WikiLeaks Bursts Climate Accord

What if WikiLeaks exposed a grand conspiracy, one that proved all conspiracy theorists not to be nuts, but to be right on the money?

According to the [Guardian] WikiLeaks cables reveal how US manipulated climate accord

Embassy dispatches show America used spying, threats and promises of aid to get support for Copenhagen accord.

From the article:

Hidden behind the save-the-world rhetoric of the global climate change negotiations lies the mucky realpolitik: money and threats buy political support; spying and cyberwarfare are used to seek out leverage.

The US diplomatic cables reveal how the US seeks dirt on nations opposed to its approach to tackling global warming; how financial and other aid is used by countries to gain political backing; how distrust, broken promises and creative accounting dog negotiations; and how the US mounted a secret global diplomatic offensive to overwhelm opposition to the controversial "Copenhagen accord", the unofficial document that emerged from the ruins of the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009.

Negotiating a climate treaty is a high-stakes game, not just because of the danger warming poses to civilisation but also because re-engineering the global economy to a low-carbon model will see the flow of billions of dollars redirected.

Seeking negotiating chips, the US state department sent a secret cable on 31 July 2009 seeking human intelligence from UN diplomats across a range of issues, including climate change. The request originated with the CIA. As well as countries' negotiating positions for Copenhagen, diplomats were asked to provide evidence of UN environmental "treaty circumvention" and deals between nations.

Oooopppssss....
• WikiLeaks cables: Climate talks doomed, says EU president
• Wikileaks cables: America's secret climate diplomacy
• Cancún climate talks in danger of collapse

Point of order here... have you noticed that they completely ignore the fact that all nations are involved? I did. Maurice Strong, who's embroiled all the world’s weather and climate bureaucracies when he organized the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change through the WMO. Anthony Watts describes what the WikiLeaks material exposes. “What really strikes us is the fact that all this Copenhagen/Cancun stuff has nothing to do with the Climate, or saving the World. It’s about political positioning, money, and plain old fascism cult promotion.”

Harsh.

Scary too.
Figure 1: Sources: (Left and Right)
Figure 2: Average temperature versus # of stations, Source

Don't shoot the messenger

WIKILEAKS deserves protection, not threats and attacks.

Blasphemes presents a special Cut-n-Paste from Julian Assange. Why? Isn't he a traitor? I believe in free speech and fair trials. Mr. Assange has gotten neither. If we're going to try actual terrorists in New York for murder, give them Constitutional rights, and then let them go on nothing more than a 'conspiracy to commit murder' charge, the LEAST we can do is re-print Mr. Assange's editorial.

I mean, it's not like you're going to read it in an AMERICAN newspaper.

Take it away Mr. Assange....[source for cut'n'paste]

"IN 1958 a young Rupert Murdoh, then owner and editor of Adelaide's The News, wrote: "In the race between secrecy and truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win."

His observation perhaps reflected his father Keith Murdoch's expose that Australian troops were being needlessly sacrificed by incompetent British commanders on the shores of Gallipoli. The British tried to shut him up but Keith Murdoch would not be silenced and his efforts led to the termination of the disastrous Gallipoli campaign.

Nearly a century later, WikiLeaks is also fearlessly publishing facts that need to be made public.

I grew up in a Queensland country town where people spoke their minds bluntly. They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.

These things have stayed with me. WikiLeaks was created around these core values. The idea, conceived in Australia, was to use internet technologies in new ways to report the truth.

WikiLeaks coined a new type of journalism: scientific journalism. We work with other media outlets to bring people the news, but also to prove it is true. Scientific journalism allows you to read a news story, then to click online to see the original document it is based on. That way you can judge for yourself: Is the story true? Did the journalist report it accurately?

Democratic societies need a strong media and WikiLeaks is part of that media. The media helps keep government honest. WikiLeaks has revealed some hard truths about the Iraq and Afghan wars, and broken stories about corporate corruption.

People have said I am anti-war: for the record, I am not. Sometimes nations need to go to war, and there are just wars. But there is nothing more wrong than a government lying to its people about those wars, then asking these same citizens to put their lives and their taxes on the line for those lies. If a war is justified, then tell the truth and the people will decide whether to support it.

