crunchgear.com — The controversy surrounding Wikileaks continues, as you always expected it would. All branches of the Unites States military are now banning their personnel from having anything to do with the site, primarily to avoid “electronic spillages,” a phrase I have never heard before. The Pentagon told the Washington Times that those in the Navy...
Aug 5, 2010 View in Crawl 4
trainofthought6Aug 5, 2010
"....despite the Pentagon wanting to compel the site to do “ the right thing.”"
Despite? Sounds like Wikileaks is following the Pentagon's orders.
jantikAug 5, 2010
I understand the fact the military brass is upset, but how is this going to help anything? Trying to hide information in case it might contain some bad stuff will never work, except to make it look like you wanted to hide it. Rather than act in this ham-handed way, perhaps they should rethink what really constitutes a secret and what not. And once they know the difference, maybe they can design a system of protecting those real secrets and stop worrying about everything else.
stubearAug 6, 2010
Just because a handful of people decide to improperly classify information does not mea the system is broken and needs to be rebuilt. Having dealt with classified information while in the Air Force, I understand why certain information that might seem harmless at first is classified the way it is. The system works, the problem, as with all systems, breaks down when people get involved.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
@The system works, the problem, as with all systems, breaks down when people get involved.
So its true! Reptilian shapeshifters are running our government! ...most call Alex Jones!Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
It all starts with the Space Pope
enssssAug 5, 2010
So we wouldn't want our troops to see classified material, would we, they might find out what is really going on.
captininsanityAug 6, 2010
Not trying to defend the pentagon, but I think they're trying to prevent info from going out not in.
rsm33Aug 6, 2010
I guess. But I doubt submitting things to Wikileaks really works like submitting a story on Digg.
hotshotveggieAug 6, 2010
Banning our military from visiting wikileaks isn't going to help stem the spread of the information to our enemies, it's not like our soldiers are sharing computers with them. They already have access.
yunusAug 6, 2010
I doubt it as well, but the military policy is to be overly restrictive when it comes to classified data. While this might sound like a stupid policy, it's just "playing it safe".
assassyn360Aug 6, 2010
Exactly. They don't want to inspire more leaks of classified information.
enssssAug 6, 2010
Glad to see this discussion. Here is my thinking.
It is obviously absurd to ask for the documents back because as I see it they still have these documents. Unless, of course, the military has actually lost these documents. And in that case they could go to wikileaks and retrieve the copy they have. But, this is where I laugh, they are banned.
I think that the intelligence personnel should have all material at their disposal to do their intelligence work. Unless we are trying to limit their thinking a certain way and not let them think "outside the box" whatever that means.
Now I could understand why you would want the non-intelligent part of the armed forces from going to wikileaks and wasting their time and energy thinking about what they are doing. That would be a source of risk because they might learn more about why they are doing what they are doing and come to unhelpful conclusions about the legality of the work they've been assigned.
skyjis6Aug 6, 2010
We already know. Most of us are trying to prevent these mistakes from happening again.
pigfisterAug 6, 2010
this is to try to stop the spread of the truth and protect the propaganda lise that are spewed out from every possible channel.
but tbh the soldiers are every bit to blame for the war crimes of the USA & UK's higher ranking soldiers, and members of the governments.
without the soldiers there would not be a war.
it takes a braver soldier to disobey an illegal order than mindlessly carry it out.
peacecatAug 6, 2010
The site includes a way to contribute documents, not exactly the kind of thing you want facilitated among military personnel.
It's the military, they do what they do.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
HACK THE PLANET!
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
Angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night.
kisamaAug 6, 2010
Of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
-Ozzy Osbourne
w1cked1Aug 6, 2010
Have you heard the news? Wikileaks has WMD....
rsm33Aug 6, 2010
You may get buried, but I thought that was f**king hysterical!
I heard a rumor that illegal immigrants have WMDs too!
w1cked1Aug 6, 2010
If I don't get buried, I'm doing it wrong.
