Congressmen steam over Wikileaks TSA breach Three US Congressmen, outraged that parts of US government airport security manuals were inadvertently published and then posted on Wikileaks and Cryptome, are demanding to know what legal weapons are available against whistleblowing websites. Republicans Peter King, Charles Dent and Gus Bilirakis wrote to the Department of …
Oh I don't know. Maybe. Just maybe you should be a bit more open about things that directly affect the public?
Oh no I forgot.
Anything that might be construed as detrimental (Read detrimental to pen pushers and government shills) should be locked in a nuclear bomb proof concrete box to be buried 100 miles underground and forgotten about right?
Purely in the publics interest of course.
They already know who failed to prepare the document for release. There is a clear and well defined body of law (and internal corporate measures) to be applied to the bumbling idiot. How about using that for a change as it will be the only thing that is likely to make a difference.
And anyone that disagrees is to be attacked.
How about actually developing a system that, even with all the details publicly available, worked?
Or is that too big a step?
Or is it 'better' to shout about putting systems into place that everyone (that handles them) knows don't do the job.
Maybe it's just the Americans being their usual cold-war induced paranoid selves - though to be fair I suspect that politicians in most countries would much prefer that secrets don't leak out, though my argument would be why is it secret in the first place?
In this case if the security machines can't do certain things, then put up posters explaining the fact that the security chaps and chapesses will be probing you in places that only your doctor normally sees (and why you need to be at the airport two hours before your flight should leave).
ttfn
Can we apply the same principal to the Gun Lobby then and ban Guns?
Unfortunately, as anyone who has watched our clowns in the TSA operate knows, the TSA seem to be pathologically incapable of securing their own arses - even if you stuck a burning candle in them to show them where they are. The manuals just make this obvious to everyone instead of just us frequent fliers.
Wikileaks has a Freenet mirror, and I'm pretty sure Cryptome could push one out fairly quickly. Don't know about Freenet? Think "every computer* connected to the network hosting the information you want taken down."
Goodluckwiththat.
* I know it's not every computer; Remember that this is for the goobermunt plebiscites benefit.
We all know that the US is a terrorist organisation.
The principles of terrorism:
1. Produce terror or paralysing fear.
Rest assured that many Afghanis and Iraqis are sh*tt*ng bricks as we speak.
2. Publicity to gain sympathy.
Propaganda in the form of things like dodgy dossiers is complemented by the self-publicising wars waged in the name of "freedom".
3. Stimulation of indiscriminate hostility.
The result of the USA's "war against terror" is that attacks by fundamentalists against Western targets have increased. The USA has caused these elements to be more indiscriminate, which fuels the publicity that suggests that the USA are "the good guys".
This is how terrorism has always worked. Use violence to make the other guys more violent, therefore winning more converts to your own cause.
Unfortunately, when both sides use terrorist tactics, the result is a constant escalation which leads us nearer and nearer to a third world war.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and tit-for-tat makes tits of us all....
"We all know that the US is a terrorist organisation." ... The Indomitable Gall Posted Friday 11th December 2009 16:27 GMT
Probably that is why their dollar and the ponzi banking/capitalist profit [money for nothing] system is being trashed, The Indomitable Gall.
...cue 50 posts from self-righteous commentards decrying the US as a police state because three congressmen asked a stupid question that will never have any effect on law, while their *own* country arrests them for taking photographs, watches them constantly with CCTV cameras, requires them to sign up to a watch list before they volunteer at a summer camp, and considers arrest without trial or conviction a reasonable rationale for denial of employment.
Here's a pre-emptive request: If you're not going to *clean* your house before attacking others, at least acknowledge that you're not exactly the poster children for liberty...
> Here's a pre-emptive request: If you're not going to *clean* your house
> before attacking others, at least acknowledge that you're not exactly
> the poster children for liberty...
Oh we're not. If this were Britain, we'd have just stuck the Wikileaks URL(s) on the IWF list and the problem would have magically gone away :)
"Here's a pre-emptive request: If you're not going to *clean* your house before attacking others, at least acknowledge that you're not exactly the poster children for liberty..." .... David W. Posted Friday 11th December 2009 16:09 GMT
Seems like there might be the start of an American Revolution v2.0 if they can be bothered to wake up and smell the coffee, David W. .... http://cryptogon.com/?p=12585
Apparently not all of us know what you imply. I seem to remember some tards handing a Nobel "Peace" Prize to BHO for four days worth of work, which resulted in a "fantastic" decision to send 30k more troops.
Terrorists are certainly smarter than this. They certainly don't have to worry about the political bullshit, just making sure not to piss someone off who might kill first and ask questions later. If we want to defeat Terrorism, we should send Lobbyists to keep them in continual paralysis like the rest of the world deals with.
Utter fail...
"We all know that the US is a terrorist organisation."
Really? How about a side-by-side comparison of strategy and tactics, just so we can be clear on how terroristic we are:
Hijacks civilian aircraft and rams them into civilian/commercial buildings:
-- US: No Them: Yes
Leaves improvised explosives in public areas traversed by civilians and detonates them during high-traffic hours:
-- US: No Them: Yes
Engages in group ambush/guerrilla warfare tactics against legitimate (Red Cross/Red Crescent) medical and supply convoys:
-- US: No Them: Yes
Makes no attempt to distinguish between civilian and military targets and to reduce collateral damage:
-- US: No Them: Yes
Uses covert operations to target specific individuals suspected of being involved in deliberate attacks on civilians or civilian property:
-- US: Yes Them: Maybe
Uses both old and new media technologies as a means of recruitment and propaganda:
-- US: Yes Them: Yes
Encourages the elimination of fundamental rights and education for women:
-- US: No Them: Yes
Is in favor of establishing a dictatorial, authoritarian monarchy underpinned by so-called "religious" or "theocratic" principals:
-- US: No Them: Yes
/* sarcasm */ Yup. That's a score of 1.5/8 "the same," or about 18.75% "sameness" (based on the all-encompassing list above). We're **just like** Al-Quaeda, for sure...
This is not to say that there aren't any people within US Federal Government who do despicable things. There are; to declare otherwise would be naive. Like many of my country's citizens, I view its government with a measure of skepticism and cynicism. But on the whole, US-GOV isn't in the habit of running around murdering innocent people. (Trying to control and tax them, though, may be another story...)
@ K.Adams
Do we get to mention Fallujah as well, or was that like all in the past and a totally justified series of war crimes, because it was the good guys doing bad things instead of the bad guys doing bad things?
As for "Makes no attempt to distinguish between civilian and military targets and to reduce collateral damage:" do you mean in general or specific circumstances? Is this the point where we forget seeing all the youTube footage of the forces of good shooting random civilian vehicles, and the multiple massacres of civilians involving Blackwater? (Nusoor Square being one of my favourites)
Ooo - ooo can we add a few new yes/no's? can we? can we?
"Hires mercenaries and bounty hunters to do its dirty work - Yes/No?"
"Abuses legal systems to allow its contractors to rape its female soldiers with impunity - Yes/No?"
"Systematically tortures suspects - Yes/No?"
"Sells arms to shady militias and terrorist organisations all over the world - Yes/No?"
"Uses force of arms to secure other countries' oil against their wishes - Yes/No?"
On reflection I believe you may be correct about the technical term of terrorist not applying to the USA, as I'm not convinced a state can ever be a terrorist organisation. Mind you the same logic would state that the Taliban would also not have been a terrorist organisation when they were in control of Afghanistan, but I guess you need to have it both ways right?
Can we agree however that yes, the USA is indeed in the habit of running around murdering innocent people (unless you consider them guilty of having tan skin and living in a country with oil or that needs an oil pipeline).
Love ‘cos you need it, you know you do, oh stop being such a baby and come here for a cuddle.
Just to play Devil's Advocate, you understand...
Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, I suspect that a more critical comparison, bearing in mind the fairly indiscriminate blowing up of a stolen fuel tanker in a crowd of civilians, and the use of Predator to hit targets regardless of whether there will also be civilian casualties, may result in a few more Yes results against the US and its Allies. The US does not need to hijack civilian aircraft for its building rammings, as it has enough military ordinance to do the job without such methods.
I also suggest that visits by US right wing fundamental ministers, plus linking of aid to church oriented sex education might convert the last couple to "Yes, maybes" too.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
