Wikileaks makes the Pentagram/CIA Nervous with War Crimes Video, LOL
Mort Zuckerman
Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu, gary_w...@nymc.edu,
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: Wikileaks and CIA (drone attacks video) prosecutions??
Date: Mar 25, 2010 12:35 AM
Hmmm. I am thinking the hysteria
over Wikileaks could be related to
http://trueslant.com/barrettbrown/2010/03/24/cia-state-department-apparently-acting-on-plan-to-destroy-wikileaks/
"We know our possession of the decrypted airstrike
video is now being discussed at the highest levels
of US command." -- Wikileaks.org
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/us/18wiki.html
Wikileaks apparently having copies
of videos of drone attacks?
http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0324/drone-raids-land-cia-officers-court-expert/
If the CIA or the US Army says that
Wikileaks is a CIA PsyOp, no one will
believe the video of the illegal
WAR CRIMES drone attacks were
real?
Or is the US Army trying to distance
themselves from responsibility?
HILARIOUS.
They're all such *BUMBLING* *FOOLS* !!!
And it's not just the BUMBLING that
makes the Dot Guv look like FOOLS,
it's all their freakin ridiculous
LIES!!
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
==============================
March 17, 2010
Pentagon Sees a Threat From Online Muckrakers
By STEPHANIE STROM
To the list of the enemies threatening the security of the United
States, the Pentagon has added WikiLeaks.org, a tiny online source of
information and documents that governments and corporations around the
world would prefer to keep secret.
The Pentagon assessed the danger WikiLeaks.org posed to the Army in a
report marked “unauthorized disclosure subject to criminal sanctions.”
It concluded that “WikiLeaks.org represents a potential force
protection, counterintelligence, OPSEC and INFOSEC threat to the U.S.
Army” — or, in plain English, a threat to Army operations and
information.
WikiLeaks, true to its mission to publish materials that expose
secrets of all kinds, published the 2008 Pentagon report about itself
on Monday.
Lt. Col. Lee Packnett, an Army spokesman, confirmed that the report
was real. Julian Assange, the editor of WikiLeaks, said the concerns
the report raised were hypothetical.
“It did not point to anything that has actually happened as a result
of the release,” Mr. Assange said. “It contains the analyst’s best
guesses as to how the information could be used to harm the Army but
no concrete examples of any real harm being done.”
WikiLeaks, a nonprofit organization, has rankled governments and
companies around the world with its publication of materials intended
to be kept secret. For instance, the Army’s report says that in 2008,
access to the Web site in the United States was cut off by court order
after Bank Julius Baer, a Swiss financial institution, sued it for
publishing documents implicating Baer in money laundering, grand
larceny and tax evasion. Access was restored after two weeks, when the
bank dropped its case.
Governments, including those of North Korea and Thailand, also have
tried to prevent access to the site and complained about its release
of materials critical of their governments and policies.
The Army’s interest in WikiLeaks appears to have been spurred by,
among other things, its publication and analysis of classified and
unclassified Army documents containing information about military
equipment, units, operations and “nearly the entire order of battle”
for American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan in April 2007.
WikiLeaks also published an outdated, unclassified copy of the
“standard operating procedures” at the military prison in Guantánamo
Bay, Cuba. WikiLeaks said the document revealed methods by which the
military prevented prisoners from meeting with the International Red
Cross and the use of “extreme psychological stress” as a means of
torture.
The Army’s report on WikiLeaks does not say whether WikiLeaks’
analysis of that document was accurate. It does charge that some of
WikiLeaks’s other interpretation of information is flawed but does not
say specifically in what way.
The report also airs the Pentagon’s concern over some 2,000 pages of
documents WikiLeaks released on equipment used by coalition forces in
Iraq and Afghanistan. The Pentagon concluded that such information
could be used by foreign intelligence services, terrorist groups and
others to identify vulnerabilities, plan attacks and build new
devices.
WikiLeaks, which won Amnesty International’s new media award in 2009,
almost closed this year because it was broke and still operates at
less than its full capacity. It relies on donations from humans rights
groups, journalists, technology buffs and individuals, and Mr. Assange
said it had raised just two-thirds of the $600,000 needed for its
budget this year and thus was not publishing everything it had.
Perhaps the most amusing aspect of the Army’s report, to Mr. Assange,
was its speculation that WikiLeaks is supported by the Central
Intelligence Agency. “I only wish they would step forward with a check
if that’s the case,” he said.
=================================
WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US government's refusal to offer a legal
rationale for using unmanned drones to kill suspected militants in
Pakistan could result in CIA officers facing prosecution for war
crimes in foreign courts, a legal expert has told lawmakers.
"Prominent voices in the international legal community" were
increasingly impatient with Washington's silence on the CIA's bombing
raids in Pakistan and elsewhere, Kenneth Anderson, a law professor at
American University, told a congressional panel on Tuesday.
Lawyers at the US State Department and other government agencies were
concerned the administration has "not settled on what the rationales
are" for the drone strikes, he said.
"And I believe that at some point that ill serves an administration
which is embracing this," said Anderson.
The law professor said he believes the drone strikes are legal under
international law, based on a country's right to self-defense, and
urged the US administration to argue its case publicly.
President Barack Obama has spoken about taking the fight to the enemy
and denying safe havens to extremists, and US officials privately tout
the drone raids against Al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders along the
Pakistan border as highly effective.
But the administration declines to discuss the raids openly and has
yet to publicly declare the legal justification for hunting down
terror suspects in Pakistan and around the world.
"Now, maybe the answer is: This is all really terrible and illegal and
anybody that does it should go off to The Hague. But if that's the
case, then we should not be having the president saying that this is
the greatest thing since whatever. That seems like a bad idea,"
Anderson said.
The congressional hearing broached a sensitive subject that is usually
discussed by lawmakers and officials in closed sessions out of public
view.
Human rights activists and some legal experts charge the drone strikes
in Pakistan, outside of a traditional battlefield, amount to
extrajudicial executions.
In written testimony, Anderson told the subcommittee of the House
Oversight and Government Reform committee that officials and legal
advisers at the CIA or the national security council who create
"target lists" could face possible charges abroad over the drone war.
"It is they who would most likely be investigated, indicted, or
prosecuted in a foreign court, as, the US should take careful note,
has already happened to Israeli officials in connection with
operations against Hamas," he wrote.
"The reticence of the US government on this matter is frankly hard to
justify, at this point," he added.
The American Civil Liberties Union last week filed a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit last week demanding the State Department and
other agencies disclose the legal basis for carrying out
assassinations overseas with unmanned aircraft.
The lawsuit asks for information on when, where and against whom drone
strikes can be authorized, according to the ACLU.
Representative John Tierney, chair of the subcommittee on national
security, said the drone war raised an array of unanswered questions,
including "if the United States uses unmanned weapons systems, does
that require an official declaration of war or an authorization for
the use of force?"
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci