Open-Government Technique Used on Iraqi Documents 243
stalebread writes "MSNBC has an article looking at an internet-based 'many hands make light work' approach to data sifting. From the article: 'The federal government is making public a huge trove of documents seized during the invasion of Iraq, posting them on the Internet in a step that is at once a nod to the Web's power and an admission that U.S. intelligence resources are overloaded. Web surfers have begun posting translations and comments, digging through the documents with gusto.'"
Really, how do you dupe your own submission (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Really, how do you dupe your own submission (Score:2)
Re:Really, how do you dupe your own submission (Score:2)
Nothing important will be there (Score:5, Insightful)
This particular arm of the government is not dumb enough to publicly release anything that has a remote chance of being important. After all, such documents likely show some of our wrongdoings too.
Melissa
Re:Nothing important will be there (Score:2)
Re:Nothing important will be there (Score:2)
Ya know?
Re:Nothing important will be there (Score:2)
Re:Nothing important will be there (Score:5, Informative)
Putting aside the question of whether invading was morally right, and the abominable postwar planning and strategy (or rather, complete and total absence of any postwar planning and strategy), this raises a very serious question: was the invasion (as opposed to the occupation we now find ourselves mired in) a good decision from a military standpoint?
The short, superficial answer is: yes, because we won. But the question is, did we win because the U.S. military is so much better than the Iraqi military, or because Saddam did some incredibly stupid things? Was Rumsfeld a strategic genius, or arrogant and stupid, and only saved by the fact that Saddam acted even more stupid- by hobbling his army, by not listening to his commanders, and worrying about coups and Shiite uprisings instead of the U.S. military?
Anyhow, it's a bit academic at this point- we're stuck with the outcome, and we're not going to be invading anyone else for a long time. But I think it's worth thinking about, so we draw the right lessons from the war. Kaplan, Slate.com's military columnist, wrote a piece about how the U.S. offensive was just a couple weeks away from grinding to a halt due to a lack of spare parts and supplies. http://www.slate.com/id/2103552/ [slate.com] If Hussein had done a few things differently- blown up some of the bridges into Bagdad, followed the Russian model and ceded territory to attack the supply lines with guerillas- he might have been able to slow Rumsfeld's light and lean military and inflicted some serious casualties.
But we didn't win, and aren't close to winning yet (Score:4, Insightful)
Bamford's book "A Pretense for War" does some really good analysis of the events and decision-making processes that led up to 9/11 and to the Iraqi invasion, and even with the evidence available back when he wrote it, it's obvious that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and Bush and Cheney were all bleeding incompetents.
Re:But we didn't win, and aren't close to winning (Score:2)
the US is still spending hundreds of billions of dollars a year on it and shows no sign of having an exit strategy.
There *is* no workable exit strategy. The US can't leave, and won't be able to leave for many years yet. Compare this to the occupations of Germany and Japan. Those were very successful, and in the end produced stable, prosperous, democratic countries, but Allied forces (primarily US) were there for decades. Iraq will be the same, and leaving too soon will compound the initial error of t
Re:But we didn't win, and aren't close to winning (Score:2, Insightful)
Until we leave, every misfortune that Iraq suffers is and always will be our fault. Once again, we have failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam. And we are hearing precisely the same arguments for staying in Iraq.
Creating democracy...
!? You mean like we did in Syria in 1949 and Chile in 1973? Of all our interests in the region, democracy is not one of them. We will stay in Iraq until we can place a new Saddam, just like the old one. And
Re:But we didn't win, and aren't close to winning (Score:3, Informative)
Until we leave, every misfortune that Iraq suffers is and always will be our fault.
And after we leave, every misfortune that Iraq suffers will be our fault, for quite some time. The difference lies in the type of misfortune that can be expected.
Once again, we have failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam.
Vietnam was an entirely different situation. For starters, in Vietnam we never actually removed the North Vietnamese government. The differences vastly outnumber the similarities.
And we are hear
Re:But we didn't win, and aren't close to winning (Score:2)
We still have bases in Japan and Germany, we never left.
