The Army’s “Sticky Note” SIPRNet Security
No wonder the US Army was allegedly bested in the WikiLeaks leak by a Lady Gaga CD.
In addition to all the other gaping security problems with the classified network, there were apparently widely accessible SIPRNet computers with passwords written out on sticky notes on the computers.
A Guardian investigation focusing on soldiers who worked with Manning in Iraq has also discovered there was virtually no computer and intelligence security at Manning’s station in Iraq, Forward Operating Base Hammer. According to eyewitnesses, the security was so lax that many of the 300 soldiers on the base had access to the computer room where Manning worked, and passwords to access the intelligence computers were stuck on “sticky notes” on the laptop screens.
Rank and file soldiers would watch grisly “kill mission” footage as a kind of entertainment on computers with access to the sensitive network of US diplomatic and military communications known as SIPRNet.
Jacob Sullivan, 28, of Phoenix, Arizona, a former chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear specialist, was stationed at FOB Hammer in Manning’s unit.
“A lot of different people worked from that building and in pretty much every room there was a SIPRNet computer attached to a private soldier or a specialist,” Sullivan said
“On the computers that I saw there was a [sticky label] either on the computer or next to the computer with the information to log on. I was never given permission to log on so I never used it but there were a lot of people who did.”
He added: “If you saw a laptop with a red wire coming out of it, you knew it was a SIPRNet. I would be there by myself and the laptops [would] be sitting there with passwords. Everyone would write their passwords down on sticky notes and set it by their computer. [There] wasn’t a lot of security going on so no wonder something like this transpired.”
Hey DOD? You gotta be trying to keep stuff secret if you’re going to claim it’s secret. If the password to get to the secrets is floating around on Post It notes, you really can’t argue that you were actively trying to keep this stuff secret.
State Dept and Clinton have to be thrilled with this shit. Who devised DOD’s Iraq computer security plan, Jerry Bremer?? Jeebus.
A better question: Who implemented the plan?
I’m long out of security work, but storing passwords unsecured was a violation. If you HAD to write them down, you had to lock them up. Some bosses (not mine, fortuantely) interpreted that to mean a written down password was treated as a classified document.
Also, allowing people with insufficient clearence to view your screen wasn’t permitted. You had to hit a screen saver if you were visited by such.
Dod standards ain’t great, but you will be more secure if you follow them. Some of those rules were painful to learn, no reason to learn them again.
Boxturtle (Somewhere, someone with a rank of about Col. will be retiring after reassignment)
Jerry Bremer. *heh*
The best security plan means nothing is user passwords are posted on notes on the monitor. I can’t tell you how many company execs do this…
The weakest link is between the chair and keyboard.
Echoing bmaz.
Would this be an argument for Manning’s defense?
[PS: Marcy, thanks for the info on the previous thread.]
If they’re trying to make the case that Manning didn’t leak, it could have been anybody they just won. Even if it was done with Mannings id, anybody could have had it. At most, Manning could be convicted of a serious security violation (unsecured password) and lose his clearance.
Boxturtle (Dunno defense strategy plans, but I’d sure change ’em based on the story)
May be a glimmer of hope here?
Manning would not have to prove that he didn’t do it.
USGuh has to prove [beyond a reasonable doubt] that he did.
Or is that formulation too “quaint” in these dangerous times?
When it’s been shown that 300 persons — which is enough for a battalion — had access to these computers: Yeah, how does the government show that Manning and Manning alone did the leaking?
Answer: They can’t.
Granted, they may somehow “know” via some super-secret method that they don’t want us to know they have, which is why they have to get Manning to confess or somehow hope Lamo and his inconsistent story don’t get shredded to bits on the witness stand.
Dear Ghu, didn’t anyone there have a clue on password security? (If you’re going to write it on a sticky note, don’t leave the sticky note out where anyone, including the janitors, can find it.)
So in other words, the SIPRnet “secrets” weren’t secret at all. The system wasn’t set up to be secure; it wasn’t even partially secured until long after Manning was arrested. Maybe in 2013, they’ll get around to completing its security enhancements. Or maybe not.
