Wie es euch gefällt - Persona non grata ?!?

Moderator: enegh

Re: Wie es euch gefällt - Persona non grata ?!?

Beitragvon Britta » Donnerstag 8. September 2011, 12:19

Le.Mar. hat geschrieben:So, mal wieder im Ernst!
Sicher wird die Suppe nicht so heiß gegessen, wie sie gekocht wird. Ich wollte ja auch nur mein Bauchgefühl mal loswerden.

Was ich etwas komisch fand, waren diese Notizen, die andere Politiker bewertet haben. Die Dinger hatten echt das Potenzial den einen oder anderen ziemlich blöd aussehen zu lassen.
Übrigens hab ich die eine Frage etwas falsch formuliert, es sollte heißen: Warum sie überhaupt ans Netz gegangen ist?
Aber kann man auch vernachlässigen, waren eh nur so Gedanken.

Ich habe aber trotzdem weiterhin ein mulmiges Gefühl bei der Sache. Es wollen sich so viel als Aufklärer und Mahner profilieren, das es auf diesem Gebiet auch schon zu einem gewissen Konkurrenz denken kommt.
Und mit diesem Personenkult um den Herrn Assange kann ich auch nicht all zu viel anfangen.
Wenn alles so gemeint ist wie es uns glaubhaft gemacht wird, ok, Hut ab.

mfg

Die cables über dei Politiker waren ein Witz und deren Veröffentlichung zwar lustig, aber trotzdem irrelevant. Vielleicht sogar nur Ablenkung. (Da fällt mir ein, dass ich die neu veröffentlichten cables aus Berlin ja auch noch lesen muß :mrgreen: )

In dem verlinkten Artikel wird Assange zitiert:
When governments stop torturing and killing people, and when corporations stop abusing the legal system, then perhaps it will be time to ask if free-speech activists are accountable.”


Ob Assange den ganzen Hype um seine Person wollte? Ich glaube nicht. Es blieb ihm aber nichts anderes übrig und wer weiß, vielleicht wäre er ja schon lange tot wenn es nicht so gekommen wäre. Das es ihm aber um Aufklärung geht, glaube ich schon. Wer wußte denn vor cablegate, wer er ist? Aktiv war er jedenfalls in der Richtung schon viel früher.
People who lie to others have merely hidden away the truth, but people who lie to themselves have forgotten where they put it.
Benutzeravatar
Britta
 
Beiträge: 2452
Registriert: Samstag 3. Juli 2010, 14:09

Re: Wie es euch gefällt - Persona non grata ?!?

Beitragvon Britta » Mittwoch 15. August 2012, 21:47

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/au ... -wikileaks

Vor einigen Monaten hatte Präsident Correa Assange das Angebot gemacht, für den Fall das ihm die Auslieferung drohe, könne er Asyl in Equador bekommen und letzt erst in ECTV geäussert, dass die Entscheidung noch in dieser Woche fallen soll. Nun meldet der Guardian, dass es soweit ist.

Equador war das erste Land, dass vor Veröffentlichung die cables sehen durfte.


Julian Assange will be granted asylum, says official

Ecuador's president, Rafael Correa, has agreed to grant Julian Assange asylum, officials within Ecuador's government have said. The WikiLeaks founder has been holed up at Ecuador's London embassy since 19 June, when he officially requested political asylum.
People who lie to others have merely hidden away the truth, but people who lie to themselves have forgotten where they put it.
Benutzeravatar
Britta
 
Beiträge: 2452
Registriert: Samstag 3. Juli 2010, 14:09

Re: Wie es euch gefällt - Persona non grata ?!?

Beitragvon Britta » Mittwoch 3. Oktober 2012, 17:34

Bradley Manning, der die Dokumente an Wikileaks weitergegeben haben soll, sitzt nun fast schon 900 Tage in Untersuchungshaft. Der Gerichtstermin ist auf den 04.02.2013 festgesetzt. Bis dahin wird er 983 Tage in Untersuchungshaft gesessen haben, ohne das auch nur ein einziger Beweis seiner Schuld vorgebracht wurde.

Diese lange Untersuchungshaft ist sehr ungewöhnlich und auch in den USA ungesetzlich. Die Regel des Militärgerichts sieht vor, dass einem Untersuchungshäftling innerhalb von 120 Tagen nach Beginn seiner Haft der Prozess gemacht werden muss.

Eigentlich gibt es keine Gründe für dieses lange Hinauszögern. Ein erster Protest dagegen wurde bereits im Januar 2011 von Anwaltsseite her eingelegt und seitdem wurden noch ettliche Proteste eingelegt. Haben aber alle nichts genutzt.

Angeblich arbeite man immer noch daran, die Dokumente an die Verteidiger weiter zu leiten, weswegen das Militärgericht jedesmal einer Vertagung zustimmte. Jedesmal, wenn die Regierung Dokumente an die Verteidigung gab, musste erneut eine Vertagung beantragt werden und wurde vom Militärgericht genehmigt. Sie wollten auch nicht erklären, wieso zwischen Freigabe der Dokumente und Weitergabe an die Verteidigung so viel Zeit verstrich. Manchmal waren es 3 Monate, manchmal sogar ein ganzes Jahr.

Dann beantragte die Anklage auch noch 8 Vertagungen, weil es angeblich noch mehr geheimes Material zu sichten gab, obwohl die Beweisaufnahme schon abgeschlossen war.

Dann kam die Regierung 1 1/2 Jahre nach der Anklage noch mit einem Berg von Enthüllungen und forensischen Beweisen, einen Monat vor der ersten Anhörung, wodurch die Verteidigung die Beweise gar nicht nutzen konnte. Statt nun von der Regierung eine Erklärung für die vielen Verzögerungen zu verlangen, stimmte das Gericht einfach einer weiteren Vertagung zu und die Staatsanwaltschaft war fein raus.

Ein anderes Mal wollte die Verteidigung gerade einen Antrag aufgrund der übergebenen Beweise stellen, als einen Tag davor die Regierung 1.300 E-Mails über Mannings Arrest in Quantico an die Verteidigung weiterleitete, die bereits seit mehreren Monaten in ihrem Besitz waren. Die Verteidigung musste dann das gesamte Material sichten und der Antrag wurde abgewiesen. Somit musste noch ein ergänzender Antrag gestellt werden, u.s.w. Wären die E-Mails gleich an die Verteidigung weitergeleitet worden, hätte man auch hier ein halbes Jahr an Verzögerung gespart.

Es wird noch bis November diesen Jahres dauern, bis man der Verteidigung das komplette, relevante Material zur Verfügung gestellt hat. Es könnte also gut sein, dass es auch am 04.02.2013 nicht zum Prozess kommt, wenn es noch mehr geheime Dokumente gibt, die man erst kurz zuvor öffentlich macht.

Ich habe ja jetzt nicht viel Ahnung von der US-Justiz, aber wenn das Militärrecht gemäß RCM 707 verlangt, dass ein Prozess innerhalb von 120 Tagen nach Beginn der Untersuchungshaft zu erfolgen hat, müsste Manning wohl gute Chancen haben, dann gleich auf freien Fuß zu kommen - in einem Rechtsstaat... :?
People who lie to others have merely hidden away the truth, but people who lie to themselves have forgotten where they put it.
Benutzeravatar
Britta
 
Beiträge: 2452
Registriert: Samstag 3. Juli 2010, 14:09

Re: Wie es euch gefällt - Persona non grata ?!?

Beitragvon Der Neandertaler » Mittwoch 3. Oktober 2012, 21:13

Hallo Britta.
Britta hat geschrieben:Die Regel des Militärgerichts sieht vor, ... müsste Manning wohl gute Chancen haben, dann gleich auf freien Fuß zu kommen - in einem Rechtsstaat... :?
LIebes, erstens würde ich sagen, daß sich beides primär erstmal ausschließt, daß Millitärgerichtsbarkeit wenige mit demokratischen und rechststaatlichen Maßstäben gemeßen werden kann; sie hat in gewißer Weise ihr eigenes System - besonders in den USA. Liegt vielleicht daran, daß es dort keine allgemeine Wehrpflicht gibt, sondern eine Freiwilligenarmee; die Armee ist sozusagen ein Staat im Staat ... steht uns vielleicht auch noch bevor - wenn's so weitergeht.

Was aber nicht heißt, daß diese millitärische(n) Vorgehensweise(n) und/oder Urteile nicht im Nachhinein von zivilen Gerichten oder sonstigen Institutionen untersucht und korrigiert werden können oder müssen. Auch muß sich das Millitär demokratischer und rechtststaatlicher Kontrolle unterwerfen.

So wie ich dies mal gelesen und verstanden habe, sind bestimmte Fristen - u.a. auch die 120 Tage-Regelung - ausschließbar, nach - ich glaube: RCM 707 (c) - durch bestimmte "Verzögerungen", die "durch einen militärischen Richter oder die Einberufung" einer "Behörde" genehmigt wurden.

Davon abgesehen begann - meines Wissens - am 16. Dezember 2011 eine auf fünf Tage angesetzte Anhörung vor einem Militärgericht in Fort Meade.
Am ersten Verhandlungstag wurden die Anklagepunkte verlesen - der Befangenheitsantrag gegen den Richter scheiterte.
Am 22. Dezember wurde das Hearing dann mit den Schlußplädoyers beendet.
Wir leben alle unter dem gleichen Himmel, aber wir haben nicht alle den gleichen Horizont.

Die Welt ist so geräumig und der Kopf ist so beschränkt.

Zpět k budoucnosti ke nejlebší čas.


-----

Viele Grüße
Der Neandertaler
Benutzeravatar
Der Neandertaler
 
Beiträge: 752
Registriert: Mittwoch 1. September 2010, 05:37

Re: Wie es euch gefällt - Persona non grata ?!?

Beitragvon Britta » Samstag 20. Oktober 2012, 10:55

Gestern begann die Anhörung, bei der Anklage und Verteidigung die Zeugen und Beweise benennen sollten, die bei der Gerichtsverhandlung Verwendung finden.

Es gab einige interessante Entwicklungen. So brachte die Verteidigung z.B. einen Beweis dafür, dass das "Collateral Murder" Video schon bekannt und verwendet wurde, 1 Jahr bevor Manning es an Wikileaks weitergegeben hatte:

http://www.bradleymanning.org/news/cour ... er-17-2012
A major issue today was David Finkel’s 2009 book The Good Soldiers, which the defense says includes verbatim transcript excerpts of the ‘Collateral Murder’ video.

Auch geht es darum, ob der USA durch die Weitergabe von Informationen an Wikileaks tatsächlich ein Schaden entstanden ist, der die Nationale Sicherheit gefährdet. Und möglicherweise muss das Verfahren aufgrund der vielen Verzögerungen und der langen Untersuchungshaft eingestellt werden. Das zumindest versucht die Verteidigung nebenbei zu erreichen.

Man einigte sich jedenfalls erstmal auf die zu ladenden Zeugen und das für den Prozess relevante Beweismaterial. Die US-Regierung muss der Verteidigung noch weitere 600 E-Mails zur Einsicht geben, betreffend Mannings Isolationshaft in Quantico. (Ein kleiner Sieg für die Verteidigung).
People who lie to others have merely hidden away the truth, but people who lie to themselves have forgotten where they put it.
Benutzeravatar
Britta
 
Beiträge: 2452
Registriert: Samstag 3. Juli 2010, 14:09

Re: Wie es euch gefällt - Persona non grata ?!?

Beitragvon Britta » Donnerstag 7. März 2013, 13:12

Inzwischen sind erste Kopien von Mannings Stellungnahme im Web einsehbar. Sie enthällt eine Menge Informationen, auch über den Mensch Bradley Manning.

Es war sein Job, solche Dokumente und Videos anzusehen und zu analysieren. Das Resultat seiner Analyse war, dass die Öffentlichkeit erfahren muss, was da passiert.