Sort of. We have massively reduced our presence in both countries over the last 15 years. Though we still have bases, they do not constitute a significant US military presence. The difference is that we're in no position to tell them what to do, and are there at their sufferance. Note that I'm more familiar with the situation in Germany than in Japan.
"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more - i
Re:But we didn't win, and aren't close to winning (Score:2)
Re:Nothing important will be there (Score:2)
The invasion was, as advertised, a very successful 21st century Blitzkrieg. The objective of a Blitzkrieg is to bypass and isolate pockets of resistance while making a dash for the capital city. The major danger of the strategy is that of outrunning your supply lines and leaving them relatively unprotected. Saddam's regime was toppled in only three weeks and most of his military didn't even fight.
However, as you indicated, the occupation was poorly pl
Re:Nothing important will be there (Score:2)
Dumbass it's about getting ideas and people together. People like you are PART of the problem.
You have to recognize failure before you can fix it. Bush doesn't even do that. At least the dems did.
Give credit where credit is due. Ignorance isn't a solution buddy. Get with the program.
Re:Nothing important will be there (Score:2)
It's called "analysis". It means thinking about what you did right, and what you did wrong, and it's part of running an effective government.
Anyhow, here's a few ideas for you: fire incompetent people like Rumsfeld, and replace them with someone new who has the slightest goddamn clue what they're doing, has an actual plan and will listen to wha
Sibel Edmunds (Score:2)
I would guess that this is being used for several issues;
Re:Nothing important will be there (Score:2)
Maybe this is a ploy to allow the public to read about the dirty deals between Iraq and France & Russia.
Re:Nothing important will be there (Score:3, Insightful)
To attempt to right everyone elses' wrongs without remaining cognizant of our own is a fool's errand. We must remain ever vigilant that we don't unwittingly become that which we purport to despise. There is nothing so hated as a hypocrite.
Re:Nothing important will be there (Score:2)
So we should disband all our local police forces? I mean if we don't have the obligation to set right the wrongs of a tyrranical dictator whose actions have killed millions, then what right do I have to have power over the wrongs of my neighbours?
.
Re:Nothing important will be there (Score:2)
I'm sure you wouldn't mind if some Mexian regiments set up base just outside your doorstep either, I think you would support that until your death? Am I right?
I guess it's OK to be a hypocrit as long as you are not called on it...
Privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Iraqis Gone Wild: Desert Heat Edition! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Privacy? (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that to Joe American, it's worse to disclose the home address of some Iraqi dude that he doesn't know from Adam than it is to compel a dozen Iraqis to strip naked and form a human pyramid.
Very tiny subset (Score:3, Informative)
Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:4, Interesting)
This story simply does not add up.
The real story behind this story is that the American government is doing one of two things: (1) psy-ops (i.e. psychological warfare) against the enemy or (2) political games to improve support for the Iraqi war effort.
Washington knows that the Muslim fascists monitor worldwide news sources. Washington may be publicizing these documents in an effort to hint (to the fascists) that (1) these documents are just the tip of the iceberg and (2) there are additional documents (in our possession) that indicate where the fascists are hiding and what their next moves are.
Alternatively, Washington knows that some pro-war Republican/Democratic bloggers will scan these documents. Further, Washington knows that on, say, page 15 (of the documents), there is a tidbit or blatant statement asserting that Saddam Hussein had planned to create weapons of mass destruction all along. Washington hopes that the bloggers will find page 15 and will start hollering about how right we were to invade Iraq. In short, the bloggers are mindless automatons, and Washington has just skillfully manipulated public opinion.
P.S.
Another version of this story [slashdot.org] was already published by SlashDot on March 19.
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2)
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minute s/main526954.shtml [cbsnews.com]
What I think is up with those documents is that they got filtered, anything important taken out beforehand, and these are the scraps given to the public. If nothing comes out of it - they can say "Hey, we tried." If anything actually comes out of it, that's
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2)
Possibly other things have been added. Especially if the deletions would otherwise be too obvious.
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2)
Not exactly a useful metric. Would you estimate the number of people literate in English by the number of English PhDs or Spanish according to the number of Spanish PhDs?