This doesn’t happen by accident, nor by incompetence. The DoD and the Government in general are quite capable of operating highly secure information systems and they do so all the time. Any breech is dealt with instantly, not months after the fact.
There was no sensible security on the SIPRnet system because it was not meant to be a secure information system.
Could this simple fact be a defense? Worth a try at any rate.
The irony here is that military computer networks are a lot less secure compared to, say, those of the SSA or even USDA. A friend of mine who works for SSA tells me that not only can’t you hook up a flash drive to an SSA computer, you can’t hook up anything with memory (including hard drives or cameras or smartphones) to an SSA computer. They monitor ports and know when something’s been plugged into a USB port on any given computer in any part of the SSA network.
1. Parts of the DoD (NSA) are going to teach us how to secure our civilian networks?
2. USB Ports in secure system required application of super glue.
3. Passwords and IDs are PERSONAL possessions. Never shared, never written down, changed periodically and have composition rules (Uppercase, lower case, letters, number special characters and length). Best are passphrases.
4. All data has an owner. Only this owners (not some system administrator) provides access, and must keep lists of those with access.
5. All access is logged, and reported to the data owner.
IBM used to be one of the best on security. All the above were IBM procedures, which is where I learned security on computers.
My health care clients, to keep HIPPA compliant, are also very good at security.
That is just too funny. I love your list. Especially since we have a congress that just re-upped the UnPatriotic Act with all those so-secret laws we are supposed to follow. SHEESH!
#4 and 5 would create a bottleneck to those projects where the ownership is divided between many. Besides keeping track of code writing, having to keep track of all that share your contribution to the code complicates the issue, unless this is somehow securely automated.
But then, I don’t do security work. God knows my own computer can be violated!
This is what I am saying: the Government — and you best believe DoD — knows full well how to create and manage a secure information system. That they didn’t do it with SIPRnet — and still haven’t — despite a somewhat spectacular security breach is really all you need to know to understand that SIPRnet was never intended to be a secure information system.
As for who did the leak of SIPRnet information, who knows? Anybody with access could have.
Or maybe SIPRnet is a decoy network, with just enough to seem creditable, and be able to supply unassailable proof of spying….
Given the openness of the network and the glacial pace of (maybe) “securing” it, I wouldn’t be surprised if you are right.
OK, so it strikes me that maybe SIPRNet is a propaganda tool, at least in part, if access is so easy. Just a thought.
Two birds with one stone.
Yep. IMO, could be a real possibility.
Which puts the bulk of all the revelations as suspect. Worse, linking to it could also get your ass in a sling, with out and out lies no less!
Yeah, it’s difficult to believe that putting passwords on stickylabels next to computers (not one, but many) wasn’t *encouraged*. Clearly, SIPRNet was not a highly valued “secret”.
Didn’t someone in the threads meantion that some other countries had access to SIPRNet also?
Yes, Marcy has even noted it here on her blog. I think China is listed as one of the countries with access. And then there is this in today’s headlines:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/27/hackers-penetrate-u-s-defense-contractors-security-networks/
Oh yes, and I am sure that Isreal is a part of that list. I mean, just look at how our Congress gave Netanyahoooo a standing ovation when he addressed them!
More questions around that incident (see here).
Saw that yesterday about Lockheed Martin. Lotsa hacking these dayz.
Here’s my question. Why would the US give China access to SIPRNet? Isreal, I can totally see the US giving access, but China? WTF?
No-n0-no. Not give them access, but they found their access.
“Found”, like on a sticky note next to a computer?
Probably! Or hacked up like a furball.
LOL. Hacked up like a furball!!
China, but they don’t count.
So instead of just the one guy, we literally have a battalion’s worth of potential suspects?
Geez, why not subpoena them all?
Don’t know why, but the word “entrapment” keeps popping up, for me. Did Lamo first show up after Manning tried to tell his chain of command about what he’d found out/seen?
Ha! Well, Shit! Wouldn’t you know it. A Guardian investigation comes up with more facts than the DOJ and DOD!
Red for SPIRNet? Imagine that! A better system would have a second code attached to the cable whose color was indistinguishable from the others that would ID the correct cable.