Cheers :)
euclioAug 6, 2010
IT'S EQUAL TO 9000!!!!!!!
non00bAug 6, 2010
I'm surprised they haven't already done this. I mean come on.
kennmacAug 6, 2010
I feel weird saying this, since I'm a huge WikiLeaks fan, but doesn't it make sense that some classified material stay classified? For example, suppose an active military member decides to make it public where some of our armor sheds are. I'm sure that'd be great for strategic defense on the ground against insurgents. I will concede however that I'm sure this closes a hole to some information that the public SHOULD be aware of.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
Forget the SCOTUS rulings that dealt with such issues... but generally, once the information is made public, courts can not try to re-classify it. One case dealt with a circuit court clerk accidentally releasing the name of a rape victim, and a newspaper printing it.
digg2point0Aug 6, 2010
The issue is, the ones who would be deciding that are the ones with the secrets to keep.
ivanmarshAug 6, 2010
"In war, truth is the first casualty." - it's good to know that nothing has changed since ancient Greece.
maciulaAug 6, 2010
God forbid that soldiers actually realize what f**ked up organization they're in...
hewhopoopsAug 6, 2010
They already know. Trust me.
waspbrAug 6, 2010
Freest country in the world? lol
rsm33Aug 6, 2010
The freeest countries in the world are actually the scandinavian countries (Sweden, Finland, Denmark etc.). One of the main reasons for this is that they are not constantly at war, so they don't constantly need to restrict freedom to keep their populations "on message." They also have us owned in education, healthcare, minimum wage, infant mortality, general measures of happiness and so on and so on...
I know you were being sarcastic, I just thought I would add some more to your (very good) point...
vigrocoAug 6, 2010
They are also not world superpowers that have crosshairs constantly on them.
rsm33Aug 6, 2010
VigRoco,
Really? Who is targeting them? Please enlighten us.
What good is being a world super power if you lag behind almost every other civilized country in everything but military might?
We are a world super bully. And the only people that benefits are the few billionaires who make boatloads of money off of the wars we wage.
You are a dinosaur if you still cling to the idea that we as a country lead in anything anymore. We don't.
askantikAug 6, 2010
To expand upon rsm33's very good point (which expanded upon waspbr's very good point), might I suggest these links which point out some of the positive aspects of the Scandinavian countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index#Rankings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Enabling_Trade_Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Property_Rights_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#2008_ranking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Index#2008_Education_Index
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index#International_Rankings_2006
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index#2009_report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index#For_selected_OECD_countries_.28HPI-2.29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Gender_Gap_Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Performance_Index#2010
southsideirishAug 6, 2010
People in the military are not free as they are covered by the UCMJ, and not normal laws. The Pentagon has the right to do this, and if you visit the site, then they can court martial you.
rsm33Aug 6, 2010
Of course they can do it. Waspbr never said otherwise. His comment was directed at the fact that they don't HAVE to do it, but they choose to anyway.
When given the right to restrict our freedom, our government ALWAYS excercises that right. This is why they need to be protected. You are taking his point too literally.
quaxonAug 6, 2010
We need to fight 6.3 more wars to achieve total freedom.
cheezinternAug 7, 2010
You forget America has a grand tradition of burying our head in the sand.
sndreamAug 6, 2010
If no one leaked classified Vietnam War documents, US will still in Vietnam now.
automatikAug 6, 2010
now time you need beating of supervisor for bad grammar now
cajungator3Aug 6, 2010
I don't know if you read a history book but we were winning before we pulled out.
buckrogers1965Aug 8, 2010
HA HA HA HA HA! Good one!
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
This is like telling children not to look at this stack of porn mags right here in this box which I will now put in the back of a closet.
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
Somehow I'm reminded of the old Soviet military where maps where classified as top secret and the ordinary soldiers couldn't even read one much less navigate using maps. Take out the map-reading officer and the rest of the unit was totally lost. Seems to me the US military also want soldiers to be completely lost in ignorance!
Closed AccountAug 6, 2010
Yes, this is why Nazi Germany was so successful in WW2 despite a rather small army compared to everyone else fighting them. Each soldier was trained essentially as an officer with the knowledge to command a unit, read maps, and develop on-the-field strategies.
Training an army to be full of ignorant grunts that are at best only useful in pulling triggers and being fodder is terrible strategy when dealing with micro cell militias. Everyone on the field needs to know everything that's going on to adjjust for any potential threats. It's just common sense.
As for banning wikileaks, it's not a surprise but it is a disappointment. Just another brick in the wall in the countless ongoing errosion to American freedom. It's an injustice and a disgrace for everything America once stood and fought for.
johncolerebAug 6, 2010
Its easy.. military leaders can block/correct computers and not allow. PC's might be a bit harder. Bottom line, the Elite Wikileaks owner or yellow bellied traitor who had his 15 min + of fame via Larry King(whom few watch) & msnbc (whom fewer watch)
should be charged with an offense for giving info to the enemy. Info like this was not allowed before and never should be. Some things, the public, including military folks have no business seeing. Classified information is called classified for a reason and this idiot in the military and Wikileaks should be held accountable for such. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
maciulaAug 6, 2010
lol... sure you retard, let the military kill innocent civilians, Reuters reporters, children in a van. Let them cover it with a "classified" sticker and everything is OK. Remember Pat Tillman and how our glorious leader lied through their teeth about his death? Thanks to courageous guys like the Wikileaker truth always comes out. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
wageslaveAug 6, 2010
Yeah, because the five paragraphs that may have lead to collaborators are way more important that proving to the world that 90% of what our military labels as "secret due to national defense" is NOT secret for any other reason than it would embarrass someone in the chain of command.
Wikileaks sent the information to the pentagon before they released it requesting the pentagon identify information that would put lives in jeopardy. They ignored the request.
savethemindAug 6, 2010
what info did he give to the enemy?
when they say "it puts our men in harms way" do you take that seriously ? isn't being in a war zone on someone elses land for NO f**kING reason enough harms way?
artosrcAug 6, 2010
Say what you will, but these leaks have been and always will be a necessary evil. Well, a lesser necessary evil.
baikal2002Aug 6, 2010
"Nothing is so desirable to me as that after mankind shall have been abused by such gross falsehoods as to events while passing, their minds should at length be set to rights by genuine truth." --Thomas Jefferson to James Main, 1808
skabAug 6, 2010
True we can't even view on our personal computers they're telling us. Hell, even this is prolly some opsec thing.
monickerlAug 6, 2010
This ban is similar to the hypothetical gun ban scenario that comes up from time to time. The only people with guns if they were banned, is the criminals.
If someone wants badly enough to leak secrets, they will do so regardless of this ban. The bad guys will continue to do as they do, while the honest are restricted in a feeble attempt at law. I'd be more worried about making an example of the one who committed the leak that has brought this issue into the light, so that those with any room for doubt will think twice before leaking more intel.
ismhmrAug 6, 2010
Yea, they wouldn't want people fighting for "our country" finding out what they are really fighting for.. Would they?
archangelzltAug 6, 2010
How dare the common people in the U.S. know that the military is out there killing some innocent, unsuspecting civilians? Let's ban 'em all!
swimmerzargonAug 6, 2010
Its not that hard to understand. The site contains allegedly classified information. The information is still classified despite its leak. If you receive classified information you MUST report it. If received on your computer it will need to be scanned and cleaned of all classified materials before being returned. These are all standard procedures for the military and anyone who has to obey its security rules. Even if a classified document is leaked you still treat it as classified. Its not about hiding the truth from the troops, its about their security procedures not accounting for massive, public, leaks of classified info.
savethemindAug 6, 2010
if you received classified information that your family was killed by the government (for example.) would you sit there and do nothing?
swimmerzargonAug 6, 2010
do nothing? absolutely not. If I wanted to stay within the law I'd have to report that I received it at the very least. But Seriously, you are suggesting MY family, my family bonds are stronger than my loyalty to the country. If I knew that the government killed someone else's family. That is a much more difficult moral question for me. There would be legal options for me to see it resolved, but if I thought those wouldn't work then I would have the choice of treason and protection of what I would assume to be innocents. Back to the original question, if it was my family, sure after I'm done, convict me.
That said, this isn't the case. The leaker's family was not killed, or threatened. Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
savethemindAug 6, 2010
the leaker did the moral obligation of everyone else, reinforced the fact that people are still dying, how they're dying and for what, nothing.
hangoverboyAug 6, 2010
"These are all standard procedures for the military and anyone who has to obey its security rules. Even if a classified document is leaked you still treat it as classified"
Exactly. Classified information is still classified. Besides, if I understand this correctly, the rule is that you can't access wikileaks on Government computers. Which makes perfect sense. It has nothing to do with the content of the information...it could be a bunch of classified spreadsheets and the rule would still be enforced.
If a government laptop is accessing classified information, then it is a spillage (yes, that is a real word) and has to be scanned, investigated, cleaned, etc...which is a very expensive and time consuming process.
On the flip side, there's nothing keeping these soldiers from going to their home (when they are home) and accessing the website on their personal computers.
The purpose of this rule is to keep classified material off of unclassified systems (regardless of what that material contains). This is a real policy with real consequences and is independent of the material's content.
swimmerzargonAug 6, 2010
you know what? I give up. I'm just trying to note that this is because of a general policy and has nothing to do with this particular incident. And I get dugg down. People on digg don't want information, reasoned debate, or even opinion. They just want to hear what they want and if you aren't putting forward information that goes along with the populaces fickle tendencies then prepare to get buried. This is how civilization falls. When we support idiots that agree with us and denounce anyone who appears to be against us.
ubercobraAug 6, 2010
Taliban Murders Afghan Elder, Thanks Wikileaks for Revealing "Spies"
Over 70 other tribal elders receive death threats, U.S. Congressman calls on death penalty for leaker Manning
It's been a nightmarish last few months for U.S. Military officials. First they discovered that a young soldier serving in Iraq had acted as a spy passing documents to the site Wikileaks. Then they endured Wikileaks release of 90,000 U.S. Military documents -- many of them classified -- detailing their operations in Afghanistan.
The Taliban, a radical Islamic militia in Afghanistan, announced its gratitude to Wikileaks for the release and vowed to hunt down those revealed in the documents to be collaborating with the U.S. It appears that they have now made good on that threat.
Khalifa Abdullah, a tribal elder, was removed from his home in Monar village, in Kandahar province’s embattled Arghandab district, by gunmen. He was then executed.
At the same time, 70 other tribal elders received death threats warning them that the Taliban had obtained reason to believe they were collaborating with the U.S. One such threat is signed by Abdul Rauf Khadim, a senior Taliban official who was imprisoned in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. When the Cuban prison was partially shut down by President Obama Khadim was transferred to Afghan custody in Kabul, where he subsequently escaped.
http://www.dailytech.com/Taliban+Murders+Afghan+Elder+Thanks+Wikileaks+for+Revealing+Spies/article19250.htm
4degreesAug 6, 2010
if noone can go to that site anymore, how will they ever know something got leaked there?
automatikAug 6, 2010
even though the stuff in that leak wasn't really news to anyone, you know it brings joy to the heart of anyone who hates america.
when you're off in a far-away land serving your country, maybe cause it's the only job you could get in a crappy economy, it really sucks when it looks like the home front is going to spit on you when you come home.
aadicAug 7, 2010
Article is not true. We are not told what sites we can/cannot go to from our homes.
Closed AccountAug 7, 2010
As a sailor in the Navy right now, I can vouch that wikileaks is very much off-limits at work. At home is a different story.
buckrogers1965Aug 8, 2010
Now that all this info has leaked, shouldn't it be freely shared by all intelligence agencies and military personnel? What benefit is being served by keeping our own personnel ignorant of the truth while the "enemy" has full access to it?
JustMilitaryLoansSep 27, 2011
It's time! The Transition Project is officially launched! Check out the interviews from soldiers and loved ones as they share struggles and advice for others returning from deployment http://bit.ly/oRcePZ