If you have read any of the Afghan or Iraq war logs, any of the US embassy cables or any of the stories about the things WikiLeaks has reported, consider how important it is for all media to be able to report these things freely.

WikiLeaks is not the only publisher of the US embassy cables. Other media outlets, including Britain's The Guardian, The New York Times, El Pais in Spain and Der Spiegel in Germany have published the same redacted cables.

Yet it is WikiLeaks, as the co-ordinator of these other groups, that has copped the most vicious attacks and accusations from the US government and its acolytes. I have been accused of treason, even though I am an Australian, not a US, citizen. There have been dozens of serious calls in the US for me to be "taken out" by US special forces. Sarah Palin says I should be "hunted down like Osama bin Laden", a Republican bill sits before the US Senate seeking to have me declared a "transnational threat" and disposed of accordingly. An adviser to the Canadian Prime Minister's office has called on national television for me to be assassinated. An American blogger has called for my 20-year-old son, here in Australia, to be kidnapped and harmed for no other reason than to get at me.

And Australians should observe with no pride the disgraceful pandering to these sentiments by Julia Gillard and her government. The powers of the Australian government appear to be fully at the disposal of the US as to whether to cancel my Australian passport, or to spy on or harass WikiLeaks supporters. The Australian Attorney-General is doing everything he can to help a US investigation clearly directed at framing Australian citizens and shipping them to the US.

Prime Minister Gillard and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have not had a word of criticism for the other media organisations. That is because The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel are old and large, while WikiLeaks is as yet young and small.

We are the underdogs. The Gillard government is trying to shoot the messenger because it doesn't want the truth revealed, including information about its own diplomatic and political dealings.

Has there been any response from the Australian government to the numerous public threats of violence against me and other WikiLeaks personnel? One might have thought an Australian prime minister would be defending her citizens against such things, but there have only been wholly unsubstantiated claims of illegality. The Prime Minister and especially the Attorney-General are meant to carry out their duties with dignity and above the fray. Rest assured, these two mean to save their own skins. They will not.

Every time WikiLeaks publishes the truth about abuses committed by US agencies, Australian politicians chant a provably false chorus with the State Department: "You'll risk lives! National security! You'll endanger troops!" Then they say there is nothing of importance in what WikiLeaks publishes. It can't be both. Which is it?

It is neither. WikiLeaks has a four-year publishing history. During that time we have changed whole governments, but not a single person, as far as anyone is aware, has been harmed. But the US, with Australian government connivance, has killed thousands in the past few months alone.

US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates admitted in a letter to the US congress that no sensitive intelligence sources or methods had been compromised by the Afghan war logs disclosure. The Pentagon stated there was no evidence the WikiLeaks reports had led to anyone being harmed in Afghanistan. NATO in Kabul told CNN it couldn't find a single person who needed protecting. The Australian Department of Defence said the same. No Australian troops or sources have been hurt by anything we have published.

But our publications have been far from unimportant. The US diplomatic cables reveal some startling facts:

► The US asked its diplomats to steal personal human material and information from UN officials and human rights groups, including DNA, fingerprints, iris scans, credit card numbers, internet passwords and ID photos, in violation of international treaties. Presumably Australian UN diplomats may be targeted, too.

► King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked the US to attack Iran.

► Officials in Jordan and Bahrain want Iran's nuclear program stopped by any means available.

► Britain's Iraq inquiry was fixed to protect "US interests".

► Sweden is a covert member of NATO and US intelligence sharing is kept from parliament.

► The US is playing hardball to get other countries to take freed detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Barack Obama agreed to meet the Slovenian President only if Slovenia took a prisoner. Our Pacific neighbour Kiribati was offered millions of dollars to accept detainees.

In its landmark ruling in the Pentagon Papers case, the US Supreme Court said "only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government". The swirling storm around WikiLeaks today reinforces the need to defend the right of all media to reveal the truth.

Julian Assange is the editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks.

WikiLeaks Brings "Patriot Act" to Internet

WikiLeaks Being Used to Justify "Patriot Act" Legislation For The Internet

[Repost] Senator Mitch McConnell called Assange a "high-tech terrorist" on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday and said, "if it‘s found that Assange hasn’t violated the law, then the law should be changed."

Over the weekend, an insightful article by Zen Gardner exposed how WikiLeaks resembles an establishment creation. The article correctly pointed out that the WikiLeaks storyline was conforming nicely to the elite's problem-reaction-solution method, with the solution of more tyranny for our safety.

WikiLeaks is being used to bring in the agenda on so many levels, but most importantly by setting the precedent of shutting down websites for politically "dangerous" content. Gardner writes:

After all, if information is now the enemy, we must carefully police any and every aspect of this dangerous medium -- all for the safety and protection of 'we the people.'

Oh, we’ll still have the Internet, just like you can still fly. You’ll just have to be on the 'approved' list, screened, stamped, zapped, mugged and molested if you want to get 'on the net.' No biggie. Thanks Julian -- job well done.

First, let's be clear, the 250,000 pages of cables amounted to some geopolitical Jerry Springer he-said she-said nonsense to make countries look petty and stupid. They revealed nothing new that wasn't already known or well suspected. The information simply stoked existing flames by airing geopolitical dirty laundry, nothing more -- no secret weapons, no major arms deals, no tactical locations of troops, and no revealing the ID of secret agents, etc.

Yet, the government has used its corporate muscle to illegally limit access to WikiLeaks. It was recently revealed that Amazon, the server host for WikiLeaks, caved to political pressure to drop the website. Then, in dictatorial fashion, PayPal removed its service for donations to WikiLeaks, and now their bank account has been frozen. And all this comes a week after the shutdown of 80-plus websites for "copyright infringement," apparently in preparation for passing the "Blacklist" bill.

Now, Gardner's weekend speculation and McConnell's call for action has turned into political reality. The Hill reports today that Senators unveil anti-WikiLeaks legislation, which seems to be a sort-of "Patriot Act" for the Internet. It's astonishing how fast these guys can write legislation when major events occur. And again, it's tyranny-saurus rex, Joe Lieberman, leading the charge with scandal-ridden Ensign (R-Nev.) and empty-suit Scott Brown (R-Mass.). Ensign was quoted:

WikiLeaks is not a whistleblower website and Assange is not a journalist.

That, we agree with. Yet, therein lies the concern for establishing new Internet rules of what can and can't be discussed, and who qualifies as a "journalist." Look, Assange is clearly either a kinda-smart "useful idiot" or a brilliant insider to the elite. He is certainly not a genuine whistleblower. Admittedly, though, for those of us who hoped he was the real thing, the elite have used some savvy tactics to boost WikiLeaks' rogue credibility in order to confuse us.

The White House has sent down a warning to government agencies to restrict employee access to WikiLeaks in order to make Assange and crew appear dangerously off limits. Apparently, this warning has already trickled down to "potential" government employees as well. It was revealed that the State Department warned Columbia University students who may apply for a Federal job:

DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter.

In other words, the Thought Police are out in full force telling job-hungry students to not apply if they discuss current events if authorities label those events dangerous or harmful to America. Soon, they'll most likely publicly fire a mid-level employee who went over the line to prove how serious they are. After all, they desperately need to keep the slaves on the plantation.

Furthermore, an Interpol arrest warrant has been issued for Julian Assange for shady rape charges, making him an internationally "wanted" man.

And Assange is playing the clever but likable villain part so well, too, claiming to have an encrypted "insurance" file in case anyone kills him or terminates the website. Assange is the perfect international man of mystery with the dark shades in press conferences; endless mainstream media interviews with his exotic accent and short temper; and his famous silver-blond locks. What a great show they're putting on for us. I'm sure the movie industry is already clamoring for the rights to the script.

In the meantime, it has become the typical political game show. Only in America could Cablegate become such a divide-and-conquer partisan issue. The Right have successfully defined WikiLeaks as a dangerous terrorist organization and desire the assassination of its leader, while the Left defends the public's right to knowledge, but disparages the damage the documents may cause, thus setting up the obvious bipartisan compromise: tighter control and surveillance of the Internet.