It would make more sense to look at the number of Americans who are Arabs (especiall
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2)
There are plenty of Iraqi, Israeli, and other nationalities that have exposure to that language living in the US. It is well within the realm of possibility that one of the Iraqi resteraunt owners has web access, an interest in the whole thing, and is very able to read those documents.
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2)
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2)
I suspect that there are more than six people in the US who are fluent in Arabic.
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2)
I expect the majority of Arabic speakers are a) not interested in working for this particular administration and b) unable to pass the rigorous security checks required for access to top secret material. Take a look at the SF86 sometime. It's not trivial.
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure that budget of $2 trillion isn't just lying around, money waiting to be used. It might be paying for things like, oh, highways, medicare, aircraft carriers, bridges to nowhere, etc. Could $2 billion probably be "found"? Sure, but it's not like it's manna from heaven.
Secondly, you can't just haul any dude off the street with a knowledge of Arabic, and have him start translating documents. In just about every case, a document has to be translated from the original by TWO different translators, and then the two translations refined together by a third (government can't afford to trust mistranslations either by accident or on purpose). All of these official translators must have an adequate security clearance, which takes 6 months or more.
And as far as "telegraphing" our next move, most of these docs are government docs (probably worthless) at elast 4 years old. I don't think there's a lot of danger in this.
Somehow, people who personally hate George Bush manage to simultaneously believe his government is capable of staggering stupidity (didn't they see a hurricane coming?) and simultaneously amazing subtlety like this.
If there were statements about WMD in these docs, wouldn't the administration simply, I dunno, PUBLICIZE IT?
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2)
One: why not? Even an ideologically consistent group like the Bush administration is made up of individuals, each of whom is of their own mind. It's entirely possible (for example) that the individuals in charge of hurricane relief are morons, and those in charge of the War On Terror are genius
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2, Funny)
That's it! They're in the woodwork! Gas 'em outta there!
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2)
It is extremely naive to think that you can solve a problem like this by throwing warm bodies at it. Translator salaries ARE very high (100-150k), and you can verify this with 5 minutes of google time. And there still aren't enough - there just aren't that many Arabic lingusits in the US. There are two knock-on problems:
1. Most of the time the government requires linguists that can be cleared at a very high level. Obviously this isn
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2)
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2)
You've obviously never worked for the government. It ain't that simple. Nothing they do is simple.
If Washington paid a translator salary of $200,000, hordes of translators would suddenly appear out of the woodwork.
Would they? Are you going to quit your job to make $200K for one year, maybe two, then be out of a job once this big translation job is done?
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2, Interesting)
Our government has such a shortage of translators for structural reasons. Many people who do know the languages that our government needs cannot pass the security clearance process needed to grant access to classified information. Having family or significant contacts abroad almost always leads to disqualification. Extensive travel experience in certain regions of the world - such as the Middle East or China - weighs against you. Homosexuality is another deal-breaker. So is credit card debt and past drug u
Re:Something is Fishy about this Whole Story (Score:2)
Um, you do realize that #2 amounts to "psy ops" against the American People, don't you?
You astound me (Score:2)
Now, w
Stop making political hay - here are the facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the facts:
The best translators the government has are probably at NSA, CIA and in the military services doing more important and urgent (real time) work, so thats why these "background" documents have been sitting for a few years. The shortage of these folks is well publicized, so they are a scarce resource and will not be allocated to a background task like this.
The simple truth is there are few Arabic translators that the government can hire permanently (and who would do this temporary?), and fewer still that can pass the background checks and get the requisite minimal security clearances needed for general employment in most of the usual places (Departments of Defense, State and the various Agencies). Not that they NEED the clearances and accesses (especially for documents that are now public domain apparently), but that such clearances have become almost ritual in nature and are part of the job requirements, usually at the DoD "Secret" level or above.
Add to that the general disinterest most people have in working for the government, then blend in the public law restrictions on the pay (GS scale precludes spending sprees on hiring), and you have a ready made "shortage", or at lesat an inaiblity fo the government to get the translators it thinks it needs.
