Showing posts with label Bradley Manning. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bradley Manning. Show all posts

09 June 2011

BKNT--RORY O'CONNOR: Obama Comes for the Journalists--OS

- OPEN SOURCE  US/1
- MEMBER CONTRIBUTIONS


 Obama Comes for the Journalists
May 30, 2011
 
German theologian Martin Niemoller was a staunch anti-Communist who supported Hitler’s rise to power — at first. 

He later became disillusioned, however, and led a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. In 1937 Niemoller was arrested for the crime of “not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement” and later sent to concentration camps. Rescued in 1945 by the Allies, he became a leading post-war voice of reconciliation for the German people.

Niemoller is most famous for his well-known and frequently quoted statement detailing the dangers of political apathy in the face of repression. Although it described the inactivity of Germans following the Hitler’s rise to power and his violent purging of group after group of German citizens, his statement lives on as a universal description of the dangers of not standing up against tyranny.

The text of the Niemoller’s statement is usually presented as follows:


First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I was reminded of Niemoller recently when federal prosecutors issued a subpoena intended to force New York Times reporter James Risen, the author of a book on the Central Intelligence Agency, to testify at the criminal trial of Jeffrey Sterling, a former C.I.A. officer. Sterling was charged as part of a wide-ranging Obama administration crackdown on officials accused of disclosing restricted information to journalists. Now the Obama Justice Department is threatening to jail a journalist as well unless down Risen tells them if Sterling or someone else leaked information about the CIA’s efforts to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program.

The subpoena, as Charlie Savage reported recently in the Times, “tells Mr. Risen that ‘you are commanded’ to appear at federal district court in Alexandria, Va., on Sept. 12 to testify in the case. A federal district judge, Leonie M. Brinkema, quashed a similar subpoena to Mr. Risen last year, when prosecutors were trying to persuade a grand jury to indict Mr. Sterling.”

Risen rightly says he will ask the judge to quash the new subpoena as well, stating forthrightly, “I will always protect my sources,” and rightly that, “this is a fight about the First Amendment and the freedom of the press.”

It’s bad enough that ever since President Obama took office, he has repeatedly gone after whistleblowers like Sterling with a cold vengeance, charging more people in cases involving leaking information than “all previous presidents combined,” as Savage noted.

But Obama administration officials are no longer content just with targeting whistleblowers like Sterling, former National Security Agency official Thomas Drake, (who goes on trial soon on charges of providing classified information to The Baltimore Sun) and of course Bradley Manning, the Army intelligence analyst accused – and already pronounced guilty by the president — of passing a classified video of an American military helicopter shooting Baghdad civilians to Wikileaks.org. Now they are coming for the journalists as well – just as Bush Administration officials did before them.

And if Risen’s subpoena is not quashed and he still refuses to testify, he risks being held in contempt and imprisoned, just as Times reporter Judy Miller was for 85 days for her refusal to testify in connection with the Valerie Plame Wilson leak in 2005.

Obama’s prosecutors argue that the First Amendment doesn’t give Risen any right to avoid testifying about his confidential sources in a criminal proceeding, and that the Pulitzer Prize winning journalist should be compelled to provide information to a jury “like any other citizen.”

Citizens as well as journalists need to stand up for Risen and against the sleazy, Bush-like tactics of the Obamacrats and the burgeoning national security state. Otherwise, if you don’t speak out when they come, first for the whistleblowers, and then for the journalists, when they come for you, there will be no one left to speak out…

Leave a Comment


 [Information contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any government, agency, or news organization.]

Prosecution Setback Seen in NSA-Baltimore Sun Case--OS

- OPEN SOURCE  US/1; ATTN: JAG/1; HD/23; JAG/5; HST/2


Case against ex-NSA manager accused of mishandling classified files narrows

 

By Ellen Nakashima, Published: June 8, 2011

 

Federal prosecutors will withdraw key documents from their case against a former National Security Agency manager charged with mishandling classified material, a move that experts say could signal the unraveling of one of the Obama administration’s most prominent efforts to punish accused leakers.


Prosecutors informed U.S. District Judge Richard Bennett this week that they would withhold documents they had planned to introduce as evidence to keep from disclosing sensitive technology. Former NSA executive Thomas A. Drake is charged with unlawfully retaining classified information at a time when he was in touch with a Baltimore Sun reporter who later chronicled mismanagement at the agency. 


The government has used the 1917 Espionage Act, which has been criticized as vague and overbroad, to charge Drake, one of five such cases against alleged leakers under the Obama administration. Drake is not accused of spying, but the law’s provisions criminalize the unauthorized retention of classified material. The trial is set to begin Monday.