Red cable. Sticky notes. Sigh!
I can understand written out passwords, because they are too difficult to memorize if strong enough, and likely were changed on a regular basis with IT demanding to judge the strength of the PW attached to the person possessing it so that things like inverting the sequence would be a no-no.
Written out, yes…but on a sticky label on or next to the computer? For a “secret” system?
Slippery slope, yellowsnapdragon. Once allowed….at my former place of employment writing out your PW was considered a dischargeable offense, and that was a commercial operation. I absolutely hated the periodic e-mail that flagged PW change time!
Yeah, I mention writing passwords down because I have been known to do it, but I don’t do computer security for secret USG databases.
Same here. There just isn’t an alternative, at least at the beginning of a new PW to writing it somewhere. In my case, if I forgot the PW, I had to take the laptop into IT, they reset one of the three you need (one is just to gain access to the HD before booting up!) and you get to reset the other two. So I felt comfortable writing down the major one and hiding it well.
I would be terrified being in that military location, except, perhaps, aboard ship.
I’ll do something like write down the letters for the password, but leave out the numbers and special characters.
Do you think this is what may have been happening at FOB Hammer?
Better is that the SIRPnet computers are in an MS domains, and only the computers authorized in the domain can be a part of SIRPnet.
For security SIRPnet would be required to use encrypted VPNs.
Some video of Operating Base Hammer. You tax dollars at work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Oh9i27Ky9I
Network Security is a contradiction in terms. This from a guy who has spent the last 30 years in computer systems and network programming for a large (50k enrollment) state university.
IBM has over 500,000 employees, and has good security.
Enforcement of the security rules is a must. In IBM the enforcement is backed by termination.
Sophos has an article on that underscoring what you say. Of course, they want to sell you a system to circumvent the dangers. I just did a free D/L of their Rootkit and their A/V monitor (which monitors the efficacy of your basic A/V system) and found nada on my computer. I guess MS Security Essentials is working well, or I am more careful (right!) than the next guy!
Right. I posit that systems of computing machines are inherently non-secure because they operate off of symbol sets and rules everyone knows. By contrast this was and is not the case with the Code Talkers. Only human intelligence can provide the latter when it really comes down to it. Computers are idiot savants obediently recording and repeating in 0s and 1s what human programmers have written for them. The computer systems can also be designed to be the most efficient of thieves once the universal currency becomes electrons.
Can you imagine the difficulty in, say particle physics if we only used code talking for information? There is no parity check in that process.
Heh. The humans can deal with logical discontinuities; the machines can’t. Humans can operate in a broader range of environmental conditions; machines can’t (e.g. a discharge of on the scale of eVs to a computer motherboard is like a meteor striking the face of the moon).
Yes, and that number drops as the density of the cpu increases. It’s now well below 100V.
Maybe we don’t need particle physics! If Fermi and his colleagues had to use code talk, the US would most likely be the only possessor of advanced nuclear weapons. And by advanced, I mean we actually got one to work!
I can only wish!
OTOH, have you read an advanced paper on modern mathematics? Code talk indeed!
Image: “Pallets of American currency arriving in Baghdad.”
This reminds me of another huge gaping hole:
{ snip }
(excerpt from “Billions Over Bagdad,” VanityFair.Com, Oct. 2007)
Ya know, I remember reading that “some” investigative journalists were shot or went missing while trying to find out where the money went!
People asking questions about financial accountability regarding Afghanistan have disappeared as well. What’s become of the investigation into the death of Ciara Durkin?
workingclass @14. Just finished watching the YouTube of Operating Base Hammer. Not really what I expected to see – very different from what I thought it would be like over there. Waiters in black bowties? Wow. Thanks.
Military password protocols are so stringent that the passwords are impossible to remember. A typical requirement is that a password must be 10 digits long and contain two capital letters, two lower case letters, two numbers, and two special characters (such as $ and !). No two identical characters can be in sequence (no “ee” or “11”), and no more than 3 like characters may be in sequence (abc is o.k. but abcd is not). The result is a password that is impossible to remember, and passwords must be changed every 30-90 days to one that isn’t similar to the present password. Of course everyone must write them down. Furthermore, different systems have different protocols, so a single individual will have several different passwords. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
You know I’ve just never thought of the military as gestalt of yellow 3M Stickies but it is sure looking that way.
