From Washington Post:

The Justice Department on Monday charged a former CIA officer with repeatedly leaking classified information, including the identities of agency operatives involved in the capture and interrogation of alleged terrorists.

The case against John Kiriakou, who also served as a senior Senate aide, extends the Obama administration’s crackdown on disclosures of national security secrets. Kiriakou, 47, is the sixth target of a leaks-related prosecution since President Obama took office, exceeding the total number of comparable prosecutions under all previous administrations combined, legal experts said.

Kiriakou, who was among the first to go public with details about the CIA’s use of water-boarding and other harsh interrogation measures, was charged with disclosing classified information to reporters and lying to the agency about the origin of other sensitive material he published in a book. He faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted.

I remember when Kiriakou was making the media rounds talking about enhanced interrogation. He was on “60 Minutes,” “20/20,” and several other shows.

This article titled “Washington moves to classify cyber-attacks as acts of war” was written by Ed Pilkington in New York, for The Guardian on Tuesday 31st May 2011 22.27 UTC

The US government is rewriting its military rule book to make cyber-attacks a possible act of war, giving commanders the option of launching retaliatory military strikes against hackers backed by hostile foreign powers.

The Pentagon has concluded that the laws of armed conflict can be widened to embrace cyberwarfare in order to allow the US to respond with the use of force against aggressive assaults on its computer and IT infrastructure.

The move, to be unveiled in a US department of defence strategy document next month, is a significant step towards the militarisation of cyberspace, with huge implications for international law.

Pentagon officials disclosed the decision to the Wall Street Journal, saying it was designed to send a warning to any hacker threatening US security by attacking its nuclear reactors, pipelines or public networks such as mass transport systems. “If you shut down our power grid, maybe we will put a missile down one of your smokestacks,” an official said.

The new strategy would adapt the existing right of self-defence contained in the UN charter by bringing cyberweapons under the definition of armed attacks.

Joel Reidenberg, a professor at Fordham University in New York who teaches IT law, said the policy was an important recognition that new forms of warfare could harm Americans, “and that the US will protect its citizens in their 21st-century activities.”

Sami Saydjari, a former Pentagon cyber expert who now runs a consultancy called Cyber Defense Agency, said the rule change was a logical and reasonable next step. “The US is vulnerable to sabotage in defence, power, telecommunications, banking. An attack on any one of those essential infrastructures could be as damaging as any kinetic attack on US soil.”But other cyber specialists warned the new provision would be extremely hard to implement and could escalate the militarisation of the internet.

Jody Westby, co-author of the UN publication The Quest for Cyber Peace, said attacks were difficult to track and trace back to their origins, often making it impossible to determine who is behind them.

She called for more diplomatic efforts to increase co-operation between governments rather than widening military options. “Sabre-rattling like this in the cyber age could backfire on the US, as it could spark further cyber-attacks on US infrastructure that could be massively destructive for American civilians.”

The Obama administration signalled its intentions two weeks ago when the White House released its vision for the future of cyberspace. “When warranted, the US will respond to hostile acts in cyberspace as we would to any other threat to our country,” it said, adding that such responses included “all necessary means” including military ones.

The US is considered especially prone to cyber-attacks because millions of computers in America have been infected and because its military networks are so highly computerised.

Alan Paller, research director at the Sans Institute, which trains computer security professionals, said military and defence computers in the US had come under attack from foreign states at least since 2003, with losses including key technical data for the 0bn F35 fighter.

“The military knows its systems are under constant and increasingly sophisticated attacks,” he said.

US analysts have their sights particularly on China and Russia as potential sources of state-sponsored cyberwarfare. A congressional panel has warned that China had the capability of hitting federal networks connected via the internet, such as the national electricity grid, in a way that “could paralyse the US”.But tRussia was blamed in 2008 for a computer attack on the US Central Command which oversees the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Russia was also implicated in more localised cyber attacks on Georgia and Estonia.

The US has also been implicated in cyber sabotage. It has been suggested that Stuxnet, the computer worm unleashed last year against Iran, was the work of the Israeli government, backed by Washington. Westby pointed out that the US has not denied the claim. “It seems we’re happy to launch our own cyber-attacks when it suits us. That’s hardly good diplomacy.”

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

The Huffington Post is reporting that a major rift now exists between civilian policymakers at The White House and military brass at The Pentagon over Libya. The DOD is pissed off about the stalemate in Libya and warned the president ahead of time that this would likely be the outcome.

Obama told The Pentagon he felt a “limited” intervention was necessary but any kind of American boots on the ground was off the table. He wanted the military to give him a “low cost” regime change plan for Libya that did not require US infantry. The military told him that such a thing is not possible and no such plan would be forthcoming. White House officials accused The Pentagon of “disrespecting” the president by refusing to give him the plan he wanted.

The Pentagon in turn accused The White House of failing to understand what is and is not possible in military campaigns.

So the military and civilian leadership remain at loggerheads over the way forward in Libya. Military officials say this half-hearted intervention has made America look weak and created a terrible mess.

