Executive Order Responding to WikiLeaks Due Shortly

[Hissyspit]

Source: Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy

Executive Order Responding to WikiLeaks Due Shortly
August 12th, 2011 by Steven Aftergood

The Obama Administration is putting the finishing touches on a new executive order that is intended to improve the security of classified information in government computer networks as part of the government’s response to WikiLeaks.

The order is supposed to reduce the feasibility and the likelihood of the sort of unauthorized releases of classified U.S. government information that have been published by WikiLeaks in the past year.

According to an official who has reviewed recent drafts, the order addresses gaps in policy for information systems security, including characterization and detection of the insider threat to information security.  It does not define new security standards, nor does it impose the security practices of intelligence agencies on other agencies.  (“It doesn’t say, ‘go polygraph everybody’,” the official said.)

Rather, the order establishes new mechanisms for “governance” and continuing development of security policies for information systems.  Among other things, it builds upon the framework established — but not fully implemented — by the 1990 National Security Directive 42 (pdf), the official said.

Read more: http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/2011/08/eo_wikileaks.html

---

@wikileaks: US Presidential executive order against WikiLeaks expected shortly http://t.co/XHV1lcP

[placton]

1. mr transparency

hard at work, to become Bush III

[jaxx]

2. Good.

Peddling stolen goods is against the law.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnyxCollie]

6. Hey, Jaxx

Tell me what good reason there is for directing our "diplomats," which apparently includes former Blackwater/Xe members installed by the CIA, to collect "biometric data includ(ing) DNA, fingerprints and iris scans" from UN officials, and even Dr. Margaret Chan, the head of the World Health Organization.

US diplomats spied on UN leadership
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/28/us-embassy-cables-spying-un

A classified directive which appears to blur the line between diplomacy and spying was issued to US diplomats under Hillary Clinton's name in July 2009, demanding forensic technical details about the communications systems used by top UN officials, including passwords and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.

It called for detailed biometric information "on key UN officials, to include undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders" as well as intelligence on Ban's "management and decision-making style and his influence on the secretariat". A parallel intelligence directive sent to diplomats in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi said biometric data included DNA, fingerprints and iris scans.

~snip~

Washington wanted intelligence on the contentious issue of the "relationship or funding between UN personnel and/or missions and terrorist organisations" and links between the UN Relief and Works Agency in the Middle East, and Hamas and Hezbollah. It also wanted to know about plans by UN special rapporteurs to press for potentially embarrassing investigations into the US treatment of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay, and "details of friction" between the agencies co-ordinating UN humanitarian operations, evidence of corruption inside UNAids, the joint UN programme on HIV, and in international health organisations, including the World Health Organisation (WHO). It even called for "biographic and biometric" information on Dr Margaret Chan, the director general of WHO, as well as details of her personality, role, effectiveness, management style and influence.

What "lawful" reason would dictate these actions, Jaxx?

[jaxx]

7. Appears to blur the line.

If I were you I'd go on to read the rest of the article and see what they are looking for.

Also why the wikileaks putting this stuff out there does nothing but create "huh?". They are not in our best interests.

[OnyxCollie]

8. Is protecting Bushco from torture investigations in our best interest, jaxx?

Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.

WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain's torture probe
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html

MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:

Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.

Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.

Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!

US embassy cables: Spanish prosecutor weighs Guantánamo criminal case against US officials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177

The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.

Eric Holder got the message.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."

CIA Exhales: 99 Out of 101 Torture Cases Dropped
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/

This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. It’s one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.

Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to “preliminar review” whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that he’ll pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the “death in custody” of detainees, Holder said.

But just because there’s a further criminal inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holder’s decision on Thursday doesn’t actually end the Justice Department’s review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.

“On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agency’s history.”

"Appears to blur the line."
:rofl:

[jaxx]

12. 'Appears to blur the line' was in the snip you provided.

Glad you thought it was funny too. As for the question.....I would have liked to see all the bushies go to jail. But then, I'm not privy to the actual information, only what the media tries to feed us. Are you?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaxx]

18. Oh well, I'm not here to shut up about what I think is wrong.

[No Elephants]

11. Excessive secrecy by our employees in D.C. is not in our best interests, either.

[No Elephants]

10. So is classifying stuff that shouldn't be classified.

[jaxx]

13. That's your opinion.

It's easy to sit back and be critical of issues you don't know about.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[No Elephants]

19. Actually, I do know about that. BTW, whose opinions do you post?

And exactly how difficult are the posts you make?

I try to stick with issues, but if you get personal with me, you just may get it right back, and then some.

So, how about we both stick to substance?

[frylock]

15. yes, and we absolutely MUST follow the rule of law..

unless our president needs to engage in a little extrajudicial execution, or drone incursions.

[jaxx]

20. Now you are reaching.

But it's good for the entertainment.

[No Elephants]

21. How is that reaching?

[jaxx]

23. Do you really need to ask?

Executions and drones....+

[frylock]

26. surely you have the answer..

i'd like to hear it, as it seems you're somewhat selective as to what you deem to be considered illegal.

[Maven]

25. Establishment always knows what's best for us.

Eh, comrade?

[formercia]

4. Get the .pdf and check for revisions.

:rofl:

[fascisthunter]

5. more secrecy... buh bye O

[No Elephants]

9. I wonder what it costs us to keep secret stuff like "Gaddafi usually travels with a blond "nurse."

Anyone who was in a position to observe him would have known that.

Next, we'll be classifying Page 6.

[bemildred]

14. Fools. The problem is not that they don't have enough rules yet..

The problem is that they don't have enough legitimacy. Obedience can be compelled, loyalty cannot.

[xocet]

22. That is an excellent point. n/t

[Grrrfun]

27. Rule of Law

and legitimacy go hand in hand. We have a basically lawless government, not interested in EVER prosecuting criminals in their ranks or the ranks of the moneyed elite. They are however deliriously happy to throw people in jail for exposing war crimes or for smoking pot to ease their pain.

These are the MAIN POINTS OF FOCUS so far for this administration. When they aren't scaring and robbing seniors or cementing republican policies in place they love silencing leakers and stopping ill people from feeling good with an herb.

There is no way this path can lead anywhere except a collapse of this house of cards.. Our government has become ROTTEN and MEAN but never ever to millionaires and billionaires. They don't even pretend to care about the law, why should millions of people in the street care?

[bemildred]

28. True.

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

Anatole France

And that resolves into the law of violence, mostly.

[Gregorian]

24. I want Dennis Kucinich for our next president.

If America still isn't mature enough for a real leader, then I guess I'll have to once again accept second place.

The bottom line is, a government SHOULD be afraid of it's people. And ultimately no matter how hard they try to be the bully, they will lose. Unless they work for the people. Secrecy isn't working for the people. There is no convoluted security, safety, argument that works. It's all about power. So drop it, Obama.