empty vessel
Member
Jenga said:
These are just phrases. Again, I don't think you know what you claim to know. I've yet to see anything substantiate the claim.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Official List of links to Wikileaks New Stories
- Thread starter Lard
- Start date
- Status
These are just phrases. Again, I don't think you know what you claim to know. I've yet to see anything substantiate the claim.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70H6TO20110118
(Reuters) - Internal U.S. government reviews have determined that a mass leak of diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to U.S. interests abroad, despite the Obama administration's public statements to the contrary.
(Reuters) - Internal U.S. government reviews have determined that a mass leak of diplomatic cables caused only limited damage to U.S. interests abroad, despite the Obama administration's public statements to the contrary.
cooljeanius
Member
Wikileaks seems to have a lot of cables about Egypt up now... anyone who's read through them know which ones the more important ones are?
Army was warned not to deploy Manning to Iraq
Pretty good article giving you more insight into Bradley Manning's recent past.
Pretty good article giving you more insight into Bradley Manning's recent past.
dave is ok
aztek is ok
I don't trust anything Wired says about the guy. No offenseToxicAdam said:
Why?dave is ok said:
Because they withheld the chat-logs? They're some rumblings behind-the-scenes that they refused to publicly release it because it shows Manning is a homosexual and all this mess occurred before DADT got repealed.
on a more positive note: OpenLeaks is live!
dave is ok
aztek is ok
Because I don't trust Lamo. He's contradicted himself plenty and he's their only sourceJenga said:
cooljeanius
Member
So anyone have anything to say about the Egypt stuff?
cooljeanius said:
US reported 'routine' police brutality in Egypt, WikiLeaks cables show
Torture widely used against criminals, Islamist detainees, opposition activists and bloggers, embassy cables suggest
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/28/egypt-police-brutality-torture-wikileaks
Zenith said:
Put them here, I'll make sure they get to the front page.
Also :
(Secret) US cables reveal: ACTA was far too secret
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...tm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
so about those Bank of America files:
Wikicrumbs
at least he's making an effort to actually release them
too bad he has to ransom it out like that
Wikicrumbs
at least he's making an effort to actually release them
too bad he has to ransom it out like that
also, Domsheit-Berg's (OpenLeaks dude) book on Wikileaks is coming out soon
here's some tasty excerpts
WL book excerpts
most of it is good old character assassination - apparently Julian is a sworn chauvinist and swears to try to leave a pregnant woman on every continent. I'm sure GAF will love that.
rest of it is just berg calling out Julian on a lot of shit such as:
lying about "collateral murder" costing anything in an attempt to raise more funds
lying about "chinese dissidents" being involved with wikileaks and Julian's love for pseudonyms
refusing to reimburse WL agents and telling them to set up their own little sects to raise money
but the big deal about the whole thing is, apparently Berg and an Wikileaks "architect" removed the submission platform from Julian's control because they claim he can't be trusted with it. according to berg, they still have the material even now
here's some tasty excerpts
WL book excerpts
most of it is good old character assassination - apparently Julian is a sworn chauvinist and swears to try to leave a pregnant woman on every continent. I'm sure GAF will love that.
rest of it is just berg calling out Julian on a lot of shit such as:
lying about "collateral murder" costing anything in an attempt to raise more funds
lying about "chinese dissidents" being involved with wikileaks and Julian's love for pseudonyms
refusing to reimburse WL agents and telling them to set up their own little sects to raise money
but the big deal about the whole thing is, apparently Berg and an Wikileaks "architect" removed the submission platform from Julian's control because they claim he can't be trusted with it. according to berg, they still have the material even now
radioheadrule83
Banned
Jenga said:
Wow that's pretty sinister...
Its fucking disturbing that these law firms and security firms are essentially drawing up ways for BoA to threaten the professional lives of people if they're friendly to or affiliated with Wikileaks... I didn't even realise such firms existed. They essentially sound like the corporate equivalent of old-school 'fixers'...