“It’s a mess,” lamented a senior U.S. official. Washington took the bold step of committing military force, but not enough to win. The administration waited to apply very limited military force until it was almost too late, and now, the official says, it has painted the U.S. “into a corner.” In the resulting stalemate, Libyan rebels and civilians are being ruthlessly pursued and killed while the United States, in effect, stands helplessly by.

Personally, I’m of two minds on the situation in Libya. On the one hand I think if we’re going to use force we should do so decisively and overwhelmingly. One thing we do better than anyone is attack from the air. We should have decimated the Libyan military in 48 hours to the point that any remaining soldiers simply surrendered.

On the other hand, I don’t think we should be getting into another war. But even if I did, Libya would not be the place to do it. I don’t really care about Libya.  The so-called “rebels” we’re protecting do not tug on my heart strings. I think most of them are simply putting their hatred for us on hold while they go after Gaddafi. They’re saying all the right things about wanting “democracy” and “human rights” so long as NATO is providing air cover. These folks are not our friends and anyone who believes they are is dangerously naive.

I’m glad President Obama took ground troops off the table. The Libyan people are not worth a single American soldier or Marine’s life. Moreover, it’s about time other NATO members starting pulling their weight. France was the most vocal about going into Libya so they should take the lead. They have a great military they never use.

Britain announced this week that they’re sending is special forces (SAS) to train the rebels on the ground. They waited around to see if we would cave and send in our people. When we didn’t they finally sent in their people. Good. If this is so important to Europe then they should be willing to send their boys to die there. I’m speaking mostly of France, because Britain has steadfastly stuck with us in Afghanistan. As always, the Brits have fought bravely and honorably with us and paid a heavy price in blood and treasure. But the French, Germans, and Italians like to squawk an awful lot until it’s time to do some dying. Then they look to America and the UK. F*ck that.

But again, since we did intervene in Libya we should stop bullshitting and kick some ass (from the air only). It’s beyond pathetic that a broke down third world regime like Gaddafi’s is still hanging on weeks after NATO intervened. This thing should have been wrapped up in a week tops.

It’s not often that I agree with op-ed’s in The NY Slimes, but today is the exception. Ross Douthat makes a very compelling against using military action in Libya. I’m a big believer in America’s moral responsibility to stop genocidal dictators, but our nation is in an unusually weakened and vulnerable state. Our military is tired from 10 years of brutal warfare and financially we’re broke. It may be wise to sit this one out. We can do far more good in the world later on once we get our fiscal house in order.

Having said that, I don’t believe for one second that Barack Obama has any intention of going to war anyway. Ever. With anyone. So it’s probably a moot point.

This article titled “WikiLeaks has caused little lasting damage, says US state department” was written by Paul Harris in New York, for The Guardian on Wednesday 19th January 2011 01.50 UTC

The damage caused by the WikiLeaks controversy has caused little real and lasting damage to American diplomacy, senior state department officials have concluded.

It emerged in private briefings to Congress by top diplomats that the fallout from the release of thousands of private diplomatic cables from all over the globe has not been especially bad.

This is in direct opposition to the official stance of the White House and the US government which has been vocal in condemning the whistle-blowing organisation and seeking to bring its founder, Julian Assange, to trial in the US.

A congressional official briefed on the reviews told Reuters news agency that the administration felt compelled to say publicly that the revelations had seriously damaged American interests in order to bolster legal efforts to shut down the WikiLeaks website and bring charges against the leakers. “I think they want to present the toughest front they can muster,” the official said.

The official implied that the WikiLeaks fiasco was bad public relations but had little concrete impact on policy.

“We were told [it] was embarrassing, not damaging,” the official added.

It appears that damage was localised in terms of a few specific cables, for example about Yemen, and thus expected to be containable in the long-run.

US officials say the continued media attention on revelations has made it difficult for Washington to repair relations with governments critical to its counter-terrorism operations, such as Pakistan and Yemen. Last November Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state, strongly condemned the leak of more than 250,000 diplomatic cables, claiming: “It puts people’s lives in danger, threatens our national security and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems.”

She added: “We are taking aggressive steps to hold responsible those who stole this information.”

So far WikiLeaks has released just a fraction of a cache of diplomatic messages which came into its possession. It has done so with the co-operation of several global news organisations like the Guardian, the New York Times and Der Spiegel.

The US government is currently checking to see if criminal charges can be brought against Assange who is in London fighting extradition to Sweden for questioning over allegations of sexual misconduct.

Damage assessments by the state department, Pentagon and US intelligence community are meanwhile still continuing to focus on the leaks. The assessments also cover the leaking of tens of thousands of military field reports from Iraq and Afghanistan.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

This article titled “WikiLeaks: the latest developments” was written by Simon Jeffery, for guardian.co.uk on Thursday 6th January 2011 11.18 UTC

11.20am: Vanity Fair has published its (Guardian-heavy) piece on WikiLeaks and the embassy cable releases – you can read the whole thing here. In short, it looks at the complexities and sometimes tensions in the working relationships between WikiLeaks and the multiple media organisations with access to the cables. Media and tech bloggers have been most interested in the detail that Julian Assange threatened to sue the Guardian, fearing it may use a full set of the cables leaked to freelance journalist Heather Brooke (who had joined the Guardian team) in order to publish without his permission. After what the piece calls a “marathon session” in the Guardian editor-in-chief’s office, all parties agreed to a delay in publication.

