The State Department's Worst Nightmare

This happened a few years ago when the private assessments made by a British diplomat after several assignments in a variety of countries were leaked to the public. He had made some pretty tart evaluations of certain governments and leaders and countries as a whole.

One thing that stuck in my mind (I haven't the faintest notion why), was that everyone in Thailand, at all levels of society there, seemed to be involved in a never ending series of extra-marital sexual romps.

Whodathunkit? Thailand!!! Imagine that.

The main effect of his revelations are being felt down to the present day. People have come to believe that diplomats are idiots and wonder why they are employed by governments when low grade clerks and security guards could do everything an ambassador does anyway.

Of course in this case it might mean a very important change in people's attitudes to the US around the world. People might begin to believe something that they have never thought before, that the US is a shifty villain, up to something and usually meddling in other people's business.

What a sea change that would be.

Originally posted by SSimon
I dont get it . Dont you wanna know ? Isnt what's this site is all about ? Or am i not old enough here to be disgusted ? two weeks now and it already happened a few times. that's just awareness.

Again, want to know what? That when you get an American tourist stuck on some crap charge in some other country, we occasionally deal backchannel to arrange for one of those nice "we decided not to try you, don't come back!" releases?

Or if we're trying to support one leader that we like better than another, we might give the one we like more goodies than the one we don't?

A lot of what you'll see released is that sort of thing - stuff that if it comes out would result in potential embarrassment to someone in another government, because they decided to do some trading in favors for something they couldn't be seen to do in open forum.

If you're looking for Bilderbergers, NWO or hidden underground UFO bases, there's not going to be any of that. There COULD be some stuff that really REALLY shouldn't come out, it depends on what the guy got into. If he exposes intelligence assets he'll likely get the death penalty.

Originally posted by JohnPhoenix
Well you can bet the Feds are looking at this thread.. ( Hi Boys!)

The thing the Feds need to really understand here is Yes, this can happen. someone can somewhere always hack something, and download something and make it public.

I disagreed with Wikileaks showing the 2007 video for national security reasons. But most people understand at wartime emotions are high and people use a lack of judgment.

If these documents are released you might have a black eye from the serious intel and have to change your plans and make a few apologies.. but what will really hurt you guys are the racial slurs, the hate attitude, and the illegal activities you have done to your enemy.

If you have done these things, Americans need to know about them. They need to know what their Government is doing so we can get rid of you people that We The People don't want "representing us".

Perhaps this is for the best. Perhaps this will cause our Government to be torn down and rebuilt in We The Peoples image, not the bureaucrats, the elitist, the war mongers.

I say, bring it ON !

Anyone representing you is not you, therefore you are not your own, but belong to the sovereign representing you. In this case it is an aristocracy, propping up a Monarch under the guise of democracy so that you must despise oligarchy whose fist is represented in Tyranny so that you will finally yell Anarchy at which point Aristocracy will sweep in again.

That can all stop when you become sovereign, but you must take it like they have taken their sovereignty.

Common law baby, the law of the land...NOT the Sea....they own that.

Peace

God bless you Bradley if these things surface our government may finally be held accountable

I sure hope wiki leaks it pretty quickly.
If they wait too long, Martial Law will
be imposed here and the internet shut
down and I won't get to see it !!!!

I wonder if
Anything on 9/11 may possibly be in these documents
as well as Osama Bin Laden

reply to post by Blaine91555


What if its to do with the gulf crisis ? Think about that ,Oh yes ,Justice will be served !!S&F

I think there'll be something Osama B. Thats the reason they are all going crazyyy. Maybe it contains some stuff about real policy and attitudes of US government and possible discussions about lobbying. Maybe the farmer's harvest information. The farmer here is CIA and their fields are poppy agriculture. Also it could contain the illegal activities carried on by CIA and secret agents all around the world.

This should come out soon if the dude wants to be alive.

reply to post by Zelong

Some information is best left Internal in these times of War!
Hello We are at WAR. This Traitor should be HANGED HIGH!!

You are a yellow bellied coward. All those who continue the drumbeat of "we are at war" are cowards; fearful, timid, cowards.

We are not at war. War is between nation states. There are a few groups of people here and there around the world pissed off at the us some of whom are willing to commit violent acts against us. Some are angry because of our foreign policy, some are angry because of our cultural values, and the rest are pissed for a bunch of different reasons. Big freaking deal.

In the U.S. in the last 10 years:
300,000 people have died from traffic fatalities
250,000 people have died from the common flu
3000 people have died from terrorism (assuming the U.S. 9/11 story is true)

In Iraq in the last 10 years:
1,000,000 people have died from the U.S.'s war of aggression against Saddam and Iraq based on the lies of WMD

Why are you so terrified of terrorism when you are far more likely to die from a car accident?