It will go down like this: the Right's extreme calls for Assange's execution will give the establishment the publicly defensible compromise to at least shut down their website by way of pressuring their service providers, etc. And the wimpy Left will compromise by letting it happen, while Assange will be allowed to remain alive and free.

It fits ever so perfectly for them to extend the definition of an "enemy combatant" to a website that publishes "anti-government" material. Enter Attorney General Eric Holder, who has authorized "significant" action into the probe of WikiLeaks. Can't you just smell the tyranny coming to the Internet?

Ron Paul said it best in his book Revolution: A Manifesto: "Truth is treason in an empire of lies." Paul reiterated this principle of transparency in a recent interview. Paul said we need more WikiLeaks if we expect to live in a free society:

'In a free society we're supposed to know the truth,' Paul insisted. 'In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble.'

Given the angry calls for action and today's developments of government proposals, not to mention the blight of Internet legislation already on the table, we will likely get the exact opposite of the free-flow of information that Paul is advocating. In fact, if history is any indicator, get ready for nothing less than the Patriot Act for the Internet!

[Author of this post is Eric Blair]

Free Society

The more and more I learn about Ron Paul, the more and more I like him. He's not perfect, but he is a step in the right direction.

Whistle Blower WikiLeaks

Latest WikiLeaks Developments

(Reuters) - The White House has set up a special committee to assess the damage from the flood of classified cables released by WikiLeaks and organize efforts to tighten security measures in government agencies.

Here are Thursday's highlights in the unfolding story: Read more ....

Oh oh. A committee and not a Blue Ribbon Panel - must be pretty serious?

But let's be serious for just a second...

"I think you're underestimating how cynical Americans are about our government already. So unless in these WikiLeaks we are going to learn that the aliens from Area 51 killed Kennedy, stop with the drama."

~Jon Stewart, attempting to put at least a tiny pinhole in the gargantuan ego of Julian Assange.

You know what the backlash here is? It's that Assange is a tattle-tale. That's right. The whole planet full of hairless apes, we're still just little kids. And everyone knows what's going on - and they are either a part of it, or chose to ignore it in favor of Hollywood gossip, Bigfoot or Dancing with the Stars. That, or they're much more interested on where their neighbor got that fresh water from.

Everyone, I think we can agree, hates a tattle tale. Whistle blowers are praised for their bravery, but also hated, scorned, shot at, and usually killed - why? Not because their terrible secret will destroy humanity, or the church (Da-Vinchi Code) - it's that they tattled. Trust was given, then when the whistle blower runs and tattles everyone gets upset. No one's sure what to do - yes, having beetle parts in baby formula is bad - but they're pretty sure they don't like rats either. It's the old saying, "Everyone loves sausage. No one wants to know how it's made."

Look at the example of the Pentagon Papers. Yeah, everyone knew that it was an illegal war that was being perpetuated to "Save Face." When the revelations of the Rand Corporation's assessment of the war got out - it wasn't a game changer. People said, yeah, I was pretty sure that's what was going on. Looks like I was right. Oh crap, the mortgage is due tomorrow. And they went right back to watching Laugh-In.

The difference is, this time around, is how accessible Assange has made it for like minded cage rattlers to attempt to get the truth out. The media has already signaled that they're not willing or capable of doing that job, anymore. They've given those labors out long ago. It's not only unprofitable - it pisses off their shareholders, especially when an expose ruins another investment they're tied to. And since there are only six corporations in charge of ALL the [major] American media outlets -- well, if you think that Matt Lauer is a great journalist, maybe you should look for some other sources for your news?

And since the "journalists" of main-stream news won't do it - they still like to pretend they do. That's why everyone's giving face time to folks who call Assanage a traitor, a rapist, a terrorist... Bill O'Riley said that Assanage should be hung up by his neck until he was dead. Really? He's a fellow journalist, Bill? Shouldn't you be praising him for doing a good job - by publishing what you wouldn't? Oh, maybe you're just jealous that he scooped you?

What's going to be interesting now is, What will he do next?

Wikileaks Releases More Truth

Wikileaks has released 250,000 secret messages sent by US embassies which give an insight into current American global concerns.

They include reports of some Arab leaders - including the Saudi king - urging the US to attack Iran and end its nuclear weapons program.

Other concerns include the security of Pakistani nuclear material that could be used to make an atomic weapon.

The widespread use of hacking by the Chinese government is also reported.

The leaked US embassy cables also reportedly include accounts of:

• Corruption within the Afghan government, with concerns heightened when a senior official was found to be carrying more than $50m in cash on a foreign trip.
  
  
• Bargaining to empty the Guantanamo Bay prison camp - including Slovenian diplomats being told to take in a freed prisoner if they wanted to secure a meeting with President Barack Obama.
  
  
• The extraordinarily close relationship between Russian PM Vladimir Putin and his Italian counterpart Silvio Berlusconi.
  
  
• Alleged links between the Russian government and organized crime.
  
  
• American and South Korean officials' discussions about the prospects for a unified Korea should North Korea collapse as a viable state.
  
  
• Sharply critical accounts of UK military operations in Afghanistan.

Everyone already knows that the Saudis, Jordanians and, hell, everyone else, are deeply suspicious about Iran's intentions. That's nothing new. What has not been known until now is how strongly they have been pressing for American military action.

The leaks do not tell the Iranians anything they did not suspect, maybe, have already figured out on their own. If anything, this opens up more discussion on the Iranian nuclear threat, and whether the US or the Israelis will have a green light to be the policeman of the Middle East.

Sure the leaks are embarrassing for the Americans, and will infuriate Arab leaders whose remarks have been quoted. But, they're out there now....

Despite the By DDoS Attack Just as Its Newest Leak is Leaked Early.

WMD in Iraq Was True, but Only Because Wikileaks Said So

One surprising development with the newest WikiLeaks information dump has been how many liberals are now willing to admit that Gulf War era WMDs were found in Iraq. For years, many folks not only denied that WMDs had been found in Iraq, they openly mocked people who said otherwise.

So now that WikiLeaks has released the information, they finally believe it and are producing articles like this...

WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq With Surprising Results

By late 2003, even the Bush White House’s staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

But for years afterward, WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins, and uncover weapons of mass destruction.

An initial glance at the WikiLeaks war logs doesn’t reveal evidence of some massive WMD program by the Saddam Hussein regime — the Bush administration’s most (in)famous rationale for invading Iraq. But chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam’s toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict — and may have brewed up their own deadly agents.

Oh, and the Iranian involvement in Iraq and also Afghanistan has been substantial... even the NY Times ran an article on that today. Afghan Leader Admits His Office Gets Cash from Iran

Wikileaks other Shoe Drops

A close analysis of the 391,832 documents helps illuminate several important aspects of this war:

¶ The deaths of Iraqi civilians — at the hands mainly of other Iraqis, but also of the American military — appear to be greater than the numbers made public by the United States during the Bush administration.

¶ While the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by Americans, particularly at the Abu Ghraib prison, shocked the American public and much of the world, the documents paint an even more lurid picture of abuse by America’s Iraqi allies — a brutality from which the Americans at times averted their eyes.

¶ Iran’s military, more than has been generally understood, intervened aggressively in support of Shiite combatants, offering weapons, training and sanctuary and in a few instances directly engaging American troops.

¶ The war in Iraq spawned a reliance on private contractors on a scale not well recognized at the time and previously unknown in American wars. The documents describe an outsourcing of combat and other duties once performed by soldiers that grew and spread to Afghanistan to the point that there are more contractors there than soldiers.

The Iraqi documents were made available to The Times, the British newspaper The Guardian, the French newspaper Le Monde and the German magazine Der Spiegel on the condition that they be embargoed until now.

Geoff Morrell, the Defense Department press secretary, strongly condemned both WikiLeaks and the release of the Iraq documents. “We know terrorist organizations have been mining the leaked Afghan documents for information to use against us and this Iraq leak is more than four times as large. By disclosing such sensitive information, WikiLeaks continues to put at risk the lives of our troops, their coalition partners and those Iraqis and Afghans working with us.”

Read the full Pentagon response »

Brace Yourself

In what is rumored to be "the biggest leak of military intelligence that has ever occurred," the whistleblower site WikiLeaks is preparing to reveal hundreds of thousands of documents pertaining to the Iraq War. Iain Overton, the editor of a journalism nonprofit in London, told Newsweek he's working with WikiLeaks and other media organizations to process, digest, and publish the information. Here's what's buzzing about the upcoming intelligence leak around the Web:

• This Will Be the Biggest Dump Ever, writes Kim Zetter at Wired: "Pfc. Bradley Manning, who has been charged with improperly downloading and leaking classified information, disclosed to a former hacker in May that he had given WikiLeaks a database covering 500,000 events in the Iraq War between 2004 and 2009. Manning said the database included reports, dates, and latitude and longitude of events, as well as casualty figures. A leak of this sort would vastly dwarf the cache of about 75,000 documents that WikiLeaks published in July from the Afghanistan War. That cache involved field reports from analysts who compiled information from informants and others on incidents and intelligence."

• This Will Probably Contain Info on Detainee Treatment, writes Mark Hosenball at Newsweek: "The Iraq material portrays U.S. forces being involved in a 'bloodbath,' but some of the most disturbing material relates to the abusive treatment of detainees, not by Americans but by Iraqi security forces."

• They'll Try to Prevent Casualties, writes Gautham Nagesh at The Hill: "Overton said his organization is taking seriously U.S. complaints that the Afghanistan leaks have put lives in jeopardy, which is why they are reviewing all reports first for sensitive information rather than posting the raw material. He said WikiLeaks's media partners have agreed to make financial contributions to WikiLeaks to 'help meet productions costs.'"

• A Number of Media Sources Will Get Exclusives, writes Tim Edwards at The First Post:

Iain Overton, editor of The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which is working with WikiLeaks to identify specific stories among the documents, told Newsweek that each of the organisations involved this time will come up with its own angle on the material, because "everyone wants their exclusive". He adds that the tranche of documents will be around three times the size of the Afghanistan leak.

• Bringing in the MSM Is a Smart Strategy, writes Michael Collins at The Agonist: "It guarantees maximum publicity. It takes a great deal of heat of Wikileaks as the prime malefactor in the eyes of the national security state. It also impresses on the leaks the imprimatur of the mass media, lending it immediate gravitas."

Sources

• Releasing Iraq War Docs Gautham Nagesh, The Hill
• The Collaborators Mark Hosenball, Newsweek
• Massive Cache Kim Zetter, Wired
• The Leaks Tim Edwards, The Week
• http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/The-Web-Braces-for-Biggest-Wikileaks-Dump-to-Date-4992/
  

Gag Order on Wikileaks

Swedish authorities say they have issued an arrest warrant for Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, on accusations of rape and molestation.

Did Julian Assange really do this? Is he drunk with fame and testosterone from Pentagon Papers 2010? Is he really dumb enough to discredit himself and his mission by being this stupid? I don't know - that's up to the courts to sort out - no matter how much cash and time that takes.

No matter what, Wikileaks credibility has been damaged. Pundits and critics will now have something to work with. These allegations will be repeated over and over again to drive home the talking point that Wikileaks in particular, and whistleblowers in general, are criminals.

And it will work. Unfortunately.

And if you were into conspiracy theories and evil counter intelligence agents from Hollywood movies - all you need to do is to make the accusation. You don't have to put him on a plane to Gitmo, or have him killed - just discredit the person, and you've done the damage. Simple and neat.

Read More:

Genie Back In the Bottle?

Pentagon Demands Documents Back From Wikileaks, Wants Files Deleted

The Pentagon demanded that Wikileaks hand over classified Afghanistan war documents published leaked to the website.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell at Thursday's briefing said "the only acceptable course" is for Wikileaks to turn some 15,000 documents still being reviewed by the website back to the U.S. government and delete all the files from its website pertaining to the original nearly 92,000 documents posted July 25.

Read more ....

I'm guessing that the Pentagon doesn't understand how this whole internet thingy works?