US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairwoman Feinstein has a big mouth

Jeez:

At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise over Pakistani opposition to the campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Islamic extremist targets along Pakistan’s northwestern border.

“As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base,” she said.

The basing of the pilotless aircraft in Pakistan suggests a much deeper relationship with the United States on counter-terrorism matters than has been publicly acknowledged. Such an arrangement would be at odds with protests lodged by officials in Islamabad, the capital, and could inflame anti-American sentiment in the country.

I assume her Security clearance will be revoked, right?

This was an accident right? The action of an unthinking Senator, correct?

This is not a purposeful attempt to wedge USAGOV and Pakistan, right?

Hmmm.


Shame?

Wiki for Anti-Anti-Islamofascists and the Practice of Open Source Espionage

I found a reference at SlashDot to something called Wikileaks which says:

Wikileaks is developing an uncensorable Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations. We aim for maximum political impact. Our interface is identical to Wikipedia and usable by all types of people. We have received over 1.2 million documents so far from dissident communities and anonymous sources.
[…]
Today, with authoritarian governments in power around much of the world, increasing authoritarian tendencies in democratic governments, and increasing amounts of power vested in unaccountable corporations, the need for openness and transparency is greater than ever.
[…]
Wikileaks reduces the risks of truth tellers and improves the analysis and dissemination of leaked documents.

Wikileaks provides simple and straightforward means for anonymous and untraceable leaking of documents.
[…]
In an important sense, Wikileaks is the first intelligence agency of the people. Better principled and less parochial than any governmental intelligence agency, it is able to be more accurate and relevant. It has no commercial or national interests at heart; its only interest is the revelation of the truth. Unlike the covert activities of state intelligence agencies, Wikileaks relies upon the power of overt fact to enable and empower citizens to bring feared and corrupt governments and corporations to justice.
[…]
We propose that authoritarian governments, oppressive institutions and corrupt corporations should be subject to the pressure, not merely of international diplomacy, freedom of information laws or even periodic elections, but of something far stronger — the consciences of the people within them.
[…]
Wikileaks is not a front for the CIA, MI6, FSB or any other agency. Quite the opposite actually. It’s a global group of people with long standing dedication to the idea of improved transparency in institutions, especially government. We think better transparency is at the heart of less corruption and better democracies. By definition spy agencies want to hide information. We want to get it out to the public.

The site claims to be neutral, yet the front page seem to be mostly anti-USA stuff (content and word choice).

Weirdly, the site also has favorable reference to Daniel Ellsberg and Aldrich Ames.

Open Source Espionage: New York Times Reveals Pakistani Nuke Secrets

LGF Reports:

If an enemy of America had set up a media organization in this country, it’s hard to imagine how they could possibly do any more damage to our security than the New York Times continues to do with articles like this…

Read the NY Times Article.

Open Source Espionage Example

From LGF:

In a genuine scandal (as opposed to the manufactured Plamegate fraud), the Los Angeles Times casually “outs” three CIA operatives: Pilots traced to CIA renditions. (Hat tip: tedzilla.)

I’d suggest what side is the LA Times on, but I think that is pretty clear.

Consequences of Open Source Espionage

Allah writes at Hot Air:

Now why, ask yourself, would terror types take the trouble to modify pre-paid cell phones? What might have tipped them that international calls might have a silent party taking notes? Hmmmm?

Hmm indeed.

Additional Open Source Espionage Example

John Robb has the example.

Open Source Espionage and the Anti-Anti-Islamofascists

David Frum has an article entitled Whose Side Is the Left On about two concepts I have been mulling over in my mind recently: the emergence of Open Source Espionage and the non-trivial existence of Anti-Anti-Islamofascists.

He writes about what I call Open Source Espionage:

The Times’ terrorism-financing story followed two other intensely damaging leaks: One to the Times disclosed details of the National Security Agency’s program for intercepting terrorist communications; another to the Washington Post disclosed the locations of the prisons where high-value al-Qaeda captives were held for questioning.

Altogether, these three stories helped al-Qaeda to transfer money more securely, to conceal its communications more effectively, and to identify potential targets for terrorist retaliation and blackmail. Short of printing coupons to offer terrorists discounts on their next purchase of a nuclear device, it’s hard to imagine how a media organization could provide more assistance to the terrorist enemy than these stories in the Times and Post have done.

He writes this about what I call the Anti-Anti-Islamofascists (which includes much but not all of of the left):

The divulgence of crucial national secrets has elicited remarkably little outrage from Democrats in Congress. Few have stepped forward to defend the Times or the civil servants who leaked to it, but almost none has condemned the leak, either.

Now the Hamdan decision–and the resulting urgent need for new anti-terrorist legislation–forces a decision upon Congress and the Democratic minority. Where do they stand? What will they support?

This is more than merely a partisan question. It goes directly to the question of whether the U.S. and the West will be able to combat terrorism as united societies–or whether their left wings will opt out, or balk, or worse.

Some of the Anti-Anti-Islamofascists just don’t believe Islamofascism is a real threat. They believe that Democratic Capitalism in general and specifically George Bush and Republican/Conservative parties are their real opponents. These tend to be of the left or Transnational Progressives. They are focused on what Fonte calls the Ideological War Within the West, and which is turning into a sort of WesternCiv 5GW Civil War.

Other Anti-Anti-Islamofascists included Muslims who while not taking part in active Jihad, tacitly agree with its goals and help in soft ways like giving money to known faux-charities, and opposing sensible security controls claiming racism / islamophobia / victimhood.

Some Anti-Anti-Islamofascists are just this new long war’s version of Useful Idiots. Alot of the left and the democratic party stalwarts fall into this category.

Update: More on the Tranzis from Stephan Den Beste / USS Clueless