Feeds

back to article Anonymous threat shutters Gitmo WiFi

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, the enclave of Cuban territory leased by the US government, has switched off its WiFi service and cut access to social networks for fear of attack by Anonymous. The hacktivist group recently set #OpGTMO in train, pledging to “shut down Guantanamo”. That's probably not a reference to the whole of the …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Bronze badge

The Obvious Solution

It's really simple. Guantanamo would no longer be needed if the American justice system could be fixed, so that while the rights of the accused are safeguarded, people who can clearly be proven to have committed serious crimes will not - ever - be turned loose because of technicalities irrelevant to their actual guilt or innocence.

If you rape, if you murder, you will pay the penalty - and if some police officer along the way made a mistake, he may face charges, but that's not going to lead to your victim being denied his or her right to justice.

Once that is done, Guantanamo won't be needed. Until then, as terrorists can cause too many deaths with one blow, we can't chance their being turned loose by a legal system which has lost touch with common sense, reality, and public safety.

2
4
Silver badge

Re: The Obvious Solution

I agree they are too dangerous to let loose. Even if they weren't that dangerous to begin with they sure as hell are dangerous now. Very angry too...

To be fair Obama did try to shut it all down but too many people freaked out at the idea of actively importing terrorists and thier ilk into the country. I think it is a waste of funds to keep the Cuba prison open when we have a massive and highly effective prison system in the States. The prisoners in Cuba aren't nearly as dangerous as some of the people we keep locked up anyway.

0
0
Silver badge
Trollface

To Subtle

I fear some people thought you were serious. Try making it more explicit that what you're suggesting is that regular criminal courts should be allowed to use confessions extracted under torture as evidence.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: The Obvious Solution

"...if the American justice system could be fixed, so that while the rights of the accused are safeguarded, people who can clearly be proven to have committed serious crimes will not - ever - be turned loose because of technicalities irrelevant to their actual guilt or innocence."

Make up your mind. Do we safeguard the rights of the accused or prohibit a "technicality" that causes an accused person to walk free because, those "technicalities" are rights violations.

So, kindly make up your mind. Protect rights for all or reject rights for some. For, as is well known, the land of equality and opportunity only means that some are more equal than others and opportunities are given to those who are more equal.

0
0
Silver badge

We need Gitmo to counter the growing threat of home grown American terrorists http://cms.fightforthefuture.org/teenager/

1
1
Bronze badge
Stop

There isn't enough attention to this kids case.

What they are doing to that kid is a fucking nightmare. The kid will probably be ruined for life. The should put the judge on trial himself for not doing his job without prejudice. Hick judges exist everywhere, not just in the typical places.

Sadly, he'll probably be marked for life over this, realize it, and justify the mark.

2
1
Bronze badge
Stop

Re: There isn't enough attention to this kids case.

He has been arrested and faces charges. You never know there may even be a reason for these actions.

Why do so many of the folks as posts comments on these forums always assume that the purpose of the US legal system is to commit miscarriages of justice?

I would also imagine that given what happened in Boston the authorities are going to be very sensitive about this sort of thing.

1
1

The kid is NOT in Guantanamo...

Why is this on-topic for Guantanamo? The kid is being held in a state prison. He has lawyers. He isn't affected by the conditions at Guantanamo. This is a totally different thing than Guantanamo.

Open a new topic on this kid, if you like. Guantanamo is an important topic on its own.

2
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: MyBackDoor Re: There isn't enough attention to this kids case.

"What they are doing to that kid is a fucking nightmare...." Yeah, they must have fed him some really nasty chemical cocktail to make him rap so badly! Oh, wait - he meant to sound like that!?!?!? Maybe they mean to charge him under some environmental statute for noise pollution.

0
0
Bronze badge

That makes absolutely less than no sense.

The courts ruled, in spite of no attempts to do as you hint at, that anyone arrested within the US cannot be sent to GITMO without a conviction. Some Constitution thingy prevents it.

0
0
g e
Silver badge
Black Helicopters

Awwww bless, but surely

Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right?

0
0

Closing Gitmo

If they cannot close it due to legal problems and feeling that the people being held are enemy combatants, what they should do is make it a proper POW camp and open access to the Red Cross/Crescent.

This would go a long way towards solving the legal issues with it.

1
1
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Closing Gitmo

".....they should do is make it a proper POW camp....." Prisoner of war camps are for proper soldiers, not un-uniformed terrorists/freedom-fighters (delete as you see fit). Oh, didn't anyone tell them there were downsides to aymetric warfare?

It seems that nowadays winners have tanks, jetfighters AND legal blackholes.

1
0

Re: Closing Gitmo

GTMO has received most of these prisoners under JAG rules, not the US legal system. Outside the USA, JAG rules differ substantially from civilian courts. Such prisoners were captured overseas and transferred without ever entering the USA. Even if they are American Citizens (fairly extreme stuff for citizens, but legit).

In the USA, non-Citizens can have their visiting credentials revoked (if they have any) and deported. If JAG wants these people, INS-Deporting will hand them over to JAG. JAG can then send them to GTMO.

For the life of me, I never understood how any American Citizen can be arrested in the USA and sent to GTMO, though. International law takes hold at some time, though. If JAG wants to prosecute and execute to their standards, that is legit. There are no clear JAG rules about overseas jailing without JAG process.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Closing Gitmo

Erm, so, the Judge Advocate General "rules" are what does it?!

Try learning about the military, especially UCMJ, which you are confusing JAG with. Even that does not apply, as there already is a legal black hole for combatants that are not part of an organized army.

You may also consider, a US citizen cannot be sent to GITMO without charge, as a US citizen has inalienable rights regardless of where they are or what they've done. They can be killed in combat, struck with a missile from a drone as part of combat operations, but if captured, they have the same constitutional rights where they are as if they are at home.

Again, you confuse the military attorneys for some magical group with police powers, which the JAG is not.

Again, you confuse "JAG rules", there is no such thing. There is US law, international law (aka ratified treaties) an the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Not a lick of which has codified law for unlawful combatants (aka a non-uniformed, cellular group of fighters and terrorists). As it stands, a US citizen cannot be arrested in the US or abroad and sent without charge to GITMO. Some Constitution thingy says that is a double plus ungood.

THAT is something that needs to be addressed first. For then, we have a legal framework to operate within, rather than the current vacuum.

1
0

The Military governor of Guantanamo is pre-empting...

I decided to doublecheck the facts from the Register. The Miami Herald regularly presents Guantanamo topics. They did this topic with detail.

The military regularly does public visits to Gitmo to guest-military and civilians. There is public WIFI available to those guests (and workers) at the Base-Library, the base ice-cream shop, the base-bowling alley and a pub at the air-terminal. This is the WIFI that was shut down. Non-public WIFI continues.

Other non-public net activity is done to military standards. It has been blocked from some social media sites. There is less data on why this was done.

I don't like Gitmo either. So long as these offenses happen outside the USA, they aren't required to be treated by USA-law, though. These people probably should just have been treated in traditional ways and either be-dead-now or be-released.

1
1
Silver badge

Re: The Military governor of Guantanamo is pre-empting...

Building "holiday" camps in another country so that your laws don't apply and they are then completely legal?

That didn't work out so well last time

1
1

Re: The Military governor of Guantanamo is pre-empting...

They have been handled true to military protocols, since they were 'acquired' through direct-movement or INS-deportation.

Nobody ever said that they were holiday camps. This is from the guys with guns. They don't play nice civilian rules. The soldiers have a different existence than police, by a LOT.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: The Military governor of Guantanamo is pre-empting...

If only they had thought of using that excuse rather than the "only following orders" the last lot would have got off

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: The Military governor of Guantanamo is pre-empting...

Even guest WIFI is, by regulation, to be filtered and protected the same way as NIPRnet. The only difference is that they leave it open or with a simple key that is easily remembered and segregated from the military networks.

"These people probably should just have been treated in traditional ways and either be-dead-now or be-released."

Really? So, we charged German, Italian and Japanese forces with a crime, tried them, convicted them and sentenced them to prison, then either killed them or released them?

No, we detained them until the war was over.

After the war, war criminals were then detained, tried and either convicted or released. Those convicted either were executed or sentenced to prison, depending on the case and laws concerned.

Do try to get your history right.

1
0
Boffin

Directional antenna

With quite a rudimentary directional antenna you can increase WiFi coverage up to 100 meters. With more sophisticated equipment you could extend this furher.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Directional antenna

If you're 100 meters from the base, some Marines will be very rude to you. If you're 1km from base, you'll have Cuban forces being rude to you.

Sorry, this is a typical case of military officers overreacting to a nebulous threat. Saw it many, many, many times during my near 28 year career in the US Army.

I'll not go into some contractors hired to enhance security, beyond this story:

One day, we were re-examining our installation's security posture. I mentioned that our installation is in a medium-high threat area and that the installation is on the edge of the city's industrial area, hence is at potential threat for a mortar attack.

The contractor then responded with: "You know, the most accurate bomb is a man with a body bomb".

Apparently, rather than suggesting fire finder radar, he would rather take the discussion to a tangential direction.

The installation commander then added another layer of Alaska barriers around the perimeter and random security measures at the gates. :/

0
0
Silver badge

Double IT angle

WiFi's turned off at Jitmo. Hmm.

1
0
Silver badge

Easiest takedown ever!

Anonymous: "We're gonna hack you off teh internets!"

GITMO: "OH NOES!! Shut down all internet access, Keep the hackers out!"

Anonymous: ".... Well... that was easy... Who wants pizza?"

1
1
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Captain DaFt: Re: Easiest takedown ever!

Anonymous: "We're gonna hack you off teh internets!"

GITMO: "OH NOES!! Shut down all internet access, Keep the hackers out!"

Anonymous: ".... Well... that was easy... Who wants pizza?"

GITMO: "Have they gone back to watching kids' TV? Right, back to work!"

Another Anon failure which changed absolutely nothing, but you carry on bleating if it makes you feel better.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Captain DaFt: Easiest takedown ever!

I agree, it accomplished nothing, aside from getting a few more idiots on a list.

