Who Stratfor Is Selling Intelligence To

[Ryinrea]

I'm just speechless and just so angry over this issues.

[Babe Ruth]

I really, really like Cenk. Though he is young, his heart is in the right place. His defense of Bradley Manning is inspiring.

As an aside, his mention of military intelligence in that clip reminds me of an old joke that was standard fare in the US Army back in 1970--"military intelligence" is an oxymoron. That was the first time I learned the meaning of the word oxymoron.

Even though he still believes that OBL was killed last year, he understands that "the government has been captured." In that understanding, he is essentially talking about the very same thing that Ike was talking about in his Farewell Speech back in 1961.

Go Cenk!

[Raptor Witness]

Interesting that they are apparently "targeting" citizens, apparently with the blessing of the U.S. Justice Department. Revelations of this kind could raise equal protection issues, leading to massive law suits. I can feel the lawyers licking their chops as we speak.

Thank God for Wikileaks, exposing the underbelly of the Beast, and while I don't agree with Anonymous for stealing the data, I'm not blaming Wikileaks for publishing it.

I have a feeling, given the recent arrests of Anonymous activists, that there's some pretty nasty revelations in these e-mails. Who knows, perhaps the website "UM" will be found among those targeted. It wouldn't surprise me.

Let the power grow.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Raptor Witness

[Ryinrea]

Interesting that they are apparently "targeting" citizens, apparently with the blessing of the U.S. Justice Department. Revelations of this kind could raise equal protection issues, leading to massive law suits. I can feel the lawyers licking their chops as we speak.

Thank God for Wikileaks, exposing the underbelly of the Beast, and while I don't agree with Anonymous for stealing the data, I'm not blaming Wikileaks for publishing it.

I have a feeling, given the recent arrests of Anonymous activists, that there's some pretty nasty revelations in these e-mails. Who knows, perhaps the website "UM" will be found among those targeted. It wouldn't surprise me.

Let the power grow.

I'm probably on that list as well, since I actually speak out against government officials.

[+and-then]

This guy takes one quote out of context and runs with it to impugn a company that subcontracts for the CIA and military. They may be bad actors but there is zero proof of it from his "evidence". He's unprofessional and that's probably why he's working at a wanna be news organization. And IF Manning is guilty he should be given life with possibility of parole if he cooperates. Otherwise make an example of what happens to a United States soldier who divulges secrets he is sworn to keep. Can't any of his supporters see the chaos that could flow from his actions if it became a trend?

[Babe Ruth]

I have no doubt that Manning IS guilty.

But perhaps, ANDTHEN, you can explain just how and why it is a crime to expose criminal actions by government?

He should be given an award for being the Ultimate Whistleblower for his generation in the crimes of the war in Iraq.

[+and-then]

I have no doubt that Manning IS guilty.

But perhaps, ANDTHEN, you can explain just how and why it is a crime to expose criminal actions by government?

He should be given an award for being the Ultimate Whistleblower for his generation in the crimes of the war in Iraq.

Babe it's really pretty simple. This kid took an oath of secrecy to hold the position he had. He broke that oath and potentially endangered others. He is a US soldier and that comes with obligations that civilians do not have. There is no honor in what this kid did. He will go to prison and he should. Something you might consider,Babe, is that a day may come when suddenly every detail of your online activity gets published by some ass like this. I'm sure it would be nothing criminal but the point is it's nobody's business but your's and people like Manning decide for you who will know about it.

[+and-then]

And one other thing...I have no personal anger toward the guy. If he thought that what he was doing was worth prison time, I even respect his grit. But to try to walk with no penalty, acting like a victim is BS, IMO.

[Babe Ruth]

Babe it's really pretty simple. This kid took an oath of secrecy to hold the position he had. He broke that oath and potentially endangered others. He is a US soldier and that comes with obligations that civilians do not have. There is no honor in what this kid did. He will go to prison and he should. Something you might consider,Babe, is that a day may come when suddenly every detail of your online activity gets published by some ass like this. I'm sure it would be nothing criminal but the point is it's nobody's business but your's and people like Manning decide for you who will know about it.

No sir, he did not take an "oath of secrecy", whatever you mean by that. The oath he took was the same one that I took back in 1969, and the same one that his Commander in Chief took--to protect and defend the US Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That was the same oath that Daniel Ellsberg took when he was commissioned in the USMC.

I guess that's mighty white of you to not have any anger towards him. When one defends torture and illegal actions, anger is irrelevant, don't you think?

You failed to offer an explanation for just how and why it is a crime to expose the criminal actions of government. And indeed, the actions he exposed, the gunship video killing unarmed civilians, were violations of law by the US government, and crimes against humanity. I really wonder if you understand what crimes against humanity are. I strongly suspect you never served a day in the military and are utterly ignorant of the Geneva Conventions and other laws regarding the conduct of war.

These issues were all settled when Daniel Ellsberg released the notorious Pentagon Papers. Back when Congress had a modicum of dignity and honesty, its investigation of that revealed "a purposeful witholding and distortion of facts."

Bradley Manning is a hero for the rule of law and human dignity. By your posts here you come across as the antithesis of that, just like my dearly beloved but rabidly misinformed brothers who never served a day in uniform.

I don't know if you ever viewed the gunship footage, but it includes audio that is shameful for all americans with conscience. Those pilots and their commanders are the ones who should be on trial for murder, NOT Bradley Manning who is merely a whistleblower with conscience.

[Fluffybunny]

No sir, he did not take an "oath of secrecy", whatever you mean by that. The oath he took was the same one that I took back in 1969, and the same one that his Commander in Chief took--to protect and defend the US Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That was the same oath that Daniel Ellsberg took when he was commissioned in the USMC.

I guess that's mighty white of you to not have any anger towards him. When one defends torture and illegal actions, anger is irrelevant, don't you think?

You failed to offer an explanation for just how and why it is a crime to expose the criminal actions of government. And indeed, the actions he exposed, the gunship video killing unarmed civilians, were violations of law by the US government, and crimes against humanity. I really wonder if you understand what crimes against humanity are. I strongly suspect you never served a day in the military and are utterly ignorant of the Geneva Conventions and other laws regarding the conduct of war.

These issues were all settled when Daniel Ellsberg released the notorious Pentagon Papers. Back when Congress had a modicum of dignity and honesty, its investigation of that revealed "a purposeful witholding and distortion of facts."

Bradley Manning is a hero for the rule of law and human dignity. By your posts here you come across as the antithesis of that, just like my dearly beloved but rabidly misinformed brothers who never served a day in uniform.

I don't know if you ever viewed the gunship footage, but it includes audio that is shameful for all americans with conscience. Those pilots and their commanders are the ones who should be on trial for murder, NOT Bradley Manning who is merely a whistleblower with conscience.

I don't know if this kid received a security clearance or not. With a security clearance there is a very clear agreement(not and oath per se) to never expose the information that the clearance gives you access to. As for the "oath" that we all take when we enlist, I don't think that has changed in decades:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

It could be argued (I think) that in a military persons agreement to protect the Constitution, exposing illegal plans that would have a detrimental effect on the country would be an issue that could be discussed and fought over between people who have a better understanding of military law than I have. Also, I recall way back in basic training the discussion of how to deal with illegal orders(Which you are not legally required to follow, even though you agree to follow the orders of the officers appointed over you), but I don't see a mass release of documents as being covered by that aspect of it.

Personally, if I were in a position and I saw something illegal happening, and could not resolve it with my superiors and found it to be something detrimental to the country...I would do what I could to make sure it was handled. I don't mean that I would hand over entire hard drives of unknown content over to reporters without knowing what could possibly happen...but, illegal things that are not dealt with...you need to protect the country first and orders come second.

[libstaK]

The way I see it is this: If the government gets information from Stratfor then they are also getting knowledge of what information the entire planet has available to them from Stratfor.

If there is anything resembling sanity in the "Intelligence" circles of the Govt itself then this information will tell them where the leaks in Govt depts are and how to stop them.

Oh and they get all the insight they need into what their own ex-intelligence operatives do when they retire from public service and if they are still able to coerce classified information from the same sources they had available to them while working for the govt.

I think Stratfor are doing a public service to you all by letting you know your security measures to protect information is chock full of holes .

The new catch cry in Washington right about now should be "If Stratfor knows, everybody knows".

[Babe Ruth]

I don't know if this kid received a security clearance or not. With a security clearance there is a very clear agreement(not and oath per se) to never expose the information that the clearance gives you access to. As for the "oath" that we all take when we enlist, I don't think that has changed in decades:

It could be argued (I think) that in a military persons agreement to protect the Constitution, exposing illegal plans that would have a detrimental effect on the country would be an issue that could be discussed and fought over between people who have a better understanding of military law than I have. Also, I recall way back in basic training the discussion of how to deal with illegal orders(Which you are not legally required to follow, even though you agree to follow the orders of the officers appointed over you), but I don't see a mass release of documents as being covered by that aspect of it.

Personally, if I were in a position and I saw something illegal happening, and could not resolve it with my superiors and found it to be something detrimental to the country...I would do what I could to make sure it was handled. I don't mean that I would hand over entire hard drives of unknown content over to reporters without knowing what could possibly happen...but, illegal things that are not dealt with...you need to protect the country first and orders come second.

Thank you for that mention of an illegal order--that's just what I'm talking about.

And what about exposing government crimes? Shall that be mentioned in the statute?

Not just illegal my friend, but immoral, and that is more important.

I am particularly sympathetic to Manning because I can remember similar feelings myself back in 1970 in the Mekong Delta. And I was a medic, not an intelligence analyst nor an infantryman.

He has done everything right, and nothing wrong.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Babe Ruth

[+and-then]

No sir, he did not take an "oath of secrecy", whatever you mean by that. The oath he took was the same one that I took back in 1969, and the same one that his Commander in Chief took--to protect and defend the US Constitution, from all enemies, foreign and domestic. That was the same oath that Daniel Ellsberg took when he was commissioned in the USMC.

I guess that's mighty white of you to not have any anger towards him. When one defends torture and illegal actions, anger is irrelevant, don't you think?