And on top of that, add in the screwy contract rules and also consider that no congress-critter has a personal stake in a translation company, and you just about guarantee the inablity for much anything other than the titles to be looked at and a spot check done at random in almost all of these, they get scanned in to a PDF, then off to a box they go.
It doesn't take conspiracy, just the usual incompetence and common inability of big government agencies to get anything done quickly.
No political slant needed to left or right, just business as usual in the belly of the Leviathan.
Re:Stop making political hay - here are the facts (Score:2)
And yet the documents are being released to the public? Why can't the translators be employed by a contractor or a low security department?
Re:Stop making political hay - here are the facts (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Stop making political hay - here are the facts (Score:2)
The consensus on NR about releasing the documents is "It's about damn time, and please post the rest of them". I would speculate that the usual TLA's didn't want to give up control over "their" intel and Bush displayed his usual aversion to firing people. He really needs to get over that.
There are an awful lot of Arabic speakers who would never consider working for the government but would likely look through the documents out of curiosit
I don't get it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Why would a person volunteer their time and energies into helping with this? As compared to something you (and possibly other people) would use with open-source software, I don't see anything gained by taking part in this. If a person is (a) fluent enough in both languages and (b) willing to do this sort of translation work, wouldn't they be able to find a job to pay them to do this? Or if they wouldn't want a full time job out of it, find something more people can use and translate
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
This is just as much (if not more) of a problem with governments (who invariably have political leanings) doing the translations. Consider the "Bin Laden Tapes", where other people found the translation put out by the US Government to be at best misleading.
Where you have the possibility of many translators you'd need a vast conspiracy to ensure consistent mistranslation. The larger the number of people involved
Can't it be gray? (Score:5, Insightful)
Politics as a boredom reliever and social tool: (Score:2)
And, it makes you have to think. It's so much easier to work in binary.
And, if you're really clever, you can score points with your social group by restating what they already believe in some humorous or new way.
Or, you can come up with some faux insight that seems to show that your in group were the smart and good ones, and that the evil Group Y people were really the stupid bad ones all along.
Black and white are exciting and give your heart a work out by raising your blood pressure
Re:Can't it be gray? (Score:2)
For the current power base to maintain their positions they need to convince people that there are people on their side and people on the other side - see, all you need is "me" and "not m
While the real news falls under the public's radar (Score:5, Informative)
Some choice quotes to give you an idea of what I'm talking about here:
Re:While the real news falls under the public's ra (Score:2)
SO??? this memo still needs to be brought to the attention of as many people as possible... for some weird reason the entire existence of these memos is being ignored widely.
Re:While the real news falls under the public's ra (Score:2)
2) I've walked the fields of Lockerbie the morning after finding and marking bodies
don't talk to me about terrorism mate... I've been living with it on a daily basis and been a victim of it... What I can't stand though is being lied to by our leaders and dragged into an illegal conflict on false pretences. It blows our entire moral case OUT OF THE WATER... the Ends DO NOT justify the Means, ever, period.
Guantanamo and "Extraordinary Rendition" are an abhorrence an
Re:While the real news falls under the public's ra (Score:2)
2) I've walked the fields of Lockerbie the morning after finding and marking bodies
don't talk to me about terrorism mate... I've been living with it on a daily basis and been a victim of it... What I can't stand though is being lied to by our leaders and dragged into an illegal conflict on false pretences. It blows our entire moral case OUT OF THE WATER... the Ends DO NOT justify the Means, ever, period.
Guantanamo and "Extraordinary Rendition" are an abhorrence a
Iraqi Government? (Score:3, Insightful)
Err, shouldn't the Iraqi government have all these documents? You know, the democratically elected sovereign body which the US and its allies went to all that trouble of having installed, and who I gather has access to a large number of Arabic speakers.
Re:Iraqi Government? (Score:2)
Today, the PB has become the National Technical Information Service [ntis.gov]. These days, NTIS collects S&T information from US agencies and makes it available. They charge a fee since they don't get tax payer's
Right... (Score:2, Funny)
Open Source Intelligence (Score:5, Insightful)
And INTERESTING stuff has come out. For example, ABC News found documents that seem to show that the Russian ambassador gave the US war plans to Iraq. [go.com]
Individuals are looking too. Here [blogspot.com] is a link from an Iraq blogger who blogs from Baghdad. This document suggests that members of Al Qaeda met with Iraqi intelligence.
I just find it really cool that enterprising people can go in and look at ORIGINAL documents, and that we don't have to purely rely on what the government says they say. Pro-war, anti-war, historians, anyone can go in and look at what was going on inside Iraq.
Re:Open Source Intelligence (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open Source Intelligence (Score:2)
It's not the same as open source programming at all. With programming, everone involved has access to the whole project and can see quite clearly how each piece fits. This, on the other hand, is 600 documents, selected by a government whose policy is on the skids, out of millions, tossed to the blogosphere with absolutely no context whatsoever. This is not calculated to generate real intelligence -- it's an attempt to muddy the waters in the hopes of creating enough popular doubt to allow the Bushies an esc
Opening whose government? (Score:2)
Bet they aren't publishing THESE documents... (Score:2)
Alan Friedman, in his 1993 book Spider's Web: The Secret History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq [amazon.com] describes and documents how US taxpayer dollars paid for, designed and shipped components for those WMD's you keep hearing about. That's why Bush kept thinking there were WMD's -- his fambly'd bought 'em, gol dang it! (With my money, in part, and without my permission, might I add.)
The most shocking and disgusting things are not how Bush Sr. helped Saddam Hussain build a nuclear arsen
Re:Bet they aren't publishing THESE documents... (Score:2)
Reagan, Bush, Sr. and in particular James Baker (who wanted Iraq to win the Iraq-Iran war) eased up export restrictions and restrictions on loan guarantees through Eximbank and the USDA that made it very easy for Saddam to purchase detonators, high-speed centrifuges and other dual-use technologies throughout the Reagan and the beginning of the Bush, Sr. administrations.
In fact, shipments of arms and sensitive radar equipmen
A document I found worth looking at (Score:2, Informative)
This document I found is an executive order from Saddam telling the army to put Kuwaiti POW's in buildings that will be targets of US air strikes. This is Dated March 14, 2003.
Great Idea - shocked we are doing it (Score:2)
Wired did an article last year on how this type of idea has helped in finding missing persons.
Not strictly a dupe... (Score:3, Funny)
See, the story last time was that the Boston Globe was reporting it. Now MSNBC is reporting it. That's news, baby.
Tomorrow's Headline: The Poughkeepsie Herald reports that the US Government is using Open Source techniques to...
Re:Dupe (Score:2)
Get over it; mainstream media dupes all the time (Score:2)
If there is new information, if the story has new developments, if the context of the story has changed, then an article is not a dupe. It's a new article, with new information, on the same story.
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole charade reminds me of the "You haven't given us time to hide!" skit from Monty Pythons Life of Bryan.
Recall that Clinton bombed Iraq in '98 for not letting the UN inspectors in. Is he part of this grand right-wing conspiracy, do you think?
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
Why all the games? If Saddam destroyed all his WMDs back in the 90s, why was it so important to preserve the illusion that he hadn't - so impor
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:3, Interesting)
No, no mystery. The US Senate published a report on it ages ago, that Saddam had indeed ordered stockpiles destroyed and all programs shut down. That Saddam had in fact wanted to return to the "good old days" when the US was actively supporting Iraq and Saddam as an ally of political convience, as Iraq had the most secular government in the region and as a counterbalance to the religious fundamentalist
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
The rest of your rant reads "my politics are X, therefore Y must be true about the world", which isn't very interesting, you know?
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
Because he accused UNSCOM of being a front for an American spy operation. Which it turned out they were.
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
Some of one lot were caught spying. Plenty of the stalling came from places other than Iraq anyway.
Recall that Clinton bombed Iraq in '98 for not letting the UN inspectors in.
When was the US not bombing Iraq? It's rather hard to find weapons inspectors who actually want to go somewhere which is being bombed.
