Congressmen steam over Wikileaks TSA breach
I'll huff and I'll puff and I'll achieve very little
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 Homeland Security this week with a series of questions about the bodged publication of a Transport Security Administration (TSA) document.
The manual revealed standard screening procedures at airports. Sensitive portions had been redacted before it was published, but a simple cut-and-paste operation beat the attempted blackout.
The results, which discussed limitations of screening equipment and procedures, were posted on Cryptome and Wikileaks.
In a letter the Congressmen asked: "How has the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Security Administration addressed the repeated reposting of this security manual to other websites and what legal action, if any, can be taken to compel its removal?"
The answer of course, as experience shows, is none.
Repeated legal huffing and puffing at Wikileaks by offshore banks, air traffic controllers, calculator makers and Scientologists has met with no success. Or at least no success that has had any effect, thanks to the site's global network of mirror servers.
Cryptome meanwhile specialises in national-security-related documents, and is long-versed in the celebrated strategy adopted by the respondent in Arkell v Pressdram.
But perhaps aware that takedown has proved impossible, the Republican trio also ask if DHS believes "criminal penalties necessary or desirable to ensure such information is not reposted in the future?"
The Congressmen's other questions are about TSA redaction procedures, how the blunder came about and what officials will do to avoid a repeat. Five individuals were suspended this week, pending an investigation ®
Yes but we all know...
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....
Re: Yes but we all know...
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.
They just don't get it, do they? Nowadays nothing is secret and if you try to hide anything you are probably just a terrorist/sympathetic member of an affiliated terrorist organisation.