Nachfolgend ein paar Auszüge seines Statements.

Zum Video „Collateral Murder“ über den Angriff auf Journalisten und Zivilisten im Irak.

Bevor Wikileaks dieses Video veröffentlichte, hatte Manning bereits viele andere Dokumente weitergegeben:
Using Google I searched for the event by its date by its and general location. I found several news accounts involving two Reuters employees who were killed during the aerial weapon team engagement. Another story explained that Reuters had requested for a copy of the video under the Freedom of Information Act or FOIA. Reuters wanted to view the video in order to be able to understand what had happened and to improve their safety practices in combat zones. A spokesperson for Reuters was quoted saying that the video might help avoid the reoccurrence of the tragedy and believed there was a compelling need for the immediate release of the video.

Despite the submission of the FOIA request, the news account explained that CENTCOM replied to Reuters stating that they could not give a time frame for considering a FOIA request and that the video might no longer exist. Another story I found written a year later said that even though Reuters was still pursuing their request, they still did not receive a formal response or written determination in accordance with FOIA.

The fact neither CENTCOM or Multi National Forces Iraq or MNF-I would not voluntarily release the video troubled me further. It was clear to me that the event happened because the aerial weapons team mistakenly identified Reuters employees as a potential threat and that the people in the bongo truck were merely attempting to assist the wounded. The people in the van were not a threat but merely ‘good samaritans’. The most alarming aspect of the video to me, however, was the seemly delightful bloodlust they appeared to have.

They dehumanized the individuals they were engaging and seemed to not value human life by referring to them as quote “dead bastards” unquote and congratulating each other on the ability to kill in large numbers. At one point in the video there is an individual on the ground attempting to crawl to safety. The individual is seriously wounded. Instead of calling for medical attention to the location, one of the aerial weapons team crew members verbally asks for the wounded person to pick up a weapon so that he can have a reason to engage. For me, this seems similar to a child torturing ants with a magnifying glass.

While saddened by the aerial weapons team crew’s lack of concern about human life, I was disturbed by the response of the discovery of injured children at the scene. In the video, you can see that the bongo truck driving up to assist the wounded individual. In response the aerial weapons team crew– as soon as the individuals are a threat, they repeatedly request for authorization to fire on the bongo truck and once granted they engage the vehicle at least six times.

Shortly after the second engagement, a mechanized infantry unit arrives at the scene. Within minutes, the aerial weapons team crew learns that children were in the van and despite the injuries the crew exhibits no remorse. Instead, they downplay the significance of their actions, saying quote “Well, it’s their fault for bringing their kid’s into a battle” unquote.

The aerial weapons team crew members sound like they lack sympathy for the children or the parents. Later in a particularly disturbing manner, the aerial weapons team crew verbalizes enjoyment at the sight of one of the ground vehicles driving over a body– or one of the bodies. As I continued my research, I found an article discussing the book, The Good Soldiers, written by Washington Post writer David Finkel.

In Mr. Finkel book, he writes about the aerial weapons team attack. As, I read an online excerpt in Google Books, I followed Mr. Finkel’s account of the event belonging to the video. I quickly realize that Mr. Finkel was quoting, I feel in verbatim, the audio communications of the aerial weapons team crew.

It is clear to me that Mr. Finkel obtained access and a copy of the video during his tenure as an embedded journalist. I was aghast at Mr. Finkel’s portrayal of the incident. Reading his account, one would believe the engagement was somehow justified as ‘payback’ for an earlier attack that lead to the death of a soldier. Mr. Finkel ends his account of the engagement by discussing how a soldier finds an individual still alive from the attack. He writes that the soldier finds him and sees him gesture with his two forefingers together, a common method in the Middle East to communicate that they are friendly. However, instead of assisting him, the soldier makes an obscene gesture extending his middle finger.

The individual apparently dies shortly thereafter. Reading this, I can only think of how this person was simply trying to help others, and then he quickly finds he needs help as well. To make matter worse, in the last moments of his life, he continues to express his friendly gesture– his friendly intent– only to find himself receiving this well known gesture of unfriendliness. For me it’s all a big mess, and I am left wondering what these things mean, and how it all fits together , and it burdens me emotionally.

I saved a copy of the video on my workstation. I searched for and found the rules of engagement, the rules of engagement annexes, and a flow chart from the 2007 time period– as well as an unclassified Rules of Engagement smart card from 2006. On 15 February 2010 I burned these documents onto a CD-RW, the same time I burned the 10 Reykjavik 13 cable onto a CD-RW. At the time, I placed the video and rules for of engagement information onto my personal laptop in my CHU. I planned to keep this information there until I redeployed in Summer of 2010. I planned on providing this to the Reuters office in London to assist them in preventing events such as this in the future.

However, after the WLO published 10 Reykjavik 13 I altered my plans. I decided to provide the video and the rules of engagement to them so that Reuters would have this information before I re-deployed from Iraq. On about 21 February 2010, I as described above, I used the WLO submission form and uploaded the documents. The WLO released the video on 5 April 2010. After the release, I was concern about the impact of the video and how it would be received by the general public.

I hoped that the public would be as alarmed as me about the conduct of the aerial weapons team crew members. I wanted the American public to know that not everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan are targets that needed to be neutralized, but rather people who were struggling to live in the pressure cooker environment of what we call asymmetric warfare. After the release I was encouraged by the response in the media and general public, who observed the aerial weapons team video. As I hoped, others were just as troubled– if not more troubled that me by what they saw.

At this time, I began seeing reports claiming that the Department of Defense and CENTCOM could not confirm the authenticity of the video. Additionally, one of my supervisors, Captain Casey Fulton, stated her belief that the video was not authentic. In her response, I decided to ensure that the authenticity of the video would not be questioned in the future. On 25 February 2010, I emailed Captain Fulton a link to the video that was on our ‘T’ drive, and a copy of the video published by WLO that was collected by the Open Source Center, so she could compare them herself.

Around this time frame, I burned a second CD-RW containing the aerial weapons team video. In order to made it appear authentic, I placed a classification sticker and wrote Reuters FOIA REQ on its face. I placed the CD-RW in one of my personal CD cases containing a set of ‘Starting Out in Arabic’ CD’s. I planned on mailing out the CD-RW to Reuters after our I re-deployed , so they could have a copy that was unquestionably authentic.

Almost immediately after submitting the aerial weapons team video and the rules of engagement documents I notified the individuals in the WLO IRC to expect an important submission. I received a response from an individual going by the handle of ‘ox’ ‘office’– at first our conversations were general in nature, but over time as our conversations progressed, I accessed assessed this individual to be an important part of the WLO…


Über einen Vorfall im Irak, wo Menschen verhaftet wurden, die angeblich „anti-irakische Literatur“ verbreiteten, die aber tatsächlich nur die Korruption der Al-Maliki Regierung deutlich machte, also aufklärender Journalismus war:

On 27 February 2010, a report was received from a subordinate battalion. The report described an event in which the Federal Police or FP detained 15 individuals for printing anti-Iraqi literature. On 2 March 2010, I received instructions from an S3 section officer in the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division Tactical Operation Center or TOC to investigate the matter, and figure out who these quote ‘bad guys’ unquote were and how significant this event was for the Federal Police.
Over the course of my research I found that none of the individuals had previous ties to anti-Iraqi actions or suspected terrorist militia groups. A few hours later, I received several photos from the scene– from the subordinate battalion. They were accidentally sent to an officer on a different team on than the S2 section and she forwarded them to me.

These photos included picture of the individuals, pallets of unprinted paper and seized copies of the final printed material or the printed document; and a high resolution photo of the printed material itself. I printed up one [missed word] copy of a high resolution photo– I laminated it for ease of use and transfer. I then walked to the TOC and delivered the laminated copy to our category two interpreter.

