Pentagon Seeks to Establish Basis for 1970`s Espionage Act Against Wikileaks
17 replies, posted
[img]http://mathaba.net/images/button/mathaba200.png[/img]
[url=http://mathaba.net/news/?x=624802]Source[/url]
[release][I]Mathaba comment: The reason for the otherwise illogical letter from the Pentagon to Wikileaks, as well as the below press conference, are likely to be found in a 1970's U.S. law on espionage, which requires further research. According to that law, non-U.S. citizens -- anyone in the world -- can be criminalised and found guilty of spying against the U.S., but one of the conditions is that they have been asked to hand back whatever was stolen.
This point has been discovered by Tim Matusheski to whom the original Pentagon fax was sent, but has been completely missed by other lawyers and analysts. In this context, the actions of the Pentagon (U.S. Department of Defense) make sense. However, the Pentagon is on very shaky ground: because not only are they effectively saying "I don't know what shirts you have stolen from me exactly, but you have my pink shirt and I want it back, or else!" and also would likely violate the U.S. constitution 1st amendment, according to Matusheski.[/I]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8xMD2xP63Y[/media]
Original comment by Steven Krivit on Youtube:
Excerpts from Aug. 3, 2010 Pentagon Briefing From Spokesman Geoff Morrell.
Morell explained to reporters from around the world the alleged inherent risks and dangers of the content of the classified documents on the Wikileaks Web site. The briefing was part of the Pentagon's alleged attempt to minimize risk that foreign subversives might learn about the documents on the Wikileaks Web site.
But If the documents released to the Internet were the main problem with this situation, why would the Pentagon hold a press release to explain to reporters from around the world, as well as in a publicly available video, the exact nature of the content of those documents? Wouldn't they have been more effective with a quiet, private and direct effort?
Be sure to watch Morell's eyes bug out when a reporter asks him if the Pentagon is just bluffing.
Consider the alternative perspective: The Pentagon found itself powerless in this situation against a stubborn and determined media outlet that utilizes the worldwide capabilities of the Internet for free speech. The Pentagon was faced with an information service that was beyond its and the United States' direct control.
If Pandora's box has already been opened, as one reporter mentioned in the briefing, why would the Pentagon continue to seek compliance and control of Wikileaks?
It is ludicrous to think that Wikileaks will voluntarily destroy all copies of the classified documents it now holds. No, the barn door has been left open and the horse is long gone. The objective of this Pentagon's coercion attempt ("demand, request, compel") is to intimidate Wikileaks with future leak situations, and to instill fear in any potential would-be future leakers. A third objective of the Pentagon would be to make an example out of Wikileaks should other media outlets decide to be as audacious as Wikileaks.
Therefore, the Pentagon attempted to single out Wikileaks and intimidate them, attempted to instill fear in them and their supporters, discredit the organization as immoral and criminal and instigate social pressure against them in an effort to bully Wikileaks. Look at the news stories in the days that followed the briefing; many are focused not on the actual content of the documents but on what Wikileaks should or should not do, or should or should not have done. The Pentagon's media relations strategy is indeed generating social pressure against Wikileaks.
But perhaps there is a story here that the Pentagon does not want the public to learn about, for example, as discussed in this CBS News Opinion column: "Wikileaks vs. the Pentagon: Phony Finger pointing, Tom Engelhardt:: Who Really Has Blood On Their Hands?"
[url]http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/06/opinion/main674[/url]...
Morell attempts to explain that the documents belong to the U.S. government and nobody else. That is an interesting concept. Which raises the question: Who owns the U.S. government, if not its citizens? CENDI: The Commerce, Energy, NASA, Defense Information Managers Group representing a variety of government advisors states that "since 1895, statutory provisions have prohibited the assertion of copyright in any publication of the U.S. Government."
Highlights:
7:52 Morrell: "We're looking to have a conversation about how to get these perilous documents off the Web site as soon as possible, return them to their rightful owners and expunge them from their records. That will help minimize harm that has already been created."
8:42 Reporter: "Are these documents missing?" (Morrell's eyes dart and fix on someone standing in the back of he room to his left.)
9:07 Morrell: "Tony, you're shaking your head. I've caused some consternation to you."
10:12 Reporter: "Is it a step or a bluff." (Morrell's eyes bug out.)
11:07 Morrell: "This potential database for all of our enemies, that now hangs on the Internet and provides an opportunity for them to mine, looking for, um, looking for weaknesses in force protection, tactics, techniques and procedures, who we do business with, how we, um, cultivate sources ... all this stuff is potentially out there for people who wish to do us harm to take advantage of."
(If you listen to the full C-Span recording, you hear from the accents that many of the reporters in the room seem to be from international news agencies.)
11:32 Reporter: "Why didn't the department do this before?" (Morrell's eyes dart and fix on someone standing in the back of he room to his left. He then suddenly furrows his eyebrows as if he does not understand what someone is presumably attempting to tell him.)
13:30 Morrell: "Tony, I'm very concerned about you today. You are laughing, you are scowling, you seem to be confused."
16:28 Morrell: "The only rightful owner of this material is the United States government." [/release]
think of teh soldiers that might die!eo1ne11e1
Yeah, right.
Because the government really cares about its soldiers.
Ever hear of a dismounted IED check, motherfuckers?
people will die if i don't get a blowjob immediately
...
fuck, it worked for the cia
Pulling on strings here Pentagon.
This is just getting stupid.
terrible grasp at straws. wikileaks does not spy or do anything illegal. they simply anonymously publish things people have leaked to them.
Boy they really want that site taken down. I wouldn't be surprised if they resorted to illegal measures to do it.
Like a truck 'accidentally' plowing into the data center, or a 'break-in' in which the servers are 'vandalized' or 'stolen'?
And for extra insurance, a 'random' 'drive-by shooting' in which Assange is killed?
Realistically, no, but I wouldn't put it past someone in the government to suggest that.
[QUOTE=Kuro.;25113284]Like a truck 'accidentally' plowing into the data center, or a 'break-in' in which the servers are 'vandalized' or 'stolen'?[/QUOTE]
And this is why we're hosting Wikileaks in Sweden. I'm sure there are backups in other countries aswell.
Oh fuck off, America.
God they're getting butthurt.
damn i love the3 internet
so rebellious and sexy, like a worldwide revolution that you can log out of.
Look at all the people here posting acting like they give a shit.
Pentagon needs to shut the fuck up and be big boys and big girls, and allow Wikileaks to report. Everyone has the right to Freedom of Speech, and We the People deserve the right to know what the fuck is going on with our government, considering we're what /elects/ them, and pays to keep them bloody operating.
[QUOTE=Aide;25113613]Look at all the people here posting acting like they give a shit.[/QUOTE]
Look at this guy trying to be cool and edgy by stating what he thinks as fact.
Some do give a shit.
USA tryin' hard.
[QUOTE=Aide;25113613]Look at all the people here posting acting like they give a shit.[/QUOTE]
Oh yes, they're so fucking desperate to get that site taken down because there's absolutely nothing of importance in it.
Just a matter of time before all that's on there will be read through and revealed. Eventually whatever secrets they're trying to prevent from escaping will get out.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.