WikiLeaks Says It Has Released Hacked U.S. Detainee Rules
Source: Reuters
WikiLeaks says releases hacked U.S. detainee rules
Thu Oct 25, 2012 7:13am EDT
LONDON (Reuters) - The WikiLeaks website began publishing on Thursday what it said were more than 100 U.S. Defense Department files detailing military detention policies in camps in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay in the years after the September 11 attacks on U.S. targets.
In a statement, WikiLeaks criticized regulations it said had led to abuse and impunity and urged human rights activists to use the documents to research what it called "policies of unaccountability".
The statement quoted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange as saying: "The 'Detainee Policies' show the anatomy of the beast that is post-9/11 detention, the carving out of a dark space where law and rights do not apply, where persons can be detained without a trace at the convenience of the U.S. Department of Defense."
"It shows the excesses of the early days of war against an unknown 'enemy' and how these policies matured and evolved, ultimately deriving into the permanent state of exception that the United States now finds itself in, a decade later."
Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE89O0MA20121025
http://wikileaks.org/detaineepolicies
= new reply since forum marked as read
ever associated myself with the Democratic Party or supported any of its officials.
We have to call out assholes like you when you show your hands. If this gets my posting privileges on DU revoked, so be it.
If you forgot to use a 
icon, then I hereby retract everything above. Otherwise, please alert on me.
I don't admire anarchy.
as Mark Rudd (from the 1960s) has said and learned(not exact words)
what worked in the 60s is not the way to go in the 2010's.
you rebuild the parts you don't like from within, not from without
leaks are bad. Whether they be Valerie Plame or others.
As for Daniel Ellsberg? This is not the 1970s. This is today.
and this leaking stuff has the potential to bring down the entire internet into a vast silence.
(which then would lead to exactly what I am sure is not what someone pro-leak would want.)
Is that the "sounds of silence" those favoring the leaks wants?
I seriously doubt it.
By the way- V was just a movie with Natalie Portman and that great character actor Hugo.
It was NOT real. And in no way does that movie glorify anything in 2012. It was just a movie
where of course, in the movies, one roots for over the top things that may have actually happened in another place, another time, another world, but it is very odd
the vast majority who are pro-leaks shudder at the thought of having to get on an airline in safety, but have a machine make sure they are not carrying.
Something is wrong with that picture.
You want transparancy, but you don't want transparancy when entering an airline terminal and plane and would rather have secrecy in that as opposed to the assurance one may get to their destination safely, unlike say on 9/11.
again, this is not the old times.
we are living in a new world. And there are two choices (amazing prophetic in the 1960s tv farce...
we can have Kaos
or we can have Control
we cannot have anarchy which leads to Kaos.
Do you want all your personal emails to be revealed?(though if one has nothing to hide, there really is no reason for secrecy.)
But I would rather have safety.
and then through the criminal court system, those that abuse the law can be tried and if found guilty convicted
but that means one needs to obey the laws that are on the books
in the words of the old serenity canard
grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
The courage to change the things I can,
And the wisdom to know the difference
leaks are NOT a good thing.
changing laws enacted by Congress(NOT THE PRESIDENT) can be done in legal ways
(same as someday #2BOR will be re-interpreted humanely unlike the way it is now.)
Corrupt courts in time get replaced by good ones
Much as the Bush/Cheney admin. was retired and is never coming back, as long as people don't vote them back in.
(and as we know the two parties are NOT one and the same, if for no other reason than the ability to pick fantastic or fanatical justices-depending on who is doing the picking.
and I look forward. not backward.
in the words of #6
be seeing you in future posts in future arguments sometimes probably more than likely agreeing, sometimes not.
we agree to disagree or agree to agree. That is what an honest debate is suppose to be
.
peace and love to you always.