Just finished watching the Guardian piece.
I would really like to see some in-depth investigations on the substance of the leaks rather than on Manning’s biography. *Why* did Manning think it was important to give the info to WL, as alleged? What was the government doing that needed to be exposed and debated? Sheeeesh.
Oh, and yeah, anyone who risks so much personally to challenge the USG has to be at least a little bit off. Duh. That doesn’t make Manning wrong.
That’s not true. The Egyptian teenage protesters aren’t stupid or crazy and they do know the value of a life (Siun, Jan. 26, 2011).
Well, it’s different if you are in a group of like-minded people–there are others right next to you who share your beliefs and potential fate.
Bradley Manning was alone in the middle of a military base where he was victimized. Sure, he was probably off a bit, but does that change whether releasing the information was the right thing to do (allegedly)?
Lamo is also clearly mentally unstable, and Lamo did absolutely the wrong thing. Some people do the right thing and some don’t regardless of whether they come from a troubled past.
You are free to state your opinion of all humans as selfish, mentally unstable, cowards if you really want to.
Did you see the Clever Sillies diary this morning? It influenced my thinking as I commented on this thread. Common sense and self-preservation would have told Manning to STFU and avoid trouble. Perhaps Manning is a Clever Silly. (BTW I think the Clever Sillies do a hell of a lot of good in the world. Yay Clever Sillies!)
I certainly don’t include cowardly or selfish as traits of the Egyptian protesters or Bradley Manning. Lamo, yes. I would say the Egyptians protesters *and* Manning are brave and rightous. There is an element of insanity that runs through it though. That’s my point.
What’s your own experience? Can a person make a decision and commit to an action that might mean their own individual interests might not be entirely served but some good outcome would come for others? An age-old example is the one that volunteers to become a mother. In that circumstance, the mother voluntarily risks her life for the child to have life as, if a successful delivery occurs, the baby makes it but there’s no guarantee for the mother. Are you saying that those that volunteer to be mothers are insane and/or have no common sense?
I’m saying that to challenge the USG is to put oneself at great, great danger. And yes, it’s a bit crazy. It violates common sense and the instinct for self-preservation. It is also the opposite of selfish and cowardly.
It’s important to add that people who act like Manning are the people who change the world for the better. I think people like Manning act like the punctuated part of punctuated equilibrium in social systems. They cause rapid, drastic change to the existing system, but at their own peril. They are good and valuable.
Sorry, your attempt to label Manning insane for whatever political and legal purposes gets no purchase with me.
Just givin’ my humble opinion.
This is in response to the Guardian video posted above that focuses almost entirely on Manning’s emotional state at the time of the leak. My point is so what if he was mentally instable? Tell me *why* he leaked (allegedly) and what the leak accomplished.
How can you know in advance, unassailably, the outcome of any such actions? What if remaining silent is the insane part when future events show that to be the case?
Oh, and on the mother part…my personal experience tells me that a woman who has not yet had children has no earthly idea what it actually means a) to give birth, and b) to mother a child. If they did, they would have to be a bit crayzee to do it. *heh* Hardest f’ing job on the planet. No joke. Edit: And they also can’t imagine the depth of the love that develops for the children to compensate for the hard work.
Secret? In 2004 information was classified at the request of president or designated agency heads 45.6 million times. Three thoughts come to mind – (1) is it humanly possible to keep 45.6 million pieces of information secret: (2) Is it really necessary to keep 45.6 million pieces of information secret: (3) Does a government operating much of the time in secret directly threaten the very existence of any semblance of a democracy.
harpie @ 52 said,
In response to BoxTurtle @ 4 (show text)
“May be a glimmer of hope here?
Manning would not have to prove that he didn’t do it.
USGuh has to prove [beyond a reasonable doubt] that he did.
Or is that formulation too “quaint” in these dangerous times?”
harpie, I don’t want to rain on your parade.
President O has already instructed the military judges to find Pfc Manning guilty by his public remark saying Pfc Manning has committed a crime. Unless those would be judges want retire soon, they will find him guilty. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t hold out too much hope that those judges will do the right thing. My hope does grow with the revelations of this post.
Thanks EW, this seems like good news for Pfc Manning and is quite an inditement of the security of SiperNet
That Guardian article– that goes with the video and calls Manning a “mess” and tells us he “wet his pants’ and comes from an anon soldier, anon officer and anon timely “leaked” government document –is disgusting graffiti. Basically they’re saying he was a sissy who wasn’t fit to target for kill and coverup, *because he was a messed up *sissy*. An interview with Manning’s fellow intel analyst (who actually *gives* his name) tells a different story. According to that interview many of the Manning’s peers went crazy, went on disability, committed suicide etc. In other words noone is fit to target and kill civilians and coverup war crimes. Nice of Obama to “leak” that disgusting graffiti around memorial day, and try to deflect from the war crimes that were committed and still being committed, and get the media to focus on “personality” of the whistleblower. What Manning allegedly did was a public service, whistleblowing on war crimes. If he did it at all, since there apparently wasn’t much security .
Exactly. It’s so much easier to do a nasty little biographical piece on Manning than to investigate the substance and the meaning of the leak.
The Smearing of Bradley Manning; May Days For Manning Blog; 5/28/11
Calling he Guardian article “the smearing of Bradley Manning” is somewhere the other side of insanely shortsided. That article is a wet dream for his defense effort. On multiple fronts. Some of these Manning groupies, such as who wrote that post, need to get a grip.
Whatever the Guardian article might mean for his defense effort, smearing still seems an accurate description to me.
It is so helpful to his defense and best interests therein, it could almost have been written by his lawyer. And you want to call that a “smear”.
Amazing.
First off, there is scant, if any, evidence that what is described in the article is not true and/or honest opinion and evaluation. Secondly, it all meshes perfect with what will almost certainly be a key core part of his defense theory. That is not a “smear”, it is a gift from heaven.
Look bmaz. I have been reading volumes of “leaked military” documents on prisoners. They cover up. They are fiction. They read like BS. Pls wake up. read Wikileaks and Andy worthington’s coverage of the military documents leaked on GTMO prisoners. They even assert Chinese propoganda as the reason for holding Uighur prisoners, for god’s sake. Or when I finish a project, you can read my analysis on the autopsies from Bagram, Camp Cropper, Camp Remembrance, Abu Ghraib, BIAP. etc. Our govt writes serious fiction. Or maybe you might want to check out Dr. Steven Miles’ book on homicides in the camps. They create unbelievable fiction to cover up torture. Reams of it.
I guarantee you if you read all those documents on prisoners, you will question this and see the Guardian article as the utter bogus harmful bullshit it is.
Uh, I have read a whole lot of that. Apparently you are interested in your own version of appearances; I am picturing what it would take to defend this man. Maintaining little pet fictions will not accomplish that; however a whole lot of this information can work toward that goal.
“First off, there is scant, if any, evidence that what is described in the article is not true and/or honest opinion and evaluation. Secondly, it all meshes perfect with what will almost certainly be a key core part of his defense theory. That is not a “smear”, it is a gift from heaven.”
Seriously?!? I mean seriously? Do you honestly think so? I don’t Do you have experience of military tribunals?!?
What evidence is there that this anonymously sourced article is for real and not straight from our govt for a little memorial day special? Again, at least one of Manning’s peers was interviewed. He gave a name. He told a different story.
Even though I’m not a lawyer, I quickly realized [@#2] it might be good for the defense.
I’m sure the writer of that article did, too, since he’s trained in that kind of stuff.
That doesn’t change my opinion that the Frontline and Guardian pieces are nasty pieces of work parading as journalism.
unlawful command influence: a primer; May Days for Manning [blog]; 5/28/11
Since bmaz is actually a lawyer, and I’m not sure whether jasmine311 is, I’d give bmaz the benefit of the doubt on interpreting the article.