The piece also delves tensions within WikiLeaks, how those in the organisation who aren’t Assange see what it was and what it has become. Perhaps complexities within Assange’s position too: it ends with the assessment that “compared with others in his world of internet provocateurs, Assange is almost a traditionalist – one of the few of his kind willing to work with the mainstream press and conform, at least fleetingly, to some of their standards.”

• A spokesman for Zimbabwe’s Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) has called recent cable leaks on the country “harmless thunderbolts” and said ordinary Zimbabweans are actually more worried about the “leaks in their roofs”. US diplomats report in the leaked cables conversations where MDC officials discuss options to peacefully force Robert Mugabe, of the rival Zanu-PF, to step down as president. Zimbabwe’s attorney general has theatened action, though the MDC spokesman, Nelson Chamisa, told South African radio the party – in an uneasy coalition with Zanu-PF – was not daunted.

Meanwhile, Anonymous has claimed attacks on Zimbabwean government websites.

• Deep-sea explorers have introduced a WikiLeaks release into a legal battle with the Spanish government over sunken treasure. A cable published last month revealed the US state department had offered to help Spain against Florida-based Odyssey Marine Exploration, who found 17 tons of coins in a Spanish galleon, in return for Madrid’s help in returning a painting seized by the Nazis to a US citizen.

The divers have filed a motion asking the appeal court hearing the case to require the US government to note its interests.

11.35am: We linked several times to Aftenposten yesterday, the Norwegian newspaper that got a leak of the leaks. Without its prior knowledge, Assange now calls Aftenposten a “media partner”, according to a brief interview snatched by Norwegian paper Dagens Næringsliv outside Beccles police station on Tuesday evening. Aftenposten’s editor, Hilde Haugsgjerd, denied her title is a WikiLeaks partner. “It’s amazing to hear him say it. We are not a media partner of Wikileaks,” she said.

If you click through to the piece, you can see that Assange did indeed go to his Tuesday bail check-in without shoes, as reported by a commenter on this blog yesterday.

12.15pm: Wired’s blog on the Vanity Fair article picks up on the fleshing out of what Bradley Manning’s instant messenger chat called the “Gitmo papers”.

Rather than the already-leaked Guantánamo operation manuals, as many supposed he was talking about, there is reference to the “personal files of all prisoners who had been held at Guantánamo” as part of WikiLeaks’ cache of documents.

12.40pm: US businesses, including Coca-Cola, complained to US diplomats about corruption at an Israeli-controlled crossing point into Gaza, according to a 2006 cable published by Aftenposten. A Coca-Cola distributor told the diplomats that a ,000 payment per truck would get it “the first place in line or a spot near the head of the so-called ‘Israeli line’ which does move”. He said the two or three “Israeli lines” at the Karni crossing point moved much quicker than the others.

3.25pm: Media in Australia are reporting that Australian officials told the US embassy in Canberra that China’s military spending in 2006 was double the bn it publicly announced, according to what is reported to be a cable released from WikiLeaks. The Australians reportedly said China’s military expansion was “beyond the scope of what would be required for a conflict over Taiwan” and that they believed that Beijing arguably already posed a “credible threat to modern militaries operating in the region.”

5.20pm: This blog is now closing for the day. More tomorrow. Thanks for the comments.

5.30pm: Spoke too soon. Here is a new Guardian cables story: Secret whaling deal plotted by US and Japan.

Japan and the US proposed to investigate and act against international anti-whaling activists from the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society as part of a political deal to reduce whaling in Antarctic waters.

Four confidential cables from the US embassy in Tokyo and the state department in Washington, released by WikiLeaks, show US and Japanese diplomats secretly negotiating a compromise agreement ahead of a key meeting last year of the International Whaling Commission, the body that regulates international whaling.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

Since securing the border has proven too much for Janet, she’s decided to fight something imaginary. Global Warming. Yep, the department George W. Bush set up to protect the nation from terrorist attacks will now fight “Climate Change.”

With NASA’s new mission of Muslim outreach and the DHS fighting “Climate Change” our country is clearly on the right track.

The US Air Force launched the largest super-secret spy satellite in history Monday morning. The satellite is believed to be an eavesdropping satellite for the National Security Agency. The antenna used to intercept electronic communications is believed to span around 328 feet — the largest ever. Experts believe this satellite is the fifth in a series of NSA satellites known as “Advanced Orion.”

Here’s the launch:

Source: bbc

A security alert is under way in both the UK and the US after reports of a suspicious cargo package at a British airport.

This was a great speech by the former vice president: