CIA Launches WTF To Investigate Wikileaks 402
krou writes "In an effort to investigate the impact of the leaked diplomatic cables, the CIA have launched the Wikileaks Task Force, commonly referred to at CIA headquarters as 'WTF.' 'The Washington Post said the panel was being led by the CIA's counter-intelligence centre, although it has drawn in two dozen members from departments across the agency.' Although the agency has not seen much of its own information leaked in the cables, some revelations (such as spying at the UN) originated from direct requests by the CIA. The Guardian notes that, 'WTF is more commonly associated with the Facebook and Twitter profiles of teenagers than secret agency committees. Given that its expanded version is usually an expression of extreme disbelief, perhaps the term is apt for the CIA's investigation.'"
Re:This is what they should start doing (Score:5, Informative)
Or how about powerful american politicians forming an organisation calling for US global dominion? And call it something like "project for the new american century"? That would really wind up those conspiracy jerks. http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Re:Really? People are surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
The law here is very murky, and "aiding in submitting documents" probably isn't a crime. If there was a clear crime comitted here, we'd have heard specifically what it is by now.
When I said "aids a person in obtaining classified documents" I really mean "aids Wikileaks in obtaining documents FROM Manning." Nobody thinks Assange had a hand in actually obtaining the documents from the government. But there's reason to believe he helped Manning submit the documents based on chats Manning had with the hacker who exposed him. Based on these, Assange provided Manning with locations and instructions on how to submit the documents to Wikileaks instead of submitting them like everyone else and waiting for Wikileaks to sift through the submissions, and the timeline from when Manning had the documents to when Wikileaks released them supports this claim.
I don't want people to think I don't support Wikileaks or agree wholeheartedly with the government. I'm trying to look at this from a neutral perspective based on details of the investigation released thus far and based on the law. But once again, slashtards see something they disagree with and mark it -1 Troll.
Wait, wait, wait. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is what they should start doing (Score:5, Informative)
Powerful american politicians? It was a group of pundits, none of whom have ever held public office.
Some of their more famous writings had input from and were signed by genuine powerful US politicians who ended up serving in the G. W. Bush administration, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Really? People are surprised? (Score:1, Informative)
Think for a second on what Mr. Mannings goal was...
Getting revenge for being demoted to PFC. Getting revenge for Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Oh, and embarrassing the folks who had done him wrong.
He can drape that in the flag and grab for the first amendment, his allies can praise him to the skies for his nobility of purpose; but he is not solely a Noble Martyr to the Cause of Freedom, Justice and Truth.
Re:Led by the CIA Universal Network Team (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Idiots (Score:5, Informative)
In what universe is that 'the question'?
The law doesn't say anything close to what you seem to think it says.
People not only have a first amendment right to speak, they have a first amendment right to be spoken to, and they have the right to aid others in speaking to them. (Yes, the courts have actually upheld this, when the government attempted to get sneaky and assert people have the right to say whatever they want, but the government could arrest people for listening.)
Manning waived his rights when he got clearance, and he has, rightly, been arrested. (And then, wrongly, illegally held in solitary confinement for no reason whatsoever, probably to get him to make up something about Assange that they can arrest him on.)
Assange did not waive any of his rights, he has a first amendment right to be told things, and cannot be punished for helping people tell him things, even if that person was breaking the law at the time.
Any speech between two people is constitutionally protected. Just because one person has waived that protection does not mean the other person is somehow committing a crime if he 'helps' the conversation somehow. That is flatly absurd...he has a constitutional right to have that conversation, period, even if the other person does not. (Moreover, the idea of speech that becomes criminal based on the legal status of another person is absurdity ascendant. How is anyone else supposed to know they waived their speech rights?)
There is, of course, a distinction between helping the conversation, and inciting the original crime, but Assange did not do the latter.