The government’s decision to withhold certain documents may complicate prosecutors’ efforts to prove a violation of the act, suggesting that the government may have overreached in using an espionage law to target a suspected leaker.


“By withdrawing several of the exhibits, at least a couple of the counts against Drake will almost certainly need to be dismissed,” said Steven Aftergood, a national security expert with the Federation of American Scientists who has followed the case closely since Drake was indicted last year. “It changes the whole dynamic of the prosecution and may even set the stage for settlement or dismissal.”


Prosecutors “gambled that the court would permit them to submit unclassified substitutions for this information,” Aftergood said. “The case isn’t over, but this is clearly a setback for the prosecution.” 

Transparency activists and media experts warn that such prosecutions could stanch the flow of information the public needs to judge policy, and George W. Bush administration officials see the prosecutions as selective — ignoring high-level officials who release sensitive information to advance their personal or policy agendas.


Justice Department spokesman Laura Sweeney declined to comment on the case.
Drake, 54, could face 35 years in prison if convicted of “willful retention of national defense information.” He is not charged with a leak.


Drake has said that he is a whistleblower who is facing a politically motivated reprisal for drawing attention to the NSA’s inefficiencies. “I will never plea-bargain with the truth,” he told friends last year.


Drake was a senior executive at the NSA — a “senior change leader” — who professed an ambition to change the agency’s insular culture. He became disillusioned with the agency’s handling of major technology programs and concerned that the NSA was needlessly violating Americans’ privacy through a massive surveillance program adopted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He raised concerns with officials and the inspector general, and later with the reporter, before leaving the agency in 2008. 


According to people following the case, the government may have to drop two Espionage Act counts that relate to information that Drake submitted to the Defense Department inspector general between 2002 and 2004 to buttress colleagues’ complaints about waste, fraud and abuse of a bungled NSA data-sifting program, Trailblazer. He and his former NSA colleagues thought the complaints were confidential. 
The evidence for those two counts is contained in Exhibits 42 and 43, according to the sources. Prosecutor William M. Welch II, in a letter Sunday to Bennett, a U.S. District Court judge in Baltimore, said those exhibits will be withdrawn. The letter was first reported by Politico.


Another exhibit, numbered 41, also consisting of information Drake submitted to the inspector general, is intended to support a third Espionage Act count, which may also be dropped, the sources said. That exhibit will be redacted, the prosecution has said. 


Two remaining Espionage Act charges relate to information that Drake possessed but that had been published on the NSA’s in-house intranet. Legal experts said Drake could contend that the material was unclassified information that was widely available to tens of thousands of agency employees.
The rest of the charges — one count of obstruction of justice and four counts of making a false statement — are less important, legal experts said. 


Prosecutors decided to withdraw and redact the documents after Bennett ruled that they could not substitute unclassified language without harming Drake’s ability to mount a defense.


In his letter, Welch, who led the unsuccessful corruption prosecution of the late senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), stated he was withdrawing four exhibits and redacting two more to remove any reference to a “particular telecommunications technology.”


“In short, no reference to the technology will be made,” Welch said. “This will allow continued protection of the details of NSA’s efforts in this area, while simultaneously protecting the defendant’s constitutional ability to present his defense.”


The case against Drake is already leaner than initially planned. Welch’s predecessor, Steven Tyrrell, had wanted to charge Drake with leaking classified documents to a reporter and being part of a conspiracy, according to an early draft of the indictment that Welch inadvertently sent to the defense team. 


Leak prosecutions under the Espionage Act had been relatively rare until the Obama administration. Daniel Ellsberg, who gave the Pentagon Papers to a reporter, was the first leaker indicted under the law, but his case ended with a mistrial after government misconduct. 


The Obama administration is presiding over five cases involving the act, including those against Pfc. Bradley Manning, a former Army intelligence analyst accused of passing State Department and military war data to the anti-secrecy Web site WikiLeaks; Stephen Kim, a former State Department analyst accused of leaking to a television reporter; and Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA analyst accused of passing classified information to author and New York Times reporter James Risen...


...Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/national-security/case-against-ex-nsa-manager-accused-of-mishandling-classified-files-narrows/2011/06/07/AGk3ZZMH_story.html?hpid=z1

 [Information contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any government, agency, or news organization.]

02 June 2011

FLASH--PBS hacked in retribution for Frontline Wikileaks episode--LD

- FLASHLIMITED DISSEMINATION
CID/2; US/301; US/1; ATTN: HST/2; NSNS/1; VS/2; US/12



[ed.note: Very interesting. Monday night, US/1 was repeatedly unable to get on any Frontline hyperlinks from the BlackNETintel Page, than being directed to a generic PBS page. Thanks CID/2!

