WikiLeaks about to hit the fan

Bill is sort of arguing that it's okay to only murder one or two people but wrong to get into double figures.

AntiSec pledges additional attacks
(by Trent Nouveau, TG Daily, December 30, 2011)

Hackers operating under the AntiSec banner have pledged to launch a slew of cyber attacks over the holiday weekend in an act of solidarity with WikiLeaks suspect Pfc. Bradley Manning and other prisoners.

"Did Bradley Manning get his fancy LulzXmas dinner yet? Still trying to lock him up for life? Still think we're just joking around? That's OK. The time for talk is over," AntiSec wrote in an online communiqué.

"On New Years Eve, we will be launching our contributions to project mayhem by attacking multiple law enforcement targets from coast to coast. That's right: once again we bout to ride on the po po. Candiez, pr0n and cookies for LulzXmas."

Following up on its recent attack against Stratfor, a US-based security think tank, the group also said it was posting the full 75,000 names, addresses, CCs and md5 hashed passwords of every paying customer - in addition to dumping ~860,000 usernames, email addresses and md5 hashed passwords for all registered users.

and there was no overriding moral issues involved.

One of the few flashes of animation came when Private Manning got to eyeball his former online confidant, the man who effectively brought his life undone. The ex-hacker Adrian Lamo took several minutes to thumb through chat logs presented to him before acknowledging he recognised the conversations. This prompted Private Manning to lean back slightly and turn a palm upward in an apparent expression of wonderment.

The diminutive, bespectacled private won't find out what happens next for several more weeks at least. The defence has pushed for all but three of the charges to be dropped but the consensus is the case will likely proceed to a full court martial.

Prosecutors have said they won't seek the death penalty. But even if the military pursued only three charges, they alone carry a potential sentence of 30 years jail

Activists take legal action against Wafd paper for defamation
(By Safaa Abdoun /Daily News Egypt / January 3, 2012)

CAIRO: Political and human rights activists filed complaints to the Prosecutor General Tuesday against Al-Wafd newspaper and other portals that published what they say is a fabricated Wikileaks document claiming that they received “secret funding” from the US.

“We will file a complaint against editor-in-chief of Al-Wafd newspaper, Soliman Gouda, and El-Sayed El-Badawy, head of the board of directors, and all of those who deliberately lied and fabricated information to defame us,” said political activist Gamila Ismail, whose name was mentioned in the document.

The document, reference number 08CAIRO941, which was translated into Arabic by an agency called Arabia, lists the name of public figures falsely alleging that they attended secret meetings with the US Ambassador and USAID and have accepted funding.

Some of the names cited in the document include Judge Hisham El-Bastawisi, publisher Hisham Kassem, Director of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights (EOHR) Hafez Abou Seada; EOHR member Ghada Shahbandar, Nasser Amin, director of the Arab Center for the Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession, and political analyst Amr Choubaki.

The original document in English does not include any reference to funding.

It states that the “[US] Embassy Cairo continues to actively support and promote the President’s Freedom Agenda. We are in close contact with the wide range of Egypt’s political oppositionists, democracy and human rights activists, and journalists from independent and opposition newspapers, as well as bloggers who promote democracy and human rights.”

Abou Seada released a statement saying that he filed a complaint against the Arab Media Network to the Prosecutor General for publishing on Jan. 2 an article titled “Scandal of the foreign-financing on Wikileaks” which includes allegations of secret financing by the US embassy in Cairo to human rights activists.

In the statement, EOHR said that it respects freedom of expression but denounces defamation without evidence.

“EOHR calls on writers and media specialists to make sure that they only write facts in order not to tarnish the image of good people,” it said.

Editor of Al-Wafd online news portal, Adel Sabry, in a call-in to the television show “Ahl El Balad” on Egypt 25 channel, confessed that the article published in Al-Wafd was inaccurate.

“[He] admitted that because he has a conscience and can’t go to sleep at night knowing that he has wronged people,” said Gamila Ismail. She called on Sabry and other Wafd journalists to publish the truth on their website and a retraction in the paper.

She urged people to check the original document on Wikileaks in English.

She also called on the Journalists’ Syndicate to investigate the issue and refer the journalists who translated and published this information to an internal investigation.

On Thursday, 17 offices of 10 local and international NGOs were subjected to an ad hoc inspection where documents and computers were seized in a move that was justified by the government as part of an investigation into illicit funding.

The raids triggered worldwide condemnation and, according to reports, may threaten $1.5 in US aid to Egypt.

WikiLeaks Backers Lose Bid to Keep Twitter Data From U.S.
(By Tom Schoenberg - Bloomberg - January 5, 2012)

Three WikiLeaks backers lost their bid to keep information on them collected from their Twitter Inc. accounts from being turned over to U.S. prosecutors who are investigating the group’s publication of classified information.

U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady in Alexandria, Virginia, yesterday denied a request by the backers that the information sought by prosecutors be blocked while a federal appeals court considers their challenge. O’Grady, in his ruling, said the appeal has little chance of success because existing case law “overwhelmingly” supports the government’s position.

“Litigation of these issues has already denied the government lawful access to potential evidence for more than a year,” O’Grady said in his ruling. “The public interest therefore weighs strongly against further delay.”

The litigation over the Twitter data was the first public skirmish in the government’s criminal investigation of WikiLeaks’s leader, Julian Assange, and others who may have helped leak diplomatic cables and classified military documents through the WikiLeaks website.

The subscribers challenging the order include Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of the Icelandic parliament; Jacob Appelbaum, a computer security researcher who represented WikiLeaks at a 2010 hacker’s conference in New York; and Rop Gonggrijp, described in court papers as a Dutch activist and businessman.

The three subscribers argued that the U.S. subpoena to Twitter violated their privacy and their rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

“We’re obviously disappointed by this ruling and we think the judge got it wrong,” said Aden Fine, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union who represents Jonsdottir. Fine said his client is considering her options, which include asking the appeals court to delay turning over the data.

They filed an appeal with the U.S. Appeals Court in Richmond, Virginia, last month after O’Grady upheld a magistrate judge’s ruling that required San Francisco-based Twitter to give investigators data on subscribers “associated with WikiLeaks,” including Assange and Bradley Manning, a U.S. soldier charged with leaking classified information.

In March 2011, U.S. Magistrate Judge Theresa Buchanan said the three backers didn’t have standing to challenge her order because the government wasn’t seeking the contents of their communications on Twitter.

Prosecutors asked for subscriber names, contact information, billing records, user activity, Internet protocol addresses and source and destination e-mail addresses.

In a Dec. 14 filing, prosecutors said that a delay in turning over the Twitter data would harm the grand jury’s criminal investigation.

“Ongoing litigation has already deprived the grand jury of the requested information for more than a year,” Andrew Peterson, an assistant U.S. attorney in Alexandria, wrote in the filing. “This, in turn, has prevented the grand jury from following up on investigative leads generated from the Twitter records for more than a year.”

Peter Carr, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney Neil MacBride, declined to comment on O’Grady’s ruling.

The district court case is In re Application of the U.S. for an Order Pursuant to 18 USC 2703(d), 11-dm-00003, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria). The appeal is In re: 2703(d) Application, 11-5151, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Richmond).

Department of Justice Gets Access to Twitter Data in WikiLeaks Case, Sets Off Privacy Debate
(Margaret Rock, Mobiledia.com, January 9, 2012)

Twitter must turn over account information for three users who allegedly support WikiLeaks, adding to the debate over privacy and social media.

The U.S. District Judge in Alexandria, Va. denied a motion to suspend a previous subpoena order, and in doing so granted the Department of Justice access to the Twitter accounts of computer security researcher Jacob Appelbaum, Iceland's Parliament member Birgitta Jonsdottir, and Dutch activist Rop Gonggriip.

"We're disappointed with the decision," said Aden Fine, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union who represents Jonsdottir. "Before constitutional rights are infringed, individuals need to have an opportunity to go to court to protect their rights."

In the original ruling, which the ACLU attorneys appealed, Judge Liam O'Grady ruled Twitter must turn over the IP addresses of those under investigation for aiding WikiLeaks, saying, "Petitioners knew or should have known that their IP information was subject to examination by Twitter."

The case may serve as a bellwether on online privacy and speech. The DoJ originally sought the information without a search warrant last year, demanding Twitter provide the IP addresses of these three users. Judge O'Grady cited Twitter's terms of service to justify the government's secrecy in obtaining that data from social media services without needing to inform users.

The judge's order is based on an an assessment that the revelation of IP addresses is not a violation of privacy, according to many other courts' findings, and that the information being requested has already been disclosed to a third party -- in this case, Twitter.

Twitter's policy is to notify users of subpoenas for information if law enforcement does not submit a statute or court order to keep the request secret.

The judgment also follows an October ruling that forced Google to hand over Appelbaum's Gmail contact list for the last two years, an order Google protested, asking permission to at least inform Appelbaum of the order. Twitter last year warned WikiLeaks leader Julian Assange of a similar government data request.

The EFF and ACLU have spoken out against the court decisions, arguing they violate freedom of speech. The ruling rejects these protests, and both Google and Twitter must obey the court orders, which will likely set a precedent for future cases concerning online privacy.

Reportedly, the Twitter information is substantial and includes mailing addresses, billing information, IP addresses, connection records, and session times dating back from November 2009 to the present.

The Army used a commercial service called VOCUS to track traditional and social media coverage of Manning's hearing. The Pentagon pays close attention to the volume of tweets about the U.S. military during high-profile incidents, like the Air Force One flyover that distressed New York City residents in 2009. A spokeswoman told government technology site NextGov later that year that the Army monitors social media sites only on an episodic basis.

Army officer recommends court-martial trial for soldier charged in WikiLeaks case
(The Associated Press, January 12, 2012)

WASHINGTON — An Army officer is recommending a general court-martial for a low-ranking intelligence analyst charged in the biggest leak of classified information in U.S. history.

Lt. Col. Paul Almanza’s recommendation regarding Pfc. Bradley Manning now goes up the chain of command for a final determination. Military District of Washington commander Maj. Gen. Michael Linnington will ultimately decide whether Manning will stand trial.

He faces 22 counts, including aiding the enemy, for allegedly giving more than 700,000 secret U.S. documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. Prosecutors say WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange collaborated with Manning.

Defense lawyers say Manning was clearly a troubled young soldier. They say the Army never should have sent him to Iraq or given him access to classified material.

The 24-year-old Manning is a native of Crescent, Oklahoma.

By the way: when you use/d "social media" to 'talk' about Pfc. Bradley Manning you can safely assume someone working for the Army’s public affairs department took/takes notice.

Bradley Manning: How alleged intelligence leaker will defend himself
(Brad Knickerbocker / The Christian Science Monitor / January 13, 2012)

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning’s alleged release of hundreds of thousands of military and diplomatic documents – many of them classified – represents what may have been the largest intelligence leak in US history. If found guilty as charged, he could spend the rest of his life in prison.

But were the documents – downloaded from military computers and provided to news sources by the whistle-blower website WikiLeaks – all that damaging? And should Manning’s superiors have known about and acted on the soldier’s acknowledged emotional instability?

In pretrial legal maneuvering, Manning’s threefold defense is emerging:
• Many of the classified cables, videos, and other information allegedly provided by Manning might have been diplomatically embarrassing, but they weren’t harmful to US national-security interests. (Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has been quoted as saying that the leaked documents “did not represent significant consequences to foreign policy.”)
• Much of what the young soldier allegedly leaked as a junior Army intelligence analyst while serving in Iraq never should have been classified in the first place. Over-classification has been the subject of debate for years, particularly since the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
• There were failings up the chain of command that allowed Manning to easily copy information to a CD labeled “Lady Gaga.”

“No one suspected a thing,” he allegedly wrote to a former computer hacker who eventually tipped off the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Army officials. “I didn’t even have to hide anything.”

The Army reported last month that 15 people had been disciplined for failures involving Manning’s behavior and security status. One noncommissioned officer was reduced in rank for dereliction of duty.

Manning was known for troubling episodes that led one superior officer to describe him as “a mess of a child.” Manning himself – a slightly built, gay soldier serving at a time when the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy was being hotly debated – had written that he was “in the desert, with a bunch of hyper-masculine trigger happy ignorant rednecks as neighbors." He continued, "And the only safe place I seem to have is this satellite internet connection."

Specifically, Manning is charged with “aiding the enemy; wrongfully causing intelligence to be published on the internet knowing that it is accessible to the enemy; theft of public property or records; transmitting defense information; fraud and related activity in connection with computers; and for violating Army Regulations 25-2 ‘Information Assurance’ and 380-5 ‘Department of the Army Information Security Program.’ ” There are 22 charges in all.

On Thursday, the investigating officer in Manning’s Article 32 hearing under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (similar to a grand jury proceeding) recommended that Manning be tried in a general court-martial.

The direction of Manning’s defense can be seen in the requests filed by attorney David Coombs, a lieutenant colonel in the Army Reserves who spent 12 years on active duty in the Judge Advocate General's Corps.

Initially, Coombs sought 48 defense witnesses, including then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates. But the officer in charge of the Article 32 hearing allowed just 12 witnesses, 10 of whom were sought by the prosecution as well.

In a deposition request filed Thursday, Coombs seeks the testimony of several witnesses he says can speak to the classification level of several key elements in the information Manning is charged with leaking. For example, Coombs writes that one witness (names are blacked out) can testify that the video showing a US helicopter attack that killed Iraqi civilians was not classified at the time Manning acquired it.

Assuming the recommendation for a general court-martial is approved up the military chain of command, the trial is expected to begin in several months.