You failed to offer an explanation for just how and why it is a crime to expose the criminal actions of government. And indeed, the actions he exposed, the gunship video killing unarmed civilians, were violations of law by the US government, and crimes against humanity. I really wonder if you understand what crimes against humanity are. I strongly suspect you never served a day in the military and are utterly ignorant of the Geneva Conventions and other laws regarding the conduct of war.

These issues were all settled when Daniel Ellsberg released the notorious Pentagon Papers. Back when Congress had a modicum of dignity and honesty, its investigation of that revealed "a purposeful witholding and distortion of facts."

Bradley Manning is a hero for the rule of law and human dignity. By your posts here you come across as the antithesis of that, just like my dearly beloved but rabidly misinformed brothers who never served a day in uniform.

I don't know if you ever viewed the gunship footage, but it includes audio that is shameful for all americans with conscience. Those pilots and their commanders are the ones who should be on trial for murder, NOT Bradley Manning who is merely a whistleblower with conscience.

If he is so noble then he shouldn't mind taking one for the team. Truth is he's probably just an opinionated, undisciplined punk who saw a chance for some notoriety and took it...OOOPS... busted. He broke the law and decided for himself what information was appropriate to publish. A decision that was not his to make and was WAY above his paygrade. So what now? Do we allow any E4 who chooses to disobey orders because they think the US is wrong to do so without penalty...that's silly.

Edited to correct his rank

Edited March 5, 2012 by and then

[Babe Ruth]

Did you view the gunship footage?

[+and-then]

Did you view the gunship footage?

I went back and looked at it a few minutes ago. I further, read the article associated with it. There was a firefight ongoing a couple of blocks away from that scene and at least two of the 11 were armed and the two reporters appeared to be armed from the perspective of the pilots. The pilots clearly thought they were killing enemy fighters. Perhaps you are better able to judge their motives for pulling the trigger but I wasn't there and cannot.

The entire situation unfolded within the context of soldiers actively in battle. The soldiers in the helicopters have been charged with nothing that I'm aware of. Perhaps you think that's a crime also. If you do then I disagree but it's your right to hold any opinion you like.

NONE of this exonerates this Specialist from taking it on himself to release classified information that he had access to. THAT is his crime. Not that he disagreed with Army or US policy. Not that he felt injustices had been done. He broke the law by making classified info available to a group that he knew would publish it. He was busted after bragging about it to a "friend".

[Babe Ruth]

Nice rationalization.

Did you watch enough of the footage to see the van pull up to attempt a rescue? Did you have the audio on?

Did you serve in the military yourself?

Edited March 7, 2012 by Babe Ruth

[+and-then]

Nice rationalization.

Did you watch enough of the footage to see the van pull up to attempt a rescue? Did you have the audio on?

Did you serve in the military yourself?

Did you realize there are other opinions out in the world that are just as valid as your own? Stop being an a**hole and quit with the third degree hoss. It's boring...

[Babe Ruth]

I'm guessing that means "yes", "yes" and "no".

When the questions and implications become uncomfortable, by all means blame the person asking the question.

I hope this does not mean that you consider it an immoral act to reveal the government's immoral (and illegal) act?

That will teach those people to bring children to a gunfight, eh?

[+and-then]

I'm guessing that means "yes", "yes" and "no".

When the questions and implications become uncomfortable, by all means blame the person asking the question.

I hope this does not mean that you consider it an immoral act to reveal the government's immoral (and illegal) act?

That will teach those people to bring children to a gunfight, eh?

It's a war zone. A firefight was underway only a couple of blocks away. You mentioned having served in Vietnam so I assume you remember those and what they are like. In answer to your question about my service the answer is no I have not. I tried and washed out due to problems with fractures in my feet. But that has no bearing on my opinion in this case. What the man did was wrong, illegal and he will do time for it. Can't you see that if he's allowed to skate on this it will be like open season for anyone who for any reason wants to do a data dump? No way to run a railroad. I'm not trying to justify the mistake the Apache pilots made. But I also can't find them guilty of premeditated murder either. I don't think any fair minded person would.

[Babe Ruth]

Thanks for the candid response.

If I were the prosecutor, I would not charge the pilots OR their commanders with premeditated murder. I would charge them with the appropriate statute for killing unarmed civilians.

Fortunately for me because I'm not really a killer, I was a medic in the Army, so I did not worry about having to kill people.

What Manning did was NOT wrong, anymore than what Daniel Ellsberg did was wrong. Yes, it was illegal, but so was helping a slave escape back in 1850. Point is that what is legal is not always what is right, and the converse. What is illegal is not always wrong or immoral, and in some cases, doing the right thing is breaking the law. Helping a slave escape was the right thing to do, though it was illegal.

As Dickens' observed, "the law sir, is an ass". Or, as St. Paul observed, "the spirit of the law gives life, and the letter of the law gives death."

Manning did the right thing in exposing government crimes. The invasion of Iraq was brought under fraud and deception. People who support that fraud and deception, and people who condone government crimes, are due for an examination of conscience.