Last week, http://blacknetintel.blogspot.com had it’s first comment posted from “Anonymous,” complaining about a report on US interference in IRAN.


Also, several internet searchs for BKNT website posting on 22 May 2011 = BKNT--FRONTLINE: WikiSECRETS - Tues. 24 MAY 9 PM ET--OS, seeming to orginate from, www.google.com.au (AUSTRALIA).



Perhaps by fortunate happenstance, BKNT-HQ posted this sidebar after actually viewing the film:

WikiSECRETS - New!

 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/wikileaks/
WiKiLEAKI: Exposed...or Explained?

In addition, the following two BKNT website IMAGEs were searched for: the SixTeamSIX emblem (unofficial) and the Al-Awlaki soliciting MUGSHOT BKNT--Anwar al-Awlaki - A Taste for the Ladies--OS.


       . LIMITED DISSEMINATION, ABOVE:]

OPEN SOURCE BELOW:


The PBS.org website, and data associated with the PBS television network, its programs, and its affiliate stations, appear to have just been hacked by an entity calling itself LulzSec (or "The Lulz Boat"). The hack was made public around 1130pm ET, Sunday, May 29, and included cracking the PBS server, posting a bogus news story and some defacements, and publishing what appear to be thousands of passwords.
The information compromised and published included network, server, and database details and logins, as well as user login data for some PBS staff and contractors. As of 3:24am ET Monday, some defacements are still live on pbs.org.


The group that carried out the hack claims they are not affiliated with "Anonymous", and that the action is retribution for the recent "Wikisecrets" episode on Wikileaks, which was perceived by Wikileaks and its supporters to be unfair to Wikileaks.


According to an article in the Australian edition of IT security publication SC Magazine, LulzSec has gone after other media entities in recent weeks: Fox News Network and the TV show X-Factor are reported as prior targets. As the name implies, LulzSec would appear to be in it for the proverbial lulz, rather than, say, financial gain.


A statement from LulzSec:
Greetings, Internets. We just finished watching WikiSecrets and were less than impressed. We decided to sail our Lulz Boat over to the PBS servers for further... perusing. As you should know by now, not even that fancy-ass fortress from the third shitty Pirates of the Caribbean movie (first one was better!) can withhold our barrage of chaos and lulz. Anyway, unnecessary sequels aside... wait, actually: second and third Matrix movies sucked too! Anyway, say hello to the insides of the PBS servers, folks. They best watch where they're sailing next time.

The PBS program Frontline (and specifically the producers of the "Wikisecrets" episode), may have been the stated target, but the scope of intrusion was significantly more broad. And the Frontline site and its "Wikisecrets" subsite don't show any signs of a hack at all. 

LulzSec posted an overview of the data and defacements here.


Here's a cache of the fake "Tupac still alive in New Zealand" story the intruders posted. Unfortunately, Tupac remains dead, and PBS NewsHour social media and online engagement point person Teresa Gorman spent Sunday night on Twitter repeating this fact to dozens of incredulous individuals and news organizations [partial screengrab of @gteresa's Twitter feed here].


Here's a copy of the "Free Bradley Manning" defacement page LulzSec posted, featuring the "nyan cat" meme.


Below, a screengrab of @LulzSec's Twitter timeline documenting the attack. Click for full size.

UPDATE, 3:50am ET: Wired story here

[: Hacktivists Scorch PBS in Retaliation for WikiLeaks Documentary

A hacker group unhappy with PBS Frontline’s hour-long documentary on WikiLeaks has hit back at the Public Broadcasting System by cracking its servers, posting thousands of stolen passwords, and adding a fake news story to a blog belonging to the august PBS Newshour…”]
, New York Times story here.