She reviewed the information and about a half an hour later delivered a rough written transcript in English to the S2 section. I read the transcript and followed up with her, asking her for her take on the content. She said it was easy for her to transcribe verbatim, since I blew up the photograph and laminated it. She said the general nature of the document was benign. The documentation, as I had sensed as well, was merely a scholarly critique of the then current Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

It detailed corruption within the cabinet of al-Maliki’s government and the financial impact of his corruption on the Iraqi people. After discovering this discrepancy between the Federal Police’s report and the interpreter’s transcript, I forwarded this discovery to the top OIC and the battle NCOIC. The top OIC and the overhearing battle captain informed me that they didn’t need or want to know this information anymore. They told me to quote “drop it” unquote and to just assist them and the Federal Police in finding out, where more of these print shops creating quote “anti-Iraqi literature” unquote.
I couldn’t believe what I heard and I returned to the T-SCIF and complained to the other analysts and my section NCOIC about what happened. Some were sympathetic, but no one wanted to do anything about it.

I am the type of person who likes to know how things work. And, as an analyst, this means I always want to figure out the truth. Unlike other analysts in my section or other sections within the 2nd Brigade Combat Team, I was not satisfied with just scratching the surface and producing canned or cookie cutter assessments. I wanted to know why something was the way it was, and what we could to correct or mitigate a situation.
I knew that if I continued to assist the Baghdad Federal Police in identifying the political opponents of Prime Minister al-Maliki, those people would be arrested and in the custody of the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police and very likely tortured and not seen again for a very long time– if ever.

Instead of assisting the Special Unit of the Baghdad Federal Police, I decided to take the information and expose it to the WLO, in the hope that before the upcoming 7 March 2010 election, they could generate some immediate press on the issue and prevent this unit of the Federal Police from continuing to crack down on political opponents of al-Maliki.

On 4 March 2010, I burned the report, the photos, the high resolution copy of the pamphlet, and the interpreter’s hand written transcript onto a CD-RW. I took the CD-RW to my CHU and copied the data onto my personal computer. Unlike the times before, instead of uploading the information through the WLO website’s submission form. I made a Secure File Transfer Protocol or SFTP connection to a file drop box operated by the WLO.

The drop box contained a folder that allowed me to upload directly into it. Saving files into this directory, allowed anyone with log in access to the server to view and download them. After uploading these files to the WLO, on 5 March 2010, I notified Nathaniel over Jabber. Although sympathetic, he said that the WLO needed more information to confirm the event in order for it to be published or to gain interest in the international media.


Über Guantanamo:

The DABs were written in standard DoD memorandum format and addressed the commander US SOUTHCOM. Each memorandum gave basic and background information about a specific detainee held at some point by Joint Task Force Guantanamo. I have always been interested on the issue of the moral efficacy of our actions surrounding Joint Task Force Guantanamo. On the one hand, I have always understood the need to detain and interrogate individuals who might wish to harm the United States and our allies, however, I felt that’s what we were trying to do at Joint Task Force Guantanamo.
However, the more I became educated on the topic, it seemed that we found ourselves holding an increasing number of individuals indefinitely that we believed or knew to be innocent, low level foot soldiers that did not have useful intelligence and would be released if they were still held in theater.

I also recall that in early 2009 the, then newly elected president, Barack Obama, stated that he would close Joint Task Force Guantanamo, and that the facility compromised our standing over all, and diminished our quote ‘moral authority’ unquote.
After familiarizing myself with the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I agree. Reading through the Detainee Assessment Briefs, I noticed that they were not analytical products, instead they contained summaries of tear line versions of interim intelligence reports that were old or unclassified. None of the DABs contained the names of sources or quotes from tactical interrogation reports or TIR’s. Since the DABs were being sent to the US SOUTHCOM commander, I assessed that they were intended to provide a very general background information on each of the detainees and not a detailed assessment.

In addition to the manner in which the DAB’s were written, I recognized that they were at least several years old, and discussed detainees that were already released from Joint Task Force Guantanamo. Based on this, I determined that the DABs were not very important from either an intelligence or a national security standpoint. On 7 March 2010, during my Jabber conversation with Nathaniel, I asked him if he thought the DABs were of any use to anyone.

