US Army rewrites espionage rule book to make soldiers rat out media contacts
18 replies, posted
[img]http://appserver.veoh.com/static/CBS/CBS_Marketing_Assets/CBS%20News/cbsnews_300x250.gif[/img]
[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/10/05/ap/cabstatepent/main6929917.shtml]Source[/url]
[release]The Army has updated its 17-year-old rule book on espionage to specifically require that troops alert authorities if they suspect classified leaks to the media.
The revision comes on the heels of the service's WikiLeaks debacle. Earlier this year, an Army intelligence analyst was charged with providing a classified video to WikiLeaks, an anti-war organization that runs what it describes as a whistleblower Web site.
The new Army regulation, released Monday, requires that troops alert authorities if they suspect that classified information has been provided to anyone who isn't authorized to have it. It also directs the Army to create a central system to collect threat reports.
The guideline identifies media leaks as a threat for the first time. Soldiers also are required to alert authorities if classified information has been removed from the workplace.
The guidelines are much more specific than the 1993 version, which requires that troops report cases of treason or attempted intrusions into automated systems.
Pfc. Bradley Manning is charged with leaking video of a 2007 U.S. Apache helicopter attack in Baghdad that killed a Reuters news photographer and his driver. WikiLeaks posted the video on its website in April.
Military investigators say Manning also is a person of interest in the leak of nearly 77,000 Afghan war records that WikiLeaks published online in July.
The Army regulation was first reported by the Federation of American Scientists' Secrecy News blog.
Steven Aftergood, author of Secrecy News, said he was somewhat surprised to see warnings of media leaks lumped in with cases of sabotage and subversion. The changes are most likely a reflection of the government's "increasingly aggressive posture" toward keeping its secrets from the public, he said.
"It's part of a larger picture of heightened sensitivity to external and internal threats," Aftergood said.
Lt. Col. David Patterson Jr., an Army spokesman, said the revision was not in response to the WikiLeaks case "but involved a comprehensive review and update process." [/release]
They are really scrapping at the bottom of the barrel to get Wikileaks
The information is classified for a reason. Of course they would want to protect it.
I agree to this... remember what Geraldo fuckin' did
They could always try a more honest way at making wikileaks not a threat, like maybe not doing all the stuff they're trying to keep secret.
Some things are unavoidable, as terrible as it may seem.
[QUOTE=RoBaDoB;25355703]They could always try a more honest way at making wikileaks not a threat, like maybe not doing all the stuff they're trying to keep secret.[/QUOTE]
Some of the stuff they're trying to keep secret is actually important stuff to do with operations that are not in Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;25355035]I agree to this... remember what Geraldo fuckin' did[/QUOTE]
Exactly what popped into my head. Pisses me off still that he did that, and that he is still employed by Fox afterwards...
I wonder how they're going to enforce this. There's not really a way to be sure somebody knew something was happening.
[QUOTE=Warhol;25354989]They are really scrapping at the bottom of the barrel to get Wikileaks[/QUOTE]
Hey, if I had to wanted to hide something bad I would do the same.
[QUOTE=Eluveitie;25355783]Some of the stuff they're trying to keep secret is actually important stuff to do with operations that are not in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
Wikileaks does not publish information that could compromise agents ect.
[editline]04:23PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mabus;25358826]Hey, if I had to wanted to hide something bad I would do the same.[/QUOTE]
The point remains that as a legit government you shouldn't have to.
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;25359137]Wikileaks does not publish information that could compromise agents ect.[/QUOTE]
Except for that one time they did...
[QUOTE=Mabus;25358826]Hey, if I had to wanted to hide something bad I would do the same.[/QUOTE]
The point remains that as a legit government you shouldn't have to.
[editline]04:23PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ridge;25359155]Except for that one time they did...[/QUOTE]
Do tell.
[QUOTE=Ridge;25359325][url]http://www.dailytech.com/Taliban+Murders+Afghan+Elder+Thanks+Wikileaks+for+Revealing+Spies/article19250.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
I stand (partially) corrected then.
[QUOTE=Ridge;25359325][url]http://www.dailytech.com/Taliban+Murders+Afghan+Elder+Thanks+Wikileaks+for+Revealing+Spies/article19250.htm[/url][/QUOTE]
How many fucking times do we have to refute this news article?
[editline]04:52PM[/editline]
That article is flat out line, this has been shown to YOU specifically several times before, Ridge. Christ you have the memory of a goldfish or you're retarded.
[editline]04:56PM[/editline]
That article is flat out line, this has been shown to YOU specifically several times before, Ridge. Christ you have the memory of a goldfish or you're retarded.
[editline]04:57PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;25359505]I stand (partially) corrected then.[/QUOTE]
The Article is lying, the name of the Elder is no where to be found in any Wikileaks article published.
[editline]04:57PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;25359505]I stand (partially) corrected then.[/QUOTE]
The Article is lying, the name of the Elder is no where to be found in any Wikileaks article published.
Warhol, have you turned into a parrot?
Pick a thread at random, look through it and you'll see the new forums are laggy.
And nice job ignoring your fuck up, brosteak
[QUOTE=Eluveitie;25355783]Some of the stuff they're trying to keep secret is actually important stuff to do with operations that are not in Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
Like covering up that 9/11 was an inside job. Seriously guys, get your heads in gear!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