[:Hackers Disrupt PBS Web Site and Post a Fake Report About a Rap Artist

By JOHN MARKOFF
Published: May 30, 2011
The PBS Web site briefly carried a fake article claiming that the famed rapper Tupac Shakur was alive and living in New Zealand after a group of hackers took over the organization’s computer systems on Saturday night.
In  addition to posting the fake news article, the group, which identified itself on Twitter as @LulzSec or The Lulz Boat, began posting passwords and e-mail addresses of people from a wide range of news organizations and other information belonging to PBS.
As late as 2:30 a.m. on Monday, PBS had still not regained control of its Web site as the hackers continued to post defaced pages.
Comments posted by LulzSec indicated that the group was unhappy with a Frontline program about WikiLeaks that was recently shown on PBS. The group began posting messages on Twitter about midnight on Sunday: “What’s wrong with @PBS, how come all of its servers are rooted? How come their database is seized? Why are passwords cracked?”  That message was followed by a succession of posts with links to lists of passwords and other data…]


UPDATE, 5:50pm ET, Monday: PBS issued a statement on the hack; shortly afterwards, new evidence of hacking/takeover/defacement was visible at the PBS Frontline url (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/), then disappeared. (via Greg Mitchell)
News, Technology, security, television • Tags: Anonymous, bradley manning, Frontline, julian assange, Lulzsec, NewsHour, PBS, Wikileaks



 

FRONTLINE statement on PBS hacking

Hackers attacked PBS' servers late Sunday night, publishing internal login information and posting fake news on PBS.org sites. A hackers' group said the attack was a protest against a FRONTLINE film broadcast last week examining the anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks. PBS said that no viewer information was compromised and that the sites were repaired quickly.

Following the broadcast last Tuesday of "WikiSecrets," about alleged leaker Bradley Manning and WikiLeaks, FRONTLINE received both praise and criticism from viewers. Some supporters of Manning and WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange objected to what they saw as negative portrayals of the two men. FRONTLINE published and addressed criticism at its website, including comments from Manning's father Brian, Manning supporter David House, WikiLeaks supporter Gavin MacFadyen and Julian Assange.

FRONTLINE Executive Producer David Fanning called the hackers' attack "irresponsible and chilling."

"We see it as a disappointing and irresponsible act. We have been very open to publishing criticism of the film, and the film itself included multiple points of view. Rather than engaging in that spirit, this is an attempt to chill independent journalism."

You can watch "WikiSecrets" and read the discussions here.

[Information contained in BKNT E-mail is considered Attorney-Client and Attorney Work Product privileged, copyrighted and confidential. Views that may be expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of any government, agency, or news organization.]

22 May 2011

BKNT--FRONTLINE: WikiSECRETS - Tues. 24 MAY 9 PM ET--OS


Channel
                Intelligence - OPEN SOURCE
SR-6; US/1; ATTN: HST/2; NSNS/1; JAG/1; JAG/5; HD/23; US/12; NavySEALs.com; Mil.COM

VIDEO Preview
Excerpt 1: Don't Ask, Don't Tell
Excerpt 2: Welcome to the Hacker Space
PRESS RELEASE

It's the biggest intelligence breach in U.S. history—the leaking of more than half-a-million classified documents on the WikiLeaks website in the spring of 2010. Behind it all, stand two very different men: Julian Assange, the Internet activist and hacker who published the documents, and an Army intelligence analyst named Bradley E. Manning, who's currently charged with handing them over. Private Manning allegedly leaked the secret cables—along with a controversial video—in the hope of inciting "worldwide discussion, debates and reforms." Assange's stated mission has been to force the U.S. and other governments into maximum transparency through his whistle-blowing website. Through in-depth interviews with Manning's father, Assange, and others close to the case, veteran FRONTLINE correspondent Martin Smith tells the full story behind the leaks. He also reports on the U.S. government's struggle to protect national security information in a post 9/11 world.

 

Press Release

FRONTLINE INVESTIGATES THE STORY OF PRIVATE BRADLEY MANNING AND THE WIKILEAKS CONTROVERSY

FRONTLINE presents
WikiSecrets
Tuesday, May 24, 2011, at 9 P.M. ET on PBS

www.facebook.com/frontlinepbs
Twitter: @frontlinepbs
www.pbs.org/frontline/wikileaks


It’s the biggest intelligence breach in U.S. history—the leaking of more than a half million classified documents on the WikiLeaks website throughout 2010. At the center of the controversy stands Bradley E. Manning, the Army intelligence analyst who’s charged with handing them over.

Who is Bradley Manning, and what does his story tell us about how and why the secret cache of documents may have been leaked? In WikiSecrets, airing Tuesday, May 24, 2011, at 9 P.M. ET on PBS (check local listings), FRONTLINE correspondent Martin Smith gains exclusive access to those closest to Manning— including his father, close friends and his Army bunkmate—and uncovers video of Manning taken around the time of the alleged handover of classified information.

Smith also examines the events surrounding the publication of the leaked documents, interviewing key players like WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange; Assange’s former colleague Daniel Domscheit-Berg; and Adrian Lamo, a well-known figure in the cyber underground who eventually turned Manning over to the authorities and is now living in an undisclosed location over fears for his safety.

