9 ms·

Is it a crime to download or analyze the data in these documents? Edit: Clearly it's not if the NYTimes is doing it, but out of curiosity, why isn't it?

by matt1 16y ago

blhack 16y ago
Clearly it's not if the NYTimes is doing it Don't be so sure about that. NYTimes has a LOT of lawyers.
rdtsc 16y ago
Classified info, even if it has been leaked, is still classified info. US govt. has been known to visit companies that had un-expectedly come into contact with classified data (usually accidentally as a result of working on some military project for ex.). They take over for a while, issue "gag" orders, take people statements, find out who saw the data, then they take all the storage media and shred it. But of course, practically, I am not sure what they will now when everyone on the Internet can access this data. I guess they can still selectively enforce the law if they wanted to ... ? Or at least threaten to inforce the law.
- _delirium 16y ago
  I think there's much less power over people who don't have security clearances. In the cases you describe, the companies are government contractors whose employees probably have clearances, and have agreed to all sorts of checks (and are required to follow certain procedures as a result of getting their clearances). The companies most likely agree to those clean-up visits anyway, if they want to keep getting government contracts, so it's not necessarily even using the government's law-enforcement power. If leaked information gets to a normal civilian who's never gotten a security clearance, though, I don't think that's illegal, if they didn't have a hand in leaking it themselves. That was basically the outcome of the Pentagon Papers case: that the people who leaked the papers to the NYT could be prosecuted, but the NYT couldn't be stopped from republishing them. Not that that'll necessarily save someone from getting hassled.
rdl 16y ago
Not a crime. The US doesn't have an equivalent of the UK's official secrets act. I don't think it's actually a crime, although there could be court injunction against publishing, which you could then be in contempt of if you went ahead. If you have a security clearance, it's possibly unwise to download/have this information on your own, especially if you have had secret access to it, mainly because there is going to be a bunch of counterintelligence to figure out how things were leaked (presumably PFC Manning, but who knows?). It would complicate things during an investigation if you had information on your hard drive, even if you could document that it had come from an outside commercial source. With some information, even if it is "known" by the public, having access to it through classified channels is a way to vet the information, so if someone posted "super secret a" to a website, and you commented "oh, yes, I've heard of that", you would actually be corroborating information and leaking classified information. FWIW, nothing in these seems to be particularly damning of the US. It is basically "war is hell", "mistakes are made", "we like to put a spin on things". It's pretty much par for the course for special operations forces to do things and then have the positive outcomes attributed to indigenous forces, and the negative outcomes hushed up. There probably would be some net benefit to prompt declassification and publishing of much of this information. I don't condone illegal leaks, but there is definitely a public interest in having the public informed about what is going on. Aside from the reporting on TF 373, nothing in the NY Times or Guardian analysis of the documents (I haven't looked at the raw documents) is a big deal. As far as I can tell, nothing particularly sensitive about 373 was published, either.
- grandalf 16y ago
  I thought the finding that the insurgents are using US provided stinger missiles against US aircraft was fairly damning... it shows that past US intervention has unforeseen consequences. Also, it's pretty significant (to a lot of people) to observe that all this continued under Obama... that there has been no improvement in the way the war effort is being waged.
  - rdl 16y ago
    I don't see anything saying the enemy is using US provided stinger missiles against US aircraft. There was a report of "smoke trail", which may or may not be accurate. If accurate, I would assume it's a soviet weapon (SA-7 or successor), or maybe a Pakistani stinger clone, but very unlikely a US stinger given in the early 1980s. Yes, a lot of this is interesting, but isn't far beyond that is available in the news, at least if you have a basic understanding of military operations in Afghanistan. If you read 2-3 of the popular military blogs (Michael Yon, especially), you would know 95+% of this.
jfarmer 16y ago
See NY Times vs. USA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St...
mkramlich 16y ago
It would be funny if it were a crime to download this data and yet not a crime to cause the deaths of innocent Afghan civilians.
- rdl 16y ago
  Members of the military absolutely can be prosecuted under the UCMJ if they commit crimes, including murder of innocent Afghan civilians. There have been numerous prosecutions -- in fact, the "guncam" footage from Iraq was actually recovered, allegedly, from JAG, the legal arm of the military, which was reviewing it to see if crimes had occurred which would need to be prosecuted. The standards for use of force in a war zone are different from other places, but fundamentally, members of the military must obey the rules of engagement set by the military (at the direction of the civilian leadership, i.e. the President). There is a much stronger argument about contractors, especially in Iraq from 2003-2006, using unlawful force and not being prosecuted, than military.
  - loewenskind 16y ago
    >The standards for use of force in a war zone are different from other places, but fundamentally, members of the military must obey the rules of engagement set by the military This doesn't preclude the death of innocent civilians. And from the point of view of the people who's country you've invaded that would be murder.
    - confuzatron 16y ago
      That's a useful skill, to be able to speak for all the people of Afghanistan like that. I guess you have the objectivity of distance working in your favour.
      - loewenskind 16y ago
        FFS man, who on earth would be happy for some military power to invade their country and setup shop wherever they like? No one wants to be occupied. Talk about "objectivity of distance", you apparently have no concept of what being occupied means. If some military super power invaded your country but a base in your neighborhood and a member of your family was killed during one of their operations would you say "well, my brother was innocent but the army was within their own self defined rules for legitimate engagement. Bad luck for us" or would you say he was murdered?

Is it a crime to download or analyze the data in these documents? Edit: Clearly it's not if the NYTimes is doing it, but out of curiosity, why isn't it?

by matt1 16y ago

Is it a crime to download or analyze the data in these documents? Edit: Clearly it's not if the NYTimes is doing it, but out of curiosity, why isn't it?

blhack 16y ago

Clearly it's not if the NYTimes is doing it Don't be so sure about that. NYTimes has a LOT of lawyers.

rdtsc 16y ago

Classified info, even if it has been leaked, is still classified info. US govt. has been known to visit companies that had un-expectedly come into contact with classified data (usually accidentally as a result of working on some military project for ex.). They take over for a while, issue "gag" orders, take people statements, find out who saw the data, then they take all the storage media and shred it. But of course, practically, I am not sure what they will now when everyone on the Internet can access this data. I guess they can still selectively enforce the law if they wanted to ... ? Or at least threaten to inforce the law.

_delirium 16y ago
I think there's much less power over people who don't have security clearances. In the cases you describe, the companies are government contractors whose employees probably have clearances, and have agreed to all sorts of checks (and are required to follow certain procedures as a result of getting their clearances). The companies most likely agree to those clean-up visits anyway, if they want to keep getting government contracts, so it's not necessarily even using the government's law-enforcement power. If leaked information gets to a normal civilian who's never gotten a security clearance, though, I don't think that's illegal, if they didn't have a hand in leaking it themselves. That was basically the outcome of the Pentagon Papers case: that the people who leaked the papers to the NYT could be prosecuted, but the NYT couldn't be stopped from republishing them. Not that that'll necessarily save someone from getting hassled.

rdl 16y ago

Not a crime. The US doesn't have an equivalent of the UK's official secrets act. I don't think it's actually a crime, although there could be court injunction against publishing, which you could then be in contempt of if you went ahead. If you have a security clearance, it's possibly unwise to download/have this information on your own, especially if you have had secret access to it, mainly because there is going to be a bunch of counterintelligence to figure out how things were leaked (presumably PFC Manning, but who knows?). It would complicate things during an investigation if you had information on your hard drive, even if you could document that it had come from an outside commercial source. With some information, even if it is "known" by the public, having access to it through classified channels is a way to vet the information, so if someone posted "super secret a" to a website, and you commented "oh, yes, I've heard of that", you would actually be corroborating information and leaking classified information. FWIW, nothing in these seems to be particularly damning of the US. It is basically "war is hell", "mistakes are made", "we like to put a spin on things". It's pretty much par for the course for special operations forces to do things and then have the positive outcomes attributed to indigenous forces, and the negative outcomes hushed up. There probably would be some net benefit to prompt declassification and publishing of much of this information. I don't condone illegal leaks, but there is definitely a public interest in having the public informed about what is going on. Aside from the reporting on TF 373, nothing in the NY Times or Guardian analysis of the documents (I haven't looked at the raw documents) is a big deal. As far as I can tell, nothing particularly sensitive about 373 was published, either.

grandalf 16y ago
I thought the finding that the insurgents are using US provided stinger missiles against US aircraft was fairly damning... it shows that past US intervention has unforeseen consequences. Also, it's pretty significant (to a lot of people) to observe that all this continued under Obama... that there has been no improvement in the way the war effort is being waged.
- rdl 16y ago
  I don't see anything saying the enemy is using US provided stinger missiles against US aircraft. There was a report of "smoke trail", which may or may not be accurate. If accurate, I would assume it's a soviet weapon (SA-7 or successor), or maybe a Pakistani stinger clone, but very unlikely a US stinger given in the early 1980s. Yes, a lot of this is interesting, but isn't far beyond that is available in the news, at least if you have a basic understanding of military operations in Afghanistan. If you read 2-3 of the popular military blogs (Michael Yon, especially), you would know 95+% of this.

jfarmer 16y ago

See NY Times vs. USA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_St...

mkramlich 16y ago

It would be funny if it were a crime to download this data and yet not a crime to cause the deaths of innocent Afghan civilians.

rdl 16y ago
Members of the military absolutely can be prosecuted under the UCMJ if they commit crimes, including murder of innocent Afghan civilians. There have been numerous prosecutions -- in fact, the "guncam" footage from Iraq was actually recovered, allegedly, from JAG, the legal arm of the military, which was reviewing it to see if crimes had occurred which would need to be prosecuted. The standards for use of force in a war zone are different from other places, but fundamentally, members of the military must obey the rules of engagement set by the military (at the direction of the civilian leadership, i.e. the President). There is a much stronger argument about contractors, especially in Iraq from 2003-2006, using unlawful force and not being prosecuted, than military.
- loewenskind 16y ago
  >The standards for use of force in a war zone are different from other places, but fundamentally, members of the military must obey the rules of engagement set by the military This doesn't preclude the death of innocent civilians. And from the point of view of the people who's country you've invaded that would be murder.
  - confuzatron 16y ago
    That's a useful skill, to be able to speak for all the people of Afghanistan like that. I guess you have the objectivity of distance working in your favour.
    - loewenskind 16y ago
      FFS man, who on earth would be happy for some military power to invade their country and setup shop wherever they like? No one wants to be occupied. Talk about "objectivity of distance", you apparently have no concept of what being occupied means. If some military super power invaded your country but a base in your neighborhood and a member of your family was killed during one of their operations would you say "well, my brother was innocent but the army was within their own self defined rules for legitimate engagement. Bad luck for us" or would you say he was murdered?