An online whistle-blower's threat to release more classified Pentagon and State Department documents is raising difficult questions of what the government can or would do, legally, technically or even militarily to stop it.
Constrained by the global reach of the Internet, sophisticated encryption software and the domestic legal system, the answer seems to be: Not much.
But if the U.S. government believes that the release of classified documents WikiLeaks is preparing to disclose will threaten national security or put lives at risk, cyber and legal experts say the options could expand to include cyber strikes to take down the WikiLeaks website and destroy its files or covert operations to steal or disable the files.
By: Brant
Posts
4 comments:
As much as I'd like to see that smug SOB Julian Assange wet his pants if a few of America's finest paid him a late night visit, there's not much we can really do.
I think Assange and his buddies have read enough spy novels and cyberpunk fantasies that some people that they can rely on have the AES256 password to the "insurance" file, which has been widely distributed through BitTorrent and other channels. If anything happens to Assange, the site, etc., the password will be disseminated and we'll have a bigger mess on our hands.
Even launching a cyber-attack on the site wouldn't do much good and it certainly would be less fun :). That said, I'd love to make an example of Assange and the traitor Bradley Manning on general principles.
-- Guardian
Somehow the "defenders of freedom" don't believe in it it themselves.
Yeah, I know... funny how people don't like their intel collection and analysis on public display.
Maybe we need to execute more people. I mean, you don't see any leaks from al Qaeda, do you?
My problem with this entire Wikileaks incident is not so much the content of the leaked data. There is nothing really ground-breaking there, although I am concerned about reprisals against named individuals. My problem is with the leaker, for breaching the trust associated with the oath of enlistment, being part of a unit, and being granted a security clearance. Information is the lifeblood of modern warfare and there are enough obstacles to its free flow within the military without having to constantly wonder whether someone with a Top Secret security clearance (like the traitor in question) is going to dump it all on the Internet (or cut out the middle man and hand it directly to the enemy) because he has an ax to grind.
The military is like a family and this incident is like a member of the family spilling all the family's secrets in public. The secrets themselves might not even be that bad: Dad cheated on Mom ten years ago, my brother is on the verge of bankruptcy, Uncle Steve is a closeted gay man, Cousin Sally is an alcoholic, etc. This kind of stuff happens in families all the time, just like double-dealing allies, local warlords out for their own good, and outright mistakes by the good guys happens in war. The problem is, as I said, the breach of trust.
As far as executions, I'll take the bait. The leaker (allegedly Bradley Manning) is apparently guilty of espionage and possibly treason during time of war. They should be given a fair, public trial with adequate counsel and, if found guilty, I think execution would be a very appropriate punishment.
There are legitimate forums for dissent, even for soldiers. The Uniform Code of Military Justice gives service members a good deal of latitude to express their political opinions, although there are some restrictions in order to uphold the guiding principle of civilian control of the military. After the leaker completed his service obligation, he could have exercised all the rights of a US citizen to oppose the war, as the Vietnam Veterans against the War did in the late 1960's and early 1970's.
-- Guardian
Post a Comment