“I got the sense that Bradley was very depressed,” Lamo tells FRONTLINE of his impressions of Manning after the Army private sought him out in May 2010. During an online chat with Lamo that stretched over four days, Manning wrote: “Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public.”

As the film tracks Manning from his deployment to Iraq through his arrest and imprisonment, several key questions emerge—among them, the shocking ease with which Manning browsed and downloaded so much classified information from Pentagon servers despite the widely available systems developed to prevent exactly this. The case presents an important cautionary note to the theory that lower-level analysts like Manning should have access to such a wide range of intelligence: “9/11 surfaced the fact that there was less than adequate sharing of information across the government,” says former Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte. “We went from a need-to-know philosophy to a need-to-share.” Former State Department official Larry Wilkerson says the government may have shared the information too widely: “Bradley Manning does not need to know what the secretary of defense said to his counterpart in Paris.”

WikiSecrets also examines the relationship between Manning and Julian Assange, the founder of WikilLeaks. In public statements, and in his interview with FRONTLINE, Assange has denied any direct contact with Manning or any WikiLeaks source. But hacker Lamo says that Manning indicated otherwise in their online chat: “He mentioned Julian Assange in the context Julian was the individual at WikiLeaks who he had initially establish contact with.”

Wired.com’s Kim Zetter tells FRONTLINE of an email she received from Assange not long after the story broke. “He contacted me, and he wanted the chat logs,” she said. “He said that he needed it in order to prepare Manning’s defense. ... I can only speculate, but I think that he was concerned about what was in the chat logs about himself.”

“We don’t really know whether Manning approached WikiLeaks or people around WikiLeaks or if it was the other way around,” says Eric Schmitt, the New York Times reporter first assigned by the paper to vet the leaked material. “But my theory is whichever way it is, there’s an intermediary. ... So somewhere in this mix you have Manning with access to this information; you’ve got WikiLeaks and Julian Assange with the desire to get it; and you’ve got a helpful intermediary. And somewhere in between here there’s a transfer I believe takes place.”

Was Julian Assange prepared to publish some of the leaked documents without adequately redacting the names of people who could have been harmed by the disclosures? “Julian was very reluctant to delete those names, to redact them.” David Leigh of the Guardian newspaper tells FRONTLINE of meetings he attended with Assange in the run-up to publication of the war logs. “And we said: ‘Julian, we’ve got to do something about these redactions. We really have got to.’ And he said: ‘These people were collaborators, informants. They deserve to die.’ And a silence fell around the table.”

Assange maintains WikiLeaks employed a thorough “harm-minimization process,” but insiders within the organization said the redactions were carried out in haste just prior to publication.

Currently, Manning remains jailed in the Army brig in Fort Leavenworth, Kan., awaiting his first pretrial hearing this summer, and Assange lives under police watch in a home northeast of London. He tells FRONTLINE that the work of WikiLeaks continues: “History is on our side. ... When you expose powerful organizations, there will be ad hominem attacks. Yes, in my personal case, they’ve been rather hard. But it’s not an unusual circumstance. ... WikiLeaks is continuing to step up its publishing speed, ... and it does good. We can see the effects all around us.”

WikiSecrets is a FRONTLINE production with RAIN Media, Inc. The producers are Marcela Gaviria and Martin Smith. The reporters are Marcela Gaviria, Ryan Knutson, and Martin Smith. The writers are Marcela Gaviria and Martin Smith. The series senior producer of FRONTLINE is Raney Aronson-Rath. The executive producer of FRONTLINE is David Fanning. FRONTLINE is produced by WGBH Boston and is broadcast nationwide on PBS. Funding for FRONTLINE is provided through the support of PBS viewers and by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Major funding for FRONTLINE is provided by The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and by Reva and David Logan. Additional funding is provided by the Park Foundation and by the FRONTLINE Journalism Fund. FRONTLINE is closed- captioned for deaf and hard-of-hearing viewers by the Media Access Group at WGBH. FRONTLINE is a registered trademark of the WGBH Educational Foundation.

pbs.org/pressroom
Promotional photography can be downloaded from the PBS pressroom.
Press contact
Diane Buxton 617-300-5375 diane_buxton@wgbh.org

CyBER-BlackSEC Debate

BlackNIGHT Target Practice

SEAL Team SIX - Iron Will from CBS News

The Devil's Advocate?

In 1991, [the late former Secretary of State Lawrence 'Just call me George'] Eagleburger explained to The Post why all of his sons were named Lawrence.

“First of all, it was ego,” he said. “And secondly, I wanted to screw up the Social Security system.”