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
He didn't. He threw them out after he learned they were spies more interested in his own location for additional assasination attempts than the location of any weapons. Then, after we did the "let them in or we'll invade" ultimatum, he let them back in again. We invaded anyway, there was lots and lots and lots of money to be made and strategic assets to secure.
Recall tha
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
Was it not because of breaches to the no-fly zones and other agressive behaviour?
Which is the one of the main reasons why some who despise Bush actually supported the invasion of Iraq, that and there is a strategic logic in keepimg those wanting to hurt the US busy banging their heads against armored targets. Personally though I still think placing a million troops in Saudi Arabia would have been much more effective.
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
At what? Creating more terrorist attacks? The principal reason Al Qaida have sworn against the US is because of the existing troops in Saudi Arabia. Obviously the US likes a keep a force in the middle east to keep an eye on the region. What hasn't really been mentioned on the news is that the Saudi-deployed troops are now in Iraq (or rotated home). They are still in the region, and essentially Bin
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
The downfall though of UNSCOM was that as the UN wasn't getting information from the CI
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
No, he only threw out the suspected spies (the Americans). But the Iraqis did stall UNSCOM for many years. Their efforts pretty much fell apart aft
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
QED.
When will they open the US records about the war? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:When will they open the US records about the wa (Score:2)
They may just classify them for a long time and hope they rot...
it'll be real interesting to some future researchers to find out what really happened and when.
Historians have more chance of getting hold of documents involving Tony Blair and co. AFAIK the US has nothing functionaly equivalent to the "Thirty Year Act".
There's so much evidence that they were planning for the war from the first few weeks aft
Re:When will they open the US records about the wa (Score:2, Informative)
I have all but lost my patience with you Americans. The intent to invade Iraq [newamericancentury.org] was published BEFORE 2000 by The Project for A New American century, to which most of the current administration are members. They only got into politics
Re:When will they open the US records about the wa (Score:2)
What country do you live in again?
Re:When will they open the US records about the wa (Score:2)
But what exactly is the difference between "there was evidence" and "there were facts?" You're splitting hairs and attacking someone who probably already agrees with you.
FWIW, criticisms of the Project for a New American Century, investigations into its history and of its members, and so forth can be found in various conservative (or perhaps "classic liberal") magazines, for example, Culture Wars (their layout on the Trotskyite foundat
Re:When will they open the US records about the wa (Score:2)
Nothing personal, and no, I don't have some view that Americans are in some way different from everyone else on the planet. Are they putting something in the water in some states or something? ;-)
But what exactly is the difference between "there was evidence" and "there were facts?" You're splitting hairs and attacking someone who probably already agrees with you.
Because it made it sound like there was some doubt. Yes, we seem to
Re:Well... (Score:2)
How appropriate that you posted as an anonymous coward.
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
Wasn't this on Slashdot last week anyway
This is pablum that lets right wing folks cloud the air with cries of "...but...but...tomorrow document X comes out, and it'll PROVE we're right!"
Or rather "In the future the evidence to prove our conspiracy theory correct will be found. Because currently we have no evidence at all."
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
Probably more important what wasn't in them.
the last thing they'd want is some more proof of weapon sales to iraq from the 80's. these docs have all been examined already by the government and were determined worthless.
They may or may not be worthless. But they certainly will be non-harmful to anyone the US Government currently cares about.
Assuming they (all) are actual Iraqi documents and n
Re:Make no mistake... (Score:2)
Actually, I found just that in a cursory read of just a few documents. From ISGQ-2003-M0004244-1:
(joined in progress)
Male 9: The English come to Iraq after ten years with $150 billion. Where's our share?
Male 2: Tell him we'll spend it on biological... [Laughs]
[Laughter from everyone]
Male 2: We don't know about the new ways, you have to teach us all over again... [Laughs]
screw that, show us area 51 and aliens... (Score:2)
I want full disclosed info on aliens, inter galactic treaties, hyperdrive anti-gravity technology, and
everything of the real past put out.
If the govt wont, trust me, the aliens will one day, say, "screw you, we'll appear with 50,000 space ships and you cannot hide
that can you"