Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1 U.S. Military in Iraq Tries to Intimidate Soldiers Into Not Reading Wikileaks 
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    U.S. Military in Iraq Tries to Intimidate Soldiers Into Not Reading Wikileaks

    U.S. soldiers in Iraq who try to read about the Wikileaks disclosures—or read coverage of them in mainstream news sites—on unclassified networks get a page warning them that they're about to break the law.

    The federal government seems to have lost its mind in a manic game of internet whack-a-mole aimed at getting the Wikileaks State Department cables thrown down the memory hole:

    First, Sen. Joe Lieberman successfully nudged Amazon into kicking the site off its servers. Then the Library of Congress blocked the site for all employees and users of its computer terminals. Now we learn that the State Department is warning prospective hires that if they write about Wikileaks on Twitter or Facebook, they might not get that job. And now Gawker has learned that military installations in Iraq are trying to keep soldiers from reading about Wikileaks.

    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:..".And I assume subject to arrest ..."



    http://gawker.com/5705639/us-militar...ding-wikileaks
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,080
    *yawn* We were given a direct order more then a month ago not to. Not just Iraq. The entire military.

    Just because it is public on a non-secure network does not mean the data has been declassified. Anyone in the military without the proper clearances and need to know accessing that data is violating lots of shit.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    An Adversary of Linda #'s
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    22,891
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    *yawn* We were given a direct order more then a month ago not to. Not just Iraq. The entire military.

    Just because it is public on a non-secure network does not mean the data has been declassified. Anyone in the military without the proper clearances and need to know accessing that data is violating lots of shit.
    If it's in the public domain How is it secret ?I understand that you critters have no civil rights and are subject to the UCMJ but this is pure censorship .If one of you read this crap how is that endangering the Military's efforts ?

    But you are bound to serve and obey and have little choice .If we were dealing with war plans or unit strengths this would make sense but from what I can see it's more of an embarrassment to the State Department or perhaps the DOD and when you say non-secure don't you mean uncensored ?

    To compare this censorship to previous war restrictions under the guise of security and aid and comfort to the enemy they already have access to the news and have read it on the major news outlets so why the restrictions.

    I apologize for bombarding you with my,foolish questions, and I realize that you are bound to obey and I ,for the moment at least, am free to question the Military's Political motives and wisdom !

    As always I thank you for your unselfish service to our great country !
    Last edited by megimoo; 12-06-2010 at 04:57 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,080
    The data has to be properly unclassified before it can be viewable without the proper clearance and need to know.

    It doesn't really matter to civilians, but to us it does. It doesn't matter if a chinese peasant was showing us the data written on rice paper. If that data is classified, we are not to see it.

    Here is more accurate information about what is happening with the forces in Iraq.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101204...ksiraqmilitary

    IAW (In accordance with) with DOD (Department of Defence) guidance and USF-I OPSEC (United States Forces-Iraq Operational Security) Hash 10-2, all personnel are to refrain from viewing any of the articles pertaining to WikiLeaks releases on their DOD NIPR system," the warning reads.
    There is nothing at all that says we cannot go to FOXNews, or that even doing so puts us at risk for prosecution. We are just not allowed to view the Wikileaks information that is published on there.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,771
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    If it's in the public domain How is it secret ?I understand that you critters have no civil rights and are subject
    to the UCMJ but this is pure censorship .If one of you read this crap how is that endangering the Military's
    efforts ?

    But you a bound to serve and obey and have little choice .If we were dealing with war plans or unit strengths this would make sense but from what I can see it's more of an embarrassment to the State Department or perhaps the DOD and when you say non-secure don't you mean uncensored ?

    To compare this censorship to previous war restrictions under the guise of security and aid and comfort to the enemy they already have access to the news and have read it on the major news outlets so why the restrictions. I apologize for bombarding you with my,foolish questions, and I realize that you are bound to obey and I ,for the moment at least, am free to question the Military's Political motives and wisdom !

    As always I thank you for your unselfish service to our great country !
    Meg. Much of the stuff that came from the reports came from things called "Significant activity reports". Much of the stuff could be viewed by civilian contractors and MANY military personnel for cripes sakes. It wasn't like people need a swipe card or finge scan to check out what's going on



    There's no war plans nor strategic jack squat in them. Keep on questioning the motives.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,166
    Quote Originally Posted by megimoo View Post
    If it's in the public domain How is it secret ?I understand that you critters have no civil rights and are subject to the UCMJ but this is pure censorship .If one of you read this crap how is that endangering the Military's efforts ?
    Because illegally released Top Secret documents cables and dispatches are still classified even when they've been put on the public domain.

    It's not censorship. Its good operational security. WikiLeaks or not a kid with a confidential clearance should not read something that is TS Compartmentalized. ANd if he/she does they should be punished just as if they went into the file cabinet or secure file server and read it.

    Anything that comes to a website like this that wasn't previously published in one of those stupid newspapers that got first look at them will get every one of us that's in the military in UCMJ trouble and have every alphabet agency in the world crawling over the servers.

    To answer your question about how it endangers our efforts? What if there's another Bradley manning out there that doesn't have the level of access that he did but goes to WikiLeaks and reads this stuff?
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    16,535
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    *yawn* We were given a direct order more then a month ago not to. Not just Iraq. The entire military.

    Just because it is public on a non-secure network does not mean the data has been declassified. Anyone in the military without the proper clearances and need to know accessing that data is violating lots of shit.
    Not to mention that, and I said this in the other thread, there are child porn sites that are public. Doesn't mean we should go look at them. If it's wrong, it's wrong.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #8  
    Senior Member Molon Labe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Jihad Me At Hello
    Posts
    4,771
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Not to mention that, and I said this in the other thread, there are child porn sites that are public. Doesn't mean we should go look at them. If it's wrong, it's wrong.
    Wiki arguably stepped over a line publishing some of that stuff...that's for sure. But comparing watching porn to uncovering government lies and deception is a bit of a stretch.
    Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound - Unknown


    The problem is Empty People, Not Loaded Guns - Linda Schrock Taylor
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #9  
    Senior Member txradioguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    8,166
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Wiki arguably stepped over a line publishing some of that stuff...that's for sure. But comparing watching porn to uncovering government lies and deception is a bit of a stretch.
    As far as the trouble that a member of the military could get into...they are the same.
    In Memory Of My Friend 1st Sgt. Tim Millsap A Co, 70th Eng. Bn. 3rd Bde 1st AD...K.I.A. 25 April 2005

    Liberalism Is The Philosophy Of The Stupid

    To Achieve Ordered Liberty You Must Have Moral Order As Well

    The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #10  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,080
    Quote Originally Posted by Molon Labe View Post
    Wiki arguably stepped over a line publishing some of that stuff...that's for sure. But comparing watching porn to uncovering government lies and deception is a bit of a stretch.
    Hundreds of Thousands of cables have been released. The funny thing is, that I know a lot more about what was on those things, and what effects they have had.

    But because i'm not a scum bag little fuckhead, I'm not going to discuss it. So you can keep spouting off about how these things were harmless and did nothing but "uncovered government lies", but in the truth you will never know the damage they have, or may have, caused because we will be trying to keep that information out of our enemies hands, which at the same time means out of your hands*.

    Just like this information should have been.


    * Which is not to imply that you, or anyone here is the enemy. It means that if you can see it, then so can they.
    Last edited by djones520; 12-06-2010 at 12:06 PM.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •