Does linking "Peryton" to several leaks partially betray the WikiLeakS.org promise of anonymity ?
The latest selective leak of US Military classified documents by the WikiLeakS.org publishers raises another couple of important questions, to add to the list of unanswered questions about the ethics and the security of the whole project:
Classified SECRET consolidated US Forces Rules of Engagement (ROE) for Iraq.[...]
The ROE comes from 'Peryton' a national security whistleblower who has supplied a number of other classified or For Official Use Only documents, two of which have been publicly verified by the US military:
- Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedure (2003)
- Camp Delta Standard Operating Procedure (2004)
and one of which attracted a "no comment", but was subsequently privately verified by UPI's national security correspondent Shaun Waterman:
- U.S lost Fallujah's info war (and associated links)
[...]
On motivation, Peryton has shown that they are primarily motivated by ethical concerns...
[...]
The mere fact of leaking such documents gives no clue as to what the real motivations or agenda of the whistleblower or document leaker actually is.
A couple of obvious questions:
- Was the public linking by the WikiLeakS.org publishers, of several separate leaked documents, to a single supposedly anonymous source "Peryton", done with that source's prior permission ?
- Since this could make it easier for any investigation to track down a particular whistleblower, then is this a partial betrayal of the WikiLeakS.org promise of anonymity ?
Comments
I haven't read all of the briefs, but does Bank Julis Baer have legal standing in California? I understand the case is under Federal jurisdiction, but where are the State of California and Federal Banking Regulators that oversee banking operations? In plain english, it sounds like the Federal Judge has jumped the gun.
Posted by: Dave Dawson | February 29, 2008 2:46 AM