We've seen all of that employed to some effect already. I love that they're advising companies to basically spy on their own employees as well.
Look forward to seeing what else comes out of this.
If BoA are hiring firms to go out on the attack like this, I'm also interested in what the fuck they've actually done that's so damaging.
cooljeanius
Member
HBGary? That's the same one that Anonymous hacked the account of one of the guys from it, isn't it?
See You Next Wednesday
Banned
radioheadrule83 said:Wow that's pretty sinister...
Its fucking disturbing that these law firms and security firms are essentially drawing up ways for BoA to threaten the professional lives of people if they're friendly to or affiliated with Wikileaks... I didn't even realise such firms existed. They essentially sound like the corporate equivalent of old-school 'fixers'...
We've seen all of that employed to some effect already. I love that they're advising companies to basically spy on their own employees as well.
Look forward to seeing what else comes out of this.
If BoA are hiring firms to go out on the attack like this, I'm also interested in what the fuck they've actually done that's so damaging.
Damn, aren't a few of those things illegal, as in punishable by law?
Lard said:
The Telegraph's been covering them the past couple of weeks.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/search/?...=date:D:S:d1&site=default_collection&version=
U.S. spied on NATO boss
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/02/11/wikileaks-nato-us-fogh-rasmussen.html
But of course, the focus will be on Wikileaks, rather than the U.S.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2011/02/11/wikileaks-nato-us-fogh-rasmussen.html
But of course, the focus will be on Wikileaks, rather than the U.S.
empty vessel
Member
Greenwald has written about it now. It's a good piece, especially because he goes into the collaboration between government and corporate executives that is so pernicious in the US:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/11/campaigns/index.html
...
But after learning a lot more over the last couple of days, I now take this more seriously -- not in terms of my involvement but the broader implications this story highlights. For one thing, it turns out that the firms involved here are large, legitimate and serious, and do substantial amounts of work for both the U.S. Government and the nation's largest private corporations (as but one example, see this email from a Stanford computer science student about Palantir). Moreover, these kinds of smear campaigns are far from unusual; in other leaked HB Gary emails, ThinkProgress discovered that similar proposals were prepared for the Chamber of Commerce to attack progressive groups and other activists (including ThinkProgress). And perhaps most disturbing of all, Hunton & Williams was recommended to Bank of America's General Counsel by the Justice Department -- meaning the U.S. Government is aiding Bank of America in its defense against/attacks on WikiLeaks.
That's why this should be taken seriously, despite how ignorant, trite and laughably shallow is the specific leaked anti-WikiLeaks proposal. As creepy and odious as this is, there's nothing unusual about these kinds of smear campaigns. The only unusual aspect here is that we happened to learn about it this time because of Anonymous' hacking. That a similar scheme was quickly discovered by ThinkProgress demonstrates how common this behavior is. The very idea of trying to threaten the careers of journalists and activists to punish and deter their advocacy is self-evidently pernicious; that it's being so freely and casually proposed to groups as powerful as the Bank of America, the Chamber of Commerce, and the DOJ-recommended Hunton & Williams demonstrates how common this is. These highly experienced firms included such proposals because they assumed those deep-pocket organizations would approve and it would make their hiring more likely.
But the real issue highlighted by this episode is just how lawless and unrestrained is the unified axis of government and corporate power. I've written many times about this issue -- the full-scale merger between public and private spheres -- because it's easily one of the most critical yet under-discussed political topics. Especially (though by no means only) in the worlds of the Surveillance and National Security State, the powers of the state have become largely privatized. There is very little separation between government power and corporate power. Those who wield the latter intrinsically wield the former. The revolving door between the highest levels of government and corporate offices rotates so fast and continuously that it has basically flown off its track and no longer provides even the minimal barrier it once did. It's not merely that corporate power is unrestrained; it's worse than that: corporations actively exploit the power of the state to further entrench and enhance their power.