At the very least the defense has the issue of access, the torture of Manning in custody which would taint any evidence (even in a court martial the rules of evidence apply, that’s why W needed “military commissions” for GTMO trials) such as a “confession”, and Lamo. I’d say run them all, so if any get cut out by judicial fiat, there are still options.
As I noted the last time Manning was in the news, the DOD is already aware of what was leaked to Wikileaks, so there is nothing at this point to learn in terms of potential damage. Assume it all hurts and proceed to trial if I’m the prosecutor. Manning would have a harder time proving the negative. Yet, the DOD isn’t going to do that, and maybe this is why.
Yeah, it may not all be pretty and things you would want said or argued in normal circumstances; however, in Manning’s current posture as a criminal defendant, on the charges as alleged, in a military prosecution in front of a military jury, I just think almost everything in that article can be plugged into the likely theory of defense in very helpful ways. Now, it may not be all groovy if your desire is to paint Manning as some kind of modern day hero, but if your job is to actually defend him on the charges, it is gold and a total gift.
So why would they continue to delay the trial? The more that comes out, the worse the DOD case gets. Plus, it makes it into the blogosphere [h/t skippy] at the very least if not the USA media, meaning more bad PR. So, what would actually trigger the DOD to get the trial going?
Well, I am not sure, but my guess is the govt needed time to get its forensic data evidence collected, recovered and sorted out and explore fully who, if any, others are that are involved and attempt to find a solid direct link to Assange. An almost better question is why Manning’s defense did not force things to move faster with certain motions and appeals thereon. Either way, the Article 32 hearing is on the verge of being set from what I understand, possibly in July or early August. That will be one heckuva a hearing.
OK, if it helps the defense, then some good will come of it. Still, as journalism, both the PBS and the Guardian pieces stink.
I agree with yellowsnapdragon. The last sentence that is. This isn’t a defense. It reads like a marketing piece, e.g. how many different ways to say China: Middle Kingdom, etc. etc. Keep mentioning and it will sink in. Here: how many ways to say unsteady “homo” (the stereotype), “wet his pants”, etc. etc. etc. It’s homophobic. And it reads like an attack piece to deflect from the actual crimes that were committed (by our govt, war crimes).
Then the anon sources. There are better articles. Those provide real defenses.
And if this comes from Manning’s *defense team*, he needs new lawyers, because this is the kind of stuff that looks like it came from Gitmo prosecution.
It’s naive to think a “leaked military document” should not be read without a very very critical mind.
bmaz,
-please list the pet fictions you think I have.
-Again what do you know about military tribunals?
-Again what makes you think that this article is not fiction, it’s anonymously sourced after all?
And the last. What makes you think you would be qualified to defend Manning and not over your head?
Because if you think that the leaked govt documents on Gitmo prisoners aren’t partly BS, that should be read carefully, –then you disagree with the lawyers of those prisoners, and many others.
If you think my pet fiction is re: murder in camps in Cuba, Afghanistan and Iraq. Then you disagree with Dr. Stephen Miles, prof. of Bioethics, Jane Mayer and many many others, including those who call for an investigation (ACLU re: Gitmo for ex.)
If you think my pet fiction is regarding Uighurs in Gitmo and Chinese propaganda, you disagree with congress even.
And if you think my pet fiction is that our govt. covers up torture, I suggest you read Jane Mayer again, google the wikipedia entry for Manadel al Jamadi, read Andy Worthington, and so on.
And if you still think these are my “pet fictions” then here are some links in case you didn’t realize the bottom line in this case was war, torture and war crimes:
http://www.aclu.org/national-security/deaths-detainees-us-custody-documents-released-january-14-2011
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1681676/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752310,00.html
And then pls tell me how this anon sourced article will actually help Manning during a military tribunal.
Oh and here’s another one of my “pet fictions” in case you need visuals. If I remember from the ACLU autopsies at least one of the prisoners got shot, point black in the head. It wasn’t an accident. It was murder.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/174186.html
Where do you come up with this spiel? I said nothing of the sort that you are ranting about. The detainee files you are referring to, and the various torture facts are irrelevant to defending Manning. They literally do not mean diddly squat to any possible defense theory. His defense will, however, be centered on psychological factors affecting mental state, how that interplays with the desperation to have warm bodies in Iraq whether they were functional for the job intended or not and how that relates to whether the prosecuting authority, the Army, even treated the material as classified and protected.
