter-PKK fight, but caution that the
process for Turkey to acquire an armed UAV system from the
U.S. will be long and complex. (para 3-5, 14)

- The need for a NATO BMD system with Turkey's participation
and the Iranian threat against NATO interests. (para 6-9)

- Appreciation for Turkey's efforts on Afghanistan/Pakistan,
particularly for its new commitments to training security
forces. (para 10-11)

- Appreciation for support to OIF/OEF through Turkey's
territory, including the Incirlik Cargo Hub; easing transit
of non-lethal mil cargo shipments from Iraq to Afghanistan.
(para 12)

- Our advocacy support for Raytheon and Sikorsky on sales of
air defense systems and utility helicopters (para 13).

SNIP

(That's from 2010-11-28 18:06)

Full text: http://213.251.145.96/cable/2010/01/10ANKARA126.html

[Newest Reality]

9. Information Age

In an age of information, it is necessary to mold and realize the idea of the thought criminal to the point that people will enforce it in themselves dutifully, either by agreement and/or by perpetually induced fear.

A thought crime is arbitrary in that it describes any information or ideas that represent a threat to hierarchical control of thinking itself and those that wish to grow and preserve control on a mass scale.

Thought criminals make better lovers!

[Mimosa]

18. Our troops aren't stupid: picture them wondering WTH they're fighting for. n/t