That's what this anti-WikiLeaks campaign is generally: it's a concerted, unified effort between government and the most powerful entities in the private sector (Bank of America is the largest bank in the nation). The firms the Bank has hired (such as Booz Allen) are suffused with the highest level former defense and intelligence officials, while these other outside firms (including Hunton & Williams and Palantir) are extremely well-connected to the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government's obsession with destroying WikiLeaks has been well-documented. And because the U.S. Government is free to break the law without any constraints, oversight or accountability, so, too, are its "private partners" able to act lawlessly. That was the lesson of the Congressional vesting of full retroactive immunity in lawbreaking telecoms, of the refusal to prosecute any of the important Wall Street criminals who caused the 2008 financial crisis, and of the instinctive efforts of the political class to protect defrauding mortgage banks.
The exemption from the rule of law has been fully transferred from the highest level political elites to their counterparts in the private sector. "Law" is something used to restrain ordinary Americans and especially those who oppose this consortium of government and corporate power, but it manifestly does not apply to restrain these elites. Just consider one amazing example illustrating how this works.
After Anonymous imposed some very minimal cyber disruptions on Paypal, Master Card and Amazon, the DOJ flamboyantly vowed to arrest the culprits, and several individuals were just arrested as part of those attacks. But weeks earlier, a far more damaging and serious cyber-attack was launched at WikiLeaks, knocking them offline. Those attacks were sophisticated and dangerous. Whoever did that was quite likely part of either a government agency or a large private entity acting at its behest. Yet the DOJ has never announced any investigation into those attacks or vowed to apprehend the culprits, and it's impossible to imagine that ever happening.
Why? Because crimes carried out that serve the Government's agenda and target its opponents are permitted and even encouraged; cyber-attacks are "crimes" only when undertaken by those whom the Government dislikes, but are perfectly permissible when the Government itself or those with a sympathetic agenda unleash them. Whoever launched those cyber attacks at WikiLeaks (whether government or private actors) had no more legal right to do so than Anonymous, but only the latter will be prosecuted.
That's the same dynamic that causes the Obama administration to be obsessed with prosecuting WikiLeaks but not The New York Times or Bob Woodward, even though the latter have published far more sensitive government secrets; WikiLeaks is adverse to the government while the NYT and Woodward aren't, and thus "law" applies to punish only the former. The same mindset drives the Government to shield high-level political officials who commit the most serious crimes, while relentlessly pursuing whistle-blowers who expose their wrongdoing. Those with proximity to government power and who serve and/or control it are free from the constraints of law; those who threaten or subvert it have the full weight of law come crashing down upon them. ...
But after learning a lot more over the last couple of days, I now take this more seriously -- not in terms of my involvement but the broader implications this story highlights. For one thing, it turns out that the firms involved here are large, legitimate and serious, and do substantial amounts of work for both the U.S. Government and the nation's largest private corporations (as but one example, see this email from a Stanford computer science student about Palantir). Moreover, these kinds of smear campaigns are far from unusual; in other leaked HB Gary emails, ThinkProgress discovered that similar proposals were prepared for the Chamber of Commerce to attack progressive groups and other activists (including ThinkProgress). And perhaps most disturbing of all, Hunton & Williams was recommended to Bank of America's General Counsel by the Justice Department -- meaning the U.S. Government is aiding Bank of America in its defense against/attacks on WikiLeaks.
That's why this should be taken seriously, despite how ignorant, trite and laughably shallow is the specific leaked anti-WikiLeaks proposal. As creepy and odious as this is, there's nothing unusual about these kinds of smear campaigns. The only unusual aspect here is that we happened to learn about it this time because of Anonymous' hacking. That a similar scheme was quickly discovered by ThinkProgress demonstrates how common this behavior is. The very idea of trying to threaten the careers of journalists and activists to punish and deter their advocacy is self-evidently pernicious; that it's being so freely and casually proposed to groups as powerful as the Bank of America, the Chamber of Commerce, and the DOJ-recommended Hunton & Williams demonstrates how common this is. These highly experienced firms included such proposals because they assumed those deep-pocket organizations would approve and it would make their hiring more likely.