The U.S. has spent over $1 trillion in the war on terror, eviscerating the Constitution and our wealth. Why is this being done when people are dieing at far higher numbers from more mundane preventable causes?

The war on terror is a red herring, it is the new Pearl Harbor that the PNAC document called for to justify invading other nations around the world. The war on terror has nothing to do with protecting the average U.S. or Aussie citizen and everything to do with continuing the U.S.'s history of coups and wars against governments unwilling to do our bidding in the elite's goal of creating a one world authoritarian non-democratic, non-republic government under their control.

reply to post by Bedlam

At least he's military, he'll get a trial. If you do this as a civilian, and it's the "wrong" material, and they can't easily convene a jury of sufficiently cleared people, you can be sentenced to death by a federal judge alone at a closed hearing. I don't know if it's ever happened, but you generally get that part recited aloud to you when you're read onto a project.

I don't see how that is at all Constitutional. The Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial of your peers, the government can't take that away and force you to have a judge trial just because it is inconvenient. I would think they were lying when they told you that just like the police are allowed to lie to suspects during an interrogation.

reply to post by crisko

We had a software engineer bring his personal laptop in one day - once a week we reminded people that personal devices like these were not allowed. We saw him bring it in, we allowed him to bring it in (watching on camera). When he tried to leave - we took it from him - escorted him a hanger in the building and proceeded to go to town on his laptop with a sledge hammer. We then removed the memory chips and hard drive - gave him back the 300 other pieces and bid him a good evening.

Why not just remove the hard drive and any other storage devices? Could it have been a show of force to show him who is boss. And people wonder why I hate the military...

Originally posted by Oozii
Pretty heavy stuff.

This is actually very bad. That information better not get into the wrong hands. I dont even wanna imagine what could happen.

Yeah? You mean like the general public calling for Congress' heads to roll?

Surely the public wouldn't disagree with toppling foreign regimes? Or bargaining with suspected terrorist? Maybe even destabilization of Democratic states?

Yeah, this type of information in the public's hands could spell certain doom for foreign policy ... errr, I mean, national security.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by tyranny22]

Originally posted by pryingopen3rdeye


im only wondering why in the hell these havnt been released already, what is wikileaks doing? building up anticipation and anxiety to help with advertising? where talkin about evidence of corruption in our government and this guys hording it over us braging about its importantance/singifigance and yet still holding it secret himself. fuc%er better hury up and tell us what it is.

If Wikileaks do indeed have all these secret communications (they have denied it after all), any delay could simply be down to making sure that whatever is released doesn't directly put someone's life in danger.

After all, it's one thing to release stuff that's going to show TPTB for the rotten shower they are... quite another to put a field agent or some other individual in danger by doing so.

That many communications would probably take a while to sort out I would imagine...so IF Wikileaks has them it might be a while before anyone sees them.

Just a thought though, and I could be spectacularly wrong

Originally posted by Bobbox1980
I don't see how that is at all Constitutional. The Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial of your peers, the government can't take that away and force you to have a judge trial just because it is inconvenient. I would think they were lying when they told you that just like the police are allowed to lie to suspects during an interrogation.

You agree to it, if it's that type of project. I'll dig out an old NDA, if I've got one here at the house, and see which USC it is. Standby....

Originally posted by Bobbox1980
Why not just remove the hard drive and any other storage devices? Could it have been a show of force to show him who is boss. And people wonder why I hate the military...

Well, when we secularize computers out of the SCIF, we have to gut them in a certain way, and part of it involves crushing drives and any boards with FLASH storage, which includes pretty much all of them.

We make it plain that you can't take anything into the SCIF that's not approved, not and get it back again.

That includes ANYTHING that can be used as storage, or that can take a picture, and that's pretty much any cell phone. There are special brainless cell phones you can take in and out, but they're hellaciously expensive, oddly enough, so I've never seen one.

Also, I don't KNOW that CD-ROM you brought in is really ROM. It could be a clever fake CD-ROM labeled optical storage medium you could write on, copy stuff onto it, and take it out. So if you bring Call of Duty in to play, you have lost it. I always recommend you make a copy. We do have some guys playing video games in the SCIF at times, you can't be in there alone so if someone's got to work late, someone has to be there with them, it can get really boring.

At any rate, in order to use writable media in the SCIF, you have to network it over to the one machine with writers, USB ports and the like, and I own it. If you don't have the key and the magic word, you won't be writing jack.

As far as the notebook goes, you don't know who the guy is. I could easily embed a few hundred gig of storage into a laptop, bring it in, copy all sorts of files onto it, then have it 'vanish' from view. You could pull out the hard drive and never get the data, and I'd walk out with it. That is why no device that can write data, or could have a data writer hidden in it, nor any writable media can ever see the light of day again once it crosses the Mosler door o' doom. Except in certain limited circumstances.

Originally posted by Bedlam

Originally posted by Bobbox1980
I don't see how that is at all Constitutional. The Constitution guarantees the right to a jury trial of your peers, the government can't take that away and force you to have a judge trial just because it is inconvenient. I would think they were lying when they told you that just like the police are allowed to lie to suspects during an interrogation.

You agree to it, if it's that type of project. I'll dig out an old NDA, if I've got one here at the house, and see which USC it is. Standby....

Ok, it's in the SCI NDA, not the regular SF312 NDA. Under the SCI NDA, which is DD1847-1, you can be (I have been) subject to 18 USC 794. This one is for the guys working on juicier stuff, you'd be covered under that one as a UFO mechanic, for example, and it reads as follows:

Whoever, with intent or reason to believe that it is to be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of a foreign nation, communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver, or transmit, to any foreign government, or to any faction or party or military or naval force within a foreign country, whether recognized or unrecognized by the United States, or to any representative, officer, agent, employee, subject, or citizen thereof, either directly or indirectly, any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, note, instrument, appliance, or information relating to the national defense, shall be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court, further finds that the offense resulted in the identification by a foreign power (as defined in section 101(a) of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978) of an individual acting as an agent of the United States and consequently in the death of that individual, or directly concerned nuclear weaponry, military spacecraft or satellites, early warning systems, or other means of defense or retaliation against large-scale attack; war plans; communications intelligence or cryptographic information; or any other major weapons system or major element of defense strategy.

So basically, if the court (and you'll note they state overtly that there may NOT be a jury, in which case the court alone can do this) may just merrily execute your ass if you blow something monumental, like the plans for shaped nuclear charges, how Sandia's zero-maintenance warheads are going to work, you expose an intelligence asset and they die (possible with this guy), you expose any of NRO's toys, the Proteus weapon, accurate details about our "other" space program, or what not along that line.

It doesn't take a jury. The court alone can do this. They make that point quite clearly, although like I say, I don't think it has ever happened.

BTW, there is a USC that covers interception of diplomatic communications, it's 10 years per message.

What could wikileaks be offered in order for them not to release information? You can bet that if the government ( pick one) havent already got a man on the inside then they are proabably working on having someone in the wiki ranks, be it through bribery, blackmale, fear etc, how resilient would wikileaks have to be in order to not let themselves be infiltrated or compromised? and at the end of the day money talks most languages.

I hope none at wikileaks have been bought, but its doubtful, they are around a while now. I suppose time will tell.

Can you imagine Hillary Clinton trying to explain this one?

I guess I don't understand what all the hubub is about. Granted, the information is classified but other countries probably do the same thing.

In alot of ways it doesn't make sense.

Something must be going on though since the Defense Dept. is in such a flurry to do something about it. So I guess it will be a big mystery until the information is released. But it just seems odd to me that this information would be of such critical importance to national security. What are they trying to hide? Granted, the Defense Dept. would probably have tried to do more to stop the release of the wikileaks video showing the reporter getting gunned down with those kids if they had known it would reflect them in such a negative light.

Maybe this means the State Dept. is finally realizing how crippling it can be when secrets aren't kept. Of coarse, they're in a tough spot. You can't necessarily stop the free flow of information when it involves individuals in uniform bent on revealing what they know to the public. It makes you wonder if the release of the most famous wikileaks video might have inspired other military members to follow suit in releasing information of their own accord.

I just hope people also realize, however, that some secrets are meant to be kept. Our National Security depends on our ability to keep classified information from public eyes. Hopefully people are understanding the potential backfire that could potentially be caused by revealing said information to private companies (Wikileaks is a private company correct?).

-ChriS

Originally posted by chaosinorder
I think there'll be something Osama B. Thats the reason they are all going crazyyy. Maybe it contains some stuff about real policy and attitudes of US government and possible discussions about lobbying. Maybe the farmer's harvest information. The farmer here is CIA and their fields are poppy agriculture. Also it could contain the illegal activities carried on by CIA and secret agents all around the world.

This should come out soon if the dude wants to be alive.

OSama = Obama ???

reply to post by Bedlam


Ok, I can understand now why a laptop would be destroyed. If the person was acting as an agent for a foreign power the laptop motherboard could be custom built and have a flash storage device hidden to make it look like just a regular chip on the motherboard.

As far as a jury trial and SCI NDA/DD1847-1, it sounds like from that passage you quoted that they are not saying anything about preventing the accused from having a jury trial.

except that the sentence of death shall not be imposed unless the jury or, if there is no jury, the court

I read that as the accused pleading guilty or deciding to have a judge trial rather than a jury trial which is a right of the accused, not that the courts or the government can take away the accused's right to a jury trial.