That is as relates to Manning. the other material in the Guardian article relates to the fact that there, due to the passwords being left by computers on sticky notes, literally hundreds of other potential suspects to be pointed to by the defense as having committed some or all of the various acts instead of Manning. This is absolutely gold to the defense. The baloney you are rambling about in relation to detainees, autopsies on prisoners, Jane Mayer, etc and whatnot is not only in left field, but over the wall and out of the stadium.
So I guess this is why Manning has to “coaxed” into confessing.
Again, Do you know what military tribunals are like? Are you assuming that Manning will get a decent civilian style trial and the a civilian style defense is appropriate? Why are you assuming you know about his defense? See bmaz, when a person hurls words like baloney and pet fiction, its just invective. You never seem to be answer directly those questions I asked. Like: what do you know about military tribunals? And :why do you assume this particular leaked document should be swallowed whole, when there are tons of leaked documents that should be taken with a grain of salt, and read criticlaly?
And I asked you what my pet fictions are? (Which is why I put all those links or “rambling” call it up there, because I couldn’t figure out which “pet fictions” you were referring too) You couldn’t answer. And yes, war crimes are 100% relevant to his case, since he was an intel specialist and saw quite a bit, as did his peers. There is every reason to believe that that caused PTSD, suicide and that happened while in the military. And there is the treatment he received in prison.
ust read bmaz article I post, its an interview with one of his fellow intel peers. No forget it. If you can hurl invective so can I. You’re being myopic, probably clinging to your own little fictions and a little pompous to boot. It’s hopeless.
Yes, I think I have a pretty decent grasp on what is going on here and, conversely, I do not think – from your comments – that you really understand the dynamics of criminal defense in any forum, whether civilian or under the UCMJ. Honestly, it is not invective in the least; you are so wild and all over the road with your statements that it is difficult to respond.
No I was answering you. Just because you have a one-track mind doesn’t mean I’m wild and all over the road. You’re completley drawing lines in the sand like a kid who’s bent on defending his turf. It’s tyrannical. Stop with the “ramblings”, “pet fiction”, the derogatory statements about everything I’ve linked and said that are completely relevant in defense of your hurling “pet fiction.” And the “wild and all over the road.” It’s the kind of language that suggests “crazy woman.” really disdainful.
Thank you harpie, you say barrage *against Manning*? Because that’s what it looks like to me. But then again, I’m just “rambling” and throwing around “pet fictions” although I do like to question. And the Guardian had anonymous and military sources. Again its mypoic to sit around and second-guess the defense team when we don’t have much knowledge of military tribunal law and whether these “leaked military” sources are valid. It’s a mickey mouse defense to claim these are fact when in truth they could be fiction and fall apart in five seconds. But that’s just my honest opinion.
No Manning and is fellow intel analysts apparently witnesses some pretty serious war crimes and took part in them. Apparently that was what drove them crazy, some to suicide. Here’s some more “ramblings” and “pet fictions” on that from a fellow intel analyst:
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2011/04/18/us-intelligence-veteran-defends-bradley-manning-and-wikileaks/
“Well, I have a couple connections to Bradley.. . .
They have [Manning’s] chat logs . . .
I was involved in torture in Iraq. Part of an intel analyst’s job is “targeting.” . . .
The thing that gets me about that is I don’t think anybody who’s aware of what’s going on can do that work for very long without having a major problem come up. Most of the guys I went through intel school with, who went to Iraq with me, are either dead, killed themselves, are in a long-term care institution or completely disabled. I’m actually 50 percent disabled via PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder), mostly because of the stuff that happened.”
That’s the kind of stuff that *should* be included in any investigative piece on Manning and the leak.
That’s why I say the Guardian piece is trash. One former peer who gives his name tells one story. And then you have the Guardian piece which looks and reads like trash and focuses on personality to the exclusion of the work Manning and his peers in intel did. And according to this peer, it caused suicide, among other things.