But the real issue highlighted by this episode is just how lawless and unrestrained is the unified axis of government and corporate power. I've written many times about this issue -- the full-scale merger between public and private spheres -- because it's easily one of the most critical yet under-discussed political topics. Especially (though by no means only) in the worlds of the Surveillance and National Security State, the powers of the state have become largely privatized. There is very little separation between government power and corporate power. Those who wield the latter intrinsically wield the former. The revolving door between the highest levels of government and corporate offices rotates so fast and continuously that it has basically flown off its track and no longer provides even the minimal barrier it once did. It's not merely that corporate power is unrestrained; it's worse than that: corporations actively exploit the power of the state to further entrench and enhance their power.
That's what this anti-WikiLeaks campaign is generally: it's a concerted, unified effort between government and the most powerful entities in the private sector (Bank of America is the largest bank in the nation). The firms the Bank has hired (such as Booz Allen) are suffused with the highest level former defense and intelligence officials, while these other outside firms (including Hunton & Williams and Palantir) are extremely well-connected to the U.S. Government. The U.S. Government's obsession with destroying WikiLeaks has been well-documented. And because the U.S. Government is free to break the law without any constraints, oversight or accountability, so, too, are its "private partners" able to act lawlessly. That was the lesson of the Congressional vesting of full retroactive immunity in lawbreaking telecoms, of the refusal to prosecute any of the important Wall Street criminals who caused the 2008 financial crisis, and of the instinctive efforts of the political class to protect defrauding mortgage banks.
The exemption from the rule of law has been fully transferred from the highest level political elites to their counterparts in the private sector. "Law" is something used to restrain ordinary Americans and especially those who oppose this consortium of government and corporate power, but it manifestly does not apply to restrain these elites. Just consider one amazing example illustrating how this works.
After Anonymous imposed some very minimal cyber disruptions on Paypal, Master Card and Amazon, the DOJ flamboyantly vowed to arrest the culprits, and several individuals were just arrested as part of those attacks. But weeks earlier, a far more damaging and serious cyber-attack was launched at WikiLeaks, knocking them offline. Those attacks were sophisticated and dangerous. Whoever did that was quite likely part of either a government agency or a large private entity acting at its behest. Yet the DOJ has never announced any investigation into those attacks or vowed to apprehend the culprits, and it's impossible to imagine that ever happening.
Why? Because crimes carried out that serve the Government's agenda and target its opponents are permitted and even encouraged; cyber-attacks are "crimes" only when undertaken by those whom the Government dislikes, but are perfectly permissible when the Government itself or those with a sympathetic agenda unleash them. Whoever launched those cyber attacks at WikiLeaks (whether government or private actors) had no more legal right to do so than Anonymous, but only the latter will be prosecuted.
That's the same dynamic that causes the Obama administration to be obsessed with prosecuting WikiLeaks but not The New York Times or Bob Woodward, even though the latter have published far more sensitive government secrets; WikiLeaks is adverse to the government while the NYT and Woodward aren't, and thus "law" applies to punish only the former. The same mindset drives the Government to shield high-level political officials who commit the most serious crimes, while relentlessly pursuing whistle-blowers who expose their wrongdoing. Those with proximity to government power and who serve and/or control it are free from the constraints of law; those who threaten or subvert it have the full weight of law come crashing down upon them. ...
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/02/11/campaigns/index.html
By saying OpenLeaks isn't safe to leak to because they'll expose your anonymity? As far as we know they've yet to even do anything with the files they took from Wikileaks.Dead Man said:
How is that not FUD?
Wikileaks (Assange) should be encouraging organizations instead of trying to undermine it, despite whatever grievances it may have.
radioheadrule83
Banned
Jenga said:
How are you reading that?
If anything it sounds like Berg's book is spreading FUD about wikileaks, saying there are flaws that mean they might not protect anonymity and that wikileaks is doing nothing about it...
That entire article is basically points one and two of this slide:
cooljeanius
Member
Wikileaks put up an archive of all their old leaks. Inside the zip are a bunch of torrents to each of their previous leaks. Of course, it'd be crazy to try to download them all, so can anyone recommend any specific previous leaks that are particularly worth downloading?
:lolradioheadrule83 said:How are you reading that?
If anything it sounds like Berg's book is spreading FUD about wikileaks, saying there are flaws that mean they might not protect anonymity and that wikileaks is doing nothing about it...
That entire article is basically points one and two of this slide:
not everything critical of wikileaks is a part of that slander campaign
especially not berg and OpenLeaks
regardless, WL claimed Berg and the "architect" personally compromised Wikileaks and that you should question giving them anything because they will out you
which is FUD, pure and simple
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Jenga said:
How do you know it is FUD?
radioheadrule83
Banned
You've misread the article you posted.
They simply say that Berg admits to sabotaging Wikileaks systems in his book, and that they're looking into legal action because of that. They don't say anything about the security of OpenLeaks in that article at all. There is no inference as to the trustworthiness of OpenLeaks in that article at all.
What the article actually says and suggests is that Berg removed a component from WikiLeaks infrastructure that enabled submissions and it suggests that anonymity of WikiLeaks submissions may be compromised. Hence it is FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Denial) directed at WikiLeaks, not OpenLeaks.
Read your link again.
They simply say that Berg admits to sabotaging Wikileaks systems in his book, and that they're looking into legal action because of that. They don't say anything about the security of OpenLeaks in that article at all. There is no inference as to the trustworthiness of OpenLeaks in that article at all.
What the article actually says and suggests is that Berg removed a component from WikiLeaks infrastructure that enabled submissions and it suggests that anonymity of WikiLeaks submissions may be compromised. Hence it is FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Denial) directed at WikiLeaks, not OpenLeaks.
Read your link again.
Your Excellency
Banned
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
Massive leak reveals Guantánamo's secrets
Innocent people interrogated for years on slimmest pretexts
Children, elderly and mentally ill among those wrongfully held
172 prisoners remain, some with no prospect of trial or release
The Guardian is staggering publication of some Guantánamo files throughout the day. One of the latest articles launched to our Guantánamo page reports that almost 100 prisoners in the camp were classified by the US army as having psychiatric illnesses including severe depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
James Ball writes that "reports chronicle the disturbed behaviour of inmates, sometimes so extreme that even US intelligence officers acknowledged they were unsuitable for interrogation".
Afghan prisoner 356, Modullah Abdul Raziq, who had been "captured by anti-Taliban forces", was found unfit for interview in February 2002 when the first wave of Guantánamo inmates were psychiatrically assessed.
Raziq, the file notes, was regularly disruptive. His behaviour included ripping off his uniform, drinking shampoo, daubing his cell and himself with excrement and spitting at guards. Psychiatrists concluded he had a disorder "psychotic in nature, likely schizophrenia" and called for his removal from the base.
Camp staff noted Raziq had no proven affiliation with al-Qaida and stressed that transferring him "will remove a significant personnel burden and security risk from Camp X-ray, that provides no intelligence value to US forces, and an individual more than likely incapable of standing trial".
The report goes on: "Repatriating detainee 356 to Afghanistan causes minimal to no risk to US forces still operating in that region, as Afghan authorities would more than likely confine the detainee upon his arrival."
Raziq was released from Guantánamo into Afghan custody within a month of the assessment.
Massive leak reveals Guantánamo's secrets
Innocent people interrogated for years on slimmest pretexts
Children, elderly and mentally ill among those wrongfully held
172 prisoners remain, some with no prospect of trial or release
The Guardian is staggering publication of some Guantánamo files throughout the day. One of the latest articles launched to our Guantánamo page reports that almost 100 prisoners in the camp were classified by the US army as having psychiatric illnesses including severe depression, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.