I just found it amusing that the official response to "We're taking down your web access" was to take it down themselves. A bit like locking yourself in your room because someone threatened to lock you in your room.

0
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Captain DaFt Re: Captain DaFt: Easiest takedown ever!

".....A bit like locking yourself in your room because someone threatened to lock you in your room." Wow, the denial is strong with this one! They closed down the PUBLIC wifi, nothing to do with the actual operation of the base. That's more like closing the office window and getting on with work whilst some idiot is throwing stinkbombs into your carpark - total non-event. Please go ask someone to lend you a clue.

0
0
Bronze badge

Re: Captain DaFt Captain DaFt: Easiest takedown ever!

"They closed down the PUBLIC wifi, nothing to do with the actual operation of the base."

NIPRnet is protected from external threats by extremely heavy encryption via HAIPE encryptors, in some cases, double encryptors for wireless and links across the global WAN. It's also protected by three tiers of DISA routers, IPS, IDS, firewalls and assorted other goodies before it hits the tier 0 for the installation. It then goes through three tiers of routers, firewalls, IPS, IDS, etc before it hits the LAN.

Meanwhile, that public WIFI isn't much of a threat, as one would have to be on the base proper to access it. Even with an enhanced, high gain antenna.

Needless to say, I know US DoD networks quite well. Worked with them enough, did the accreditation of the network and all, even turning an IATO into a full permanent ATO.

So, please go learn about the networks concerned and get a clue.

This is more like locking oneself in one's room over being threatened with being locked in one's room.

Or more simply, overreaction by an ignorant commanding officer. One who already has caused problems by changing rules that created a stable prison camp and instead made the news for the hunger strikes initiated over his random and senseless rule changes.

And no, I'll not discuss those rule changes. I want to keep my security clearance.

0
1
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Wzrd1 Re: Captain DaFt Captain DaFt: Easiest takedown ever!

"....Needless to say, I know US DoD networks quite well.....overreaction by an ignorant commanding officer....." Great, a big thumbs up for your knowledge of the networks. Now, concentrate real hard - did any of the core activities of the base, either the general Marines duties or those related to the detention, interrogation and general prevention of the prisoners taking any further part in the "global jihad", in any way at all see any impediment from the temporary turning off of the Wifi? Big hint - the answer starts with an n and ends with an o and only has two letters..... Now, consider if the Anonyputzs had actually managed to find a second Manning, some other bitter loser actually in the Marines and posted to Gitmo, who had access to the network from the inside - surely the camp commander was smarter in turning off the Wifi and suffering the negligible disruption this caused rather than taking the risk of handing the Anons a "victory". After all, all he has to do is wait for cartoon time to come round and he knows he's safe to turn it back on.

0
0
Black Helicopters

Little dirty fact... Some of the 'enemy combatants' were not taken in Afganistan. Or Iraq. Tortured (er, enhanced interrogation techniques), broken, and now we don't know what to do with them. People who were supposed to be disappeared I guess.

Very depressed that the people who scream bloody murder if anybody goes near the second amendment, think that the rest of them are negotiable (citizenship, due process, speedy trail). GTMO isn't about that, but when you play fast and loose with the Geneva Convention et al, it tends to come around. In the name of saving American lives.

I'm an American, and I understand the power of a state to kill its' citizens. But I feel it's very important to make the state go through the hassle of either slapping a military uniform, or prision jumpsuit on me before they do....

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Don't worry our president (think bush without the charisma) declared that anybody opposing an oil pipeline were supporting secret foreign plotters and were a threat

0
0
Silver badge

Bush had charisma? 8-Z

0
0
Bronze badge

One problem, Pat.

The Geneva Convention is for enemy combatants of an opposing uniformed military force. Not guys in civilian attire hiding behind women and children or IED emplacing thugs.

For such combatants, there is no current codified law. At all. The only ones who would have some law protecting them are US citizens.

I'd suggest Congress address that, but Congress would starve to death if they had to vote on when to break for a meal. :/

As for Constitutional rights, this US citizen and veteran finds NO rights are negotiable. They all exist or none do and I have no interest in living in a nation with no rights.

1
0
Bronze badge

You forgot the part about it being only in initial planning stages and Colombian bank funded.

But, why let silly little things like facts interfere with hyperbolic discussion of the ISSUES.

0
0
Bronze badge

"Bush had charisma? 8-Z"

Not that I'm aware of.

After I retired from the military, I began contracting for the DoD as an Information Assurance officer.

Prominent on my desk was my "Bushisms" calendar. Had soldiers pop in every day to see the "Bushism" of the day. :)

0
0

Surely it should be illegal blackhole?

0
0

"Not guys in civilian attire hiding behind women and children or IED emplacing thugs."

If western militaries are allowed to bomb, maim and kill civilians in other countries, then surely those same civilians are allowed to defend themselves - whether or not they can afford a uniform?

0
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: crayon

"If western militaries are allowed to bomb, maim and kill civilians in other countries...." Nice and completely incorrect assessment of the role played by Western forces in Iraq or Afghanistan, where we are/were operating at the request of the legal government with the prime tasking of protecting the majority of the population from the violent minority.

0
0
This topic is closed for new posts.