Nathaniel indicated, although he did not believe that they were of political significance, he did believe that they could be used to merge into the general historical account of what occurred at Joint Task Force Guantanamo. He also thought that the DAB’s might be helpful to the legal counsel of those currently and previously held at JTF-GTMO.
After this discussion, I decided to download the data DABs. I used an application called Wget to download the DABs. I downloaded Wget off of the NIPRnet laptop in the T-SCIF, like other programs. I saved that onto a CD-RW, and placed the executable in my ‘My Documents’ directory on of my user profile, on the D6-A SIPRnet workstation.

On 7 March 2010, I took the list of links for the Detainee Assessment Briefs, and Wget downloaded them sequentially. I burned the data onto a CD-RW, and took it into my CHU, and copied them to my personal computer. On 8 March 2010, I combined the Detainee Assessment Briefs with the United States Army Counterintelligence Center report on the WLO, into a compressed [missed word] IP or zip file. Zip files contain multiple files which are compressed to reduce their size.

After creating the zip file, I uploaded the file onto their cloud drop box via Secure File Transfer Protocol. Once these were uploaded, I notified Nathaniel that the information was in the ‘x’ directory, which had been designated for my own use. Earlier that day, I downloaded the USACIC report on WLO.



Over the next few weeks I did not send any additional information to the WLO. I continued to converse with Nathaniel over the Jabber client and in the WLO IRC channel. Although I stopped sending documents to WLO, no one associated with the WLO pressured me into giving more information. The decisions that I made to send documents and information to the WLO and the website were my own decisions, and I take full responsibility for my actions.


Er erklärt, dass es alleine seine eigene Entscheidung war, die Dokumente an Wikileaks zu senden und das er von niemandem dazu gedrängt wurde, er übernimmt dafür die alleinige Verantwortung.

Es war sein Job, geheime Dokumente zu lesen und die Informationen daraus zu verarbeiten. Manche davon waren zu viel für ihn.

Nathaniel war seine Bezugsperson im Web. Zu seinen Arbeitskollegen hatte er keine soziale Beziehung und auch in der realen Welt war er ein Einzelgänger.

One 22 March 2010, I downloaded two documents. I found these documents over the course of my normal duties as an analyst. Based on my training and the guidance of my superiors, I look at as much information as possible.

Doing so provided me with the ability to make connections that others might miss. On several occasions during the month of March, I accessed information from a government entity. I read several documents from a section within this government entity. The content of two of these documents upset me greatly. I had difficulty believing what this section was doing.

On 22 March 2010, I downloaded the two documents that I found troubling. I compressed them into a zip file named blah.zip and burned them onto a CD-RW. I took the CD-RW to my CHU and saved the file to my personal computer.

I uploaded the information to the WLO website using the designated prompts.


Manche Schweinereien die da passiert sind, sind wirklich unglaublich. Ich kann nachvollziehen, warum Manning diese Informationen weitergab, um sie öffentlich zu machen. Geändert hat es leider nichts.

Als Wikileaks dann im März 2010 das Video “Collateral Murder” veröffentlichte, hatte Nathaniel nicht viel Zeit für Manning. Der war von der Arbeit gelangweilt, einsam, hatte Schwierigkeiten am Arbeitsplatz und lenkte sich mit Cables lesen von allen Problemen ab.

In late March of 2010, I received a warning over Jabber from Nathaniel, that the WLO website would be publishing the aerial weapons team video. He indicated that the WLO would be very busy and the frequency and intensity of our Jabber conversations decrease significantly. During this time, I had nothing but work to distract me.
I read more of the diplomatic cables published on the Department of State Net Centric Diplomacy server. With my insatiable curiosity and interest in geopolitics I became fascinated with them. I read not only the cables on Iraq, but also about countries and events that I found interesting.

The more I read, the more I was fascinated with by the way that we dealt with other nations and organizations. I also began to think that the documented backdoor deals and seemingly criminal activity that didn’t seem characteristic of the de facto leader of the free world.