James Ball writes that "reports chronicle the disturbed behaviour of inmates, sometimes so extreme that even US intelligence officers acknowledged they were unsuitable for interrogation".
Afghan prisoner 356, Modullah Abdul Raziq, who had been "captured by anti-Taliban forces", was found unfit for interview in February 2002 when the first wave of Guantánamo inmates were psychiatrically assessed.
Raziq, the file notes, was regularly disruptive. His behaviour included ripping off his uniform, drinking shampoo, daubing his cell and himself with excrement and spitting at guards. Psychiatrists concluded he had a disorder "psychotic in nature, likely schizophrenia" and called for his removal from the base.
Camp staff noted Raziq had no proven affiliation with al-Qaida and stressed that transferring him "will remove a significant personnel burden and security risk from Camp X-ray, that provides no intelligence value to US forces, and an individual more than likely incapable of standing trial".
The report goes on: "Repatriating detainee 356 to Afghanistan causes minimal to no risk to US forces still operating in that region, as Afghan authorities would more than likely confine the detainee upon his arrival."
Raziq was released from Guantánamo into Afghan custody within a month of the assessment.
Your Excellency
Banned
From the Guardian:
"what is given new prominence by these latest Guantánamo files is the cold, incompetent stupidity of the system: a system that tangled up the old and the young, the sick and the innocent. A system in which to say you were not a terrorist might be taken as evidence of your cunning.
"If you could only know what we can know, you would understand that what we are doing is right," our leaders used to assure us. Well now we really do know we have the documents, we have the transcripts of interviews with former prisoners, we have everything it takes to understand the nasty story of Guantánamo, exposed today in 759 leaked documents containing the words of the people who ran the place. And it is obvious that we should have seen through the evasions from the start.
The clinical idiocy of this dreadful place is the most chilling thing of all, since it strips away even the cynical but persuasive defence: it was harsh but it worked and it kept the world safe.
It didn't work, much of the time. These files show that some of the information collected was garbage and that many of those held knew nothing that could be of use to the people demanding answers from them. Far from securing the fight against terror, the people running the camp faced an absurdist battle to educate a 14-year-old peasant boy kidnapped by an Afghan tribe and treat the dementia, depression and osteoarthritis of an 89-year-old man caught up in a raid on his son's house.
Other cases are just as pathetic. Jamal al-Harith, born Ronald Fiddler in Manchester in 1966, was imprisoned by the Taliban as a possible spy, after being found wandering through Afghanistan as a Muslim convert. In a movement of Kafkaesque horror the Americans held him in Camp X-Ray simply because he had been a prisoner of its enemy. "He was expected to have knowledge of Taliban treatment of prisoners and interrogation tactics," the files record."
Good job, Obama. This is your shit now.
"what is given new prominence by these latest Guantánamo files is the cold, incompetent stupidity of the system: a system that tangled up the old and the young, the sick and the innocent. A system in which to say you were not a terrorist might be taken as evidence of your cunning.
"If you could only know what we can know, you would understand that what we are doing is right," our leaders used to assure us. Well now we really do know we have the documents, we have the transcripts of interviews with former prisoners, we have everything it takes to understand the nasty story of Guantánamo, exposed today in 759 leaked documents containing the words of the people who ran the place. And it is obvious that we should have seen through the evasions from the start.
The clinical idiocy of this dreadful place is the most chilling thing of all, since it strips away even the cynical but persuasive defence: it was harsh but it worked and it kept the world safe.
It didn't work, much of the time. These files show that some of the information collected was garbage and that many of those held knew nothing that could be of use to the people demanding answers from them. Far from securing the fight against terror, the people running the camp faced an absurdist battle to educate a 14-year-old peasant boy kidnapped by an Afghan tribe and treat the dementia, depression and osteoarthritis of an 89-year-old man caught up in a raid on his son's house.