Yes, from a perspective of what it takes to legally defend Mr. Manning, I am completely disdainful of the pure and complete tripe you are flailing about trying to pitch. Wow, you have me pegged, I do indeed think your arguments – at least as to fashioning a criminal defense for Manning – are pure unadulterated rambling bunk.
Hi, mui. That wasn’t me. Coram nobis wrote that blog post…his words.
Thanks harpie, that’s a valuable link.Seems its pretty important to Manning’s case to recognize bad publicity from the Guardian, NYT and Frontine from military sources, if they want to show hostile command environment, non? i hope I’m no rambling too much ;)
Thanks for that link again. That’s a good one.
Speaking of illicitly obtained classified documents,, has anyone seen this report yet?
May 24, 2011 01:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time
$6.64 Billion Damages Sought over Israeli Government and AIPAC Use of Stolen Classified US Trade Data
WASHINGTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Today the Section 301 Committee of the US Trade Representative formally received a petition demanding $6.64 billion in compensation for US exporters. In 1984 US exporters were urged to submit business confidential data about their prices, market share, internal costs and market strategy to the International Trade Commission. The USTR guaranteed confidentiality and compiled the data into a classified report for use in negotiating the US-Israel Free Trade Agreement.
The Israeli government obtained the classified USTR report and passed it to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee to use in lobbying and public relations. Declassified FBI investigation files in the petition reveal AIPAC’s legislative director made illicit duplications before returning the report by order of the USTR. The FBI interviewed Israeli Minister of Economics Dan Halpern who admitted obtaining the classified document and giving it to AIPAC.
According to the petition Israel unfairly leveraged the business confidential data stolen from US corporations and industry groups to create new export oriented industries to penetrate the American market. Israel thereby gained an unwarranted systemic advantage. The US-Israel FTA is an anomaly among all bilateral FTAs in that it principally benefits the foreign party, providing a destination for 40% of Israel’s exports. The petition claims it is now a private industry funded foreign aid program. In 2010 the US Israel FTA produced an $11.2 billion US deficit in goods trade. Over a decade the US deficit has averaged $7.09 billion per year. The cumulative US-Israel deficit in current dollars since 1985 is $80.9 billion.
Analysis of all other US-bilateral FTAs reveals that they do not deliver a systemic advantage to either partner. In 2010, the US had a $31.43 billion total surplus with its other bilateral FTA partners, though in 2006 and 2007 these same agreements produced a narrow US deficit.
$6.64 Billion Damages Sought over Israeli Government and AIPAC Use …May 24, 2011 … Billion Damages Sought over Israeli Government and AIPAC Use of Stolen Classified US Trade Data.
classic.cnbc.com/id/43155320 – Cached
Total Number of Security Clearances Still Unknown
May 27th, 2011 by Steven Aftergood
The precise number of persons who hold security clearances for access to classified information was supposed to be reported to Congress by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for the first time in February 2011. But that total number, which is believed to be around 2.5 million, remains elusive and it still has not been provided.
At a December 1, 2010 hearing of a House Intelligence Subcommittee, John Fitzpatrick, director of the ODNI Special Security Center, toldRep. Anna Eshoo that the precise number of clearances would be revealed early this year.
“We have a special data collection to provide a definitive answer on that in the February 2011 IRTPA report,” he said, referring to a report required under the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. (“How Many People Have Security Clearances?”, Secrecy News, December 14, 2010).But when the February 2011 IRTPA report (pdf) was publicly released this month, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the promised number was not included.
An ODNI spokesman said that the number will still be provided, but it will be transmitted in a different report pursuant to the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2010 (section 367), which specifically required disclosure of the total number of clearances.
Total Number of Security Clearances Still Unknown | Secrecy NewsMay 27, 2011 … The precise number of persons who hold security clearances for access to classified information was supposed to be reported to Congress by …
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2011/05/total_clearances.html – Cached►
Secrecy NewsTotal Number of Security Clearances Still Unknown. May 27th, 2011 by Steven …
http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/ – Cached – Similar