Up to this point, during the deployment, I had issues I struggled with and difficulty at work. Of the documents release, the cables were the only one I was not absolutely certain couldn’t harm the United States. I conducted research on the cables published on the Net Centric Diplomacy, as well as how Department of State cables worked in general.

In particular, I wanted to know how each cable was published on SIRPnet via the Net Centric Diplomacy. As part of my open source research, I found a document published by the Department of State on its official website.

The document provided guidance on caption markings for individual cables and handling instructions for their distribution. I quickly learned the caption markings clearly detailed the sensitivity level of the Department of State cables. For example, NODIS or No Distribution was used for messages at the highest sensitivity and were only distributed to the authorized recipients.

The SIPDIS or SIPRnet distribution caption was applied only to recording of other information messages that were deemed appropriate for a release for a wide number of individuals. According to the Department of State guidance for a cable to have the SIPDIS [missed word] caption, it could not include other captions that were intended to limit distribution.

The SIPDIS caption was only for information that could only be shared with anyone with access to SIPRnet. I was aware that thousands of military personnel, DoD, Department of State, and other civilian agencies had easy access to the tables. The fact that the SIPDIS caption was only for wide distribution made sense to me, given that the vast majority of the Net Centric Diplomacy Cables were not classified.

The more I read the cables, the more I came to the conclusion that this was the type of information that– that this type of information should become public. I once read a and used a quote on open diplomacy written after the First World War and how the world would be a better place if states would avoid making secret pacts and deals with and against each other.

I thought these cables were a prime example of a need for a more open diplomacy. Given all of the Department of State cables information that I read, the fact that most of the cables were unclassified, and that all the cables have a SIPDIS caption, I believe that the public release of these cables would not damage the United States; however, I did believe that the cables might be embarrassing, since they represented very honest opinions and statements behind the backs of other nations and organizations.

In many ways these cables are a catalogue of cliques and gossip. I believed exposing this information might make some within the Department of State and other government entities unhappy. On 22 March 2010, I began downloading a copy of the SIPDIS cables using the program Wget, described above.


Und “Collateral Murder” war kein Einzelfall:

In late March 2010, I discovered a US CENTCOM directly on a 2009 airstrike in Afghanistan. I was searching CENTCOM for information I could use as an analyst. As described above, this was something that myself and other analysts and officers did on a frequent basis. As I reviewed the documents I recalled the incident and what happened. The airstrike occurred in the Garani village in the Farah Province, Northwestern Afghanistan. It received worldwide press coverage during the time as it was reported that up to 100 to 150 Afghan civilians– mostly women and children– were accidentally killed during the airstrike.

After going through the report and the [missed word] annexes, I began to review the incident as being similar to the 12 July 2007 aerial weapons team engagements in Iraq. However, this event was noticeably different in that it involved a significantly higher number of individuals, larger aircraft and much heavier munitions. Also, the conclusions of the report are even more disturbing than those of the July 2007 incident.
I did not see anything in the 15-6 report or its annexes that gave away sensitive information. Rather, the investigation and its conclusions helped explain how this incident occurred, and were– what those involved should have done, and how to avoid an event like this from occurring again.

After investigating the report and its annexes, I downloaded the 15-6 investigation, PowerPoint presentations, and several other supporting documents to my D6-A workstation. I also downloaded three zip files containing the videos of the incident. I burned this information onto a CD-RW and transferred it to the personal computer in my CHU. I did later that day or the next day– I uploaded the information to the WLO website this time using a new version of the WLO website submission form.

Unlike other times using the submission form above, I did not activate the TOR anonymizer. Your Honor, this concludes my statement and facts for this providence inquiry.
People who lie to others have merely hidden away the truth, but people who lie to themselves have forgotten where they put it.
Benutzeravatar
Britta
 
Beiträge: 2452
Registriert: Samstag 3. Juli 2010, 14:09

Vorherige

Zurück zu Innen- und Außenpolitik

Wer ist online?

Mitglieder in diesem Forum: 0 Mitglieder und 5 Gäste

cron