Other cases are just as pathetic. Jamal al-Harith, born Ronald Fiddler in Manchester in 1966, was imprisoned by the Taliban as a possible spy, after being found wandering through Afghanistan as a Muslim convert. In a movement of Kafkaesque horror the Americans held him in Camp X-Ray simply because he had been a prisoner of its enemy. "He was expected to have knowledge of Taliban treatment of prisoners and interrogation tactics," the files record."
Good job, Obama. This is your shit now.
Bloody hell... some stupid shit there:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/guantanamo-files/US9AF-000657DP
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/guantanamo-files/US9AF-000657DP
Joel Was Right
Member
I really need to find the full video of this. Assange debates Keller on Skype panel: US media operates in a bubble
http://fora.tv/2011/04/09/WikiLeaks_The_Fallout#WikiLeaks_Assange_Says_US_Press_Operates_in_Bubble
http://fora.tv/2011/04/09/WikiLeaks_The_Fallout#WikiLeaks_Assange_Says_US_Press_Operates_in_Bubble
Canadians secretly added to U.S. security list: WikiLeaks
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/15/rfa-macdonald-csis.html
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada's principal intelligence agency, routinely transmits to U.S. authorities the names and personal details of Canadian citizens who are suspected of, but not charged with, what the agency refers to as "terrorist-related activity."
The criteria used to turn over the names are secret, as is the process itself.
But a new cache of WikiLeaks documents pertaining to Canada lays bare the practice. It contains not only frank assessments by U.S. officials of Canadian co-operation, but the names of 27 Canadian citizens turned over by their own government as possible threats, along with 14 other names of foreign nationals living in Canada.
In at least some cases, the people in the cables appear to have been named as potential terrorists solely based on their associations with other suspects, rather than any actions or hard evidence.
Of the 41 people named, 21 do not appear to have ever been charged, and some had never come to the attention of the Americans before being named by their own government. Most of the remaining 20 names comprise the group known as the Toronto 18. Some of that group were charged and convicted; others had charges against them stayed.
The cables are a snapshot of periods in 2009 and 2010. Over the years, the number of names handed over is certainly much higher.
Can't find a link to the actual Wikileaks files, only the CBC story. Also, it's only going to get worse with a Harper majority.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/05/15/rfa-macdonald-csis.html
The Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Canada's principal intelligence agency, routinely transmits to U.S. authorities the names and personal details of Canadian citizens who are suspected of, but not charged with, what the agency refers to as "terrorist-related activity."
The criteria used to turn over the names are secret, as is the process itself.
But a new cache of WikiLeaks documents pertaining to Canada lays bare the practice. It contains not only frank assessments by U.S. officials of Canadian co-operation, but the names of 27 Canadian citizens turned over by their own government as possible threats, along with 14 other names of foreign nationals living in Canada.
In at least some cases, the people in the cables appear to have been named as potential terrorists solely based on their associations with other suspects, rather than any actions or hard evidence.
Of the 41 people named, 21 do not appear to have ever been charged, and some had never come to the attention of the Americans before being named by their own government. Most of the remaining 20 names comprise the group known as the Toronto 18. Some of that group were charged and convicted; others had charges against them stayed.
The cables are a snapshot of periods in 2009 and 2010. Over the years, the number of names handed over is certainly much higher.
Can't find a link to the actual Wikileaks files, only the CBC story. Also, it's only going to get worse with a Harper majority.
Angry Fork
Member
How did empty vessel get banned? Disappointing. He was one of the few that rigorously defended my kind of principles when I was too lazy to.
adversesolutions
Member
Angry Fork said:
Bin Laden thread argument.
Very much hope it's not a perma-ban.
Here are interesting documents that detail the internal politicking for China's next leadership positions.
http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/wikileaksdokumenter/article3994543.ece
http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/wikileaksdokumenter/article3994543.ece
Agent Unknown
Member
So was that damning information on a certain bank or banks hinted at last year ever released? I heard some spiel from a poster on another site that the banks "shut them down" before they could release it. Doubt it but I hope that's not true and that they're just sitting on it until the time is right.
- Status