Anonymous ready to dump 2.6GB of Haditha docs

A group of Anons are about to dump a torrent 2.6GB of email containing "detailed records, transcripts, testimony, trial evidence, and legal defense donation records" about the Haditha massacre, in which 24 unarmed Iraqi men, women and children were killed by the USMC.

The announcement states that Anonymous stole 2.6 gigabytes of e-mail belonging to Puckett Faraj, a law firm that represents Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, who is accused of leading the group of Marines in Haditha. The Web site of Puckett Faraj is not currently loading, and Gawker is reporting that the site was hacked.

A spokeswoman for Puckett Faraj confirmed that the Web site was down but said that she could not confirm or deny whether the site had been hacked.

Anonymous says it will leak giant cache of Iraq war e-mails

(Image: Guy Fawkes Anonymous face stencil, a Creative Commons Attribution (2.0) image from elias_daniel's photostream)


  1. Much as I like their work, it would be nice if occasionally they shown this spotlight on the regime in Iran or say Syria or maybe even, dare to dream… China. I can not imagine those governments are using better computer security than our own.

        1. Perhaps you could step up and take action against China, Iran or Syria rather than pointing fingers at people not following your wishes.

          1. How exactly do you propose “stepping up” against Iran and Syria? Anonymous have the technical expertise (clearly) to do that, but they choose to go after domestic targets to the loud applause of the 99 %. Alternatively, when another country steps up against Iran, Syria and China they get called warmongering imperialist crusaders. So, how do you propose one does what you suggest? 

          2. So you demand others to not only do what you want … you demand them to figure out how you implement it as well?

            And you call this attitude an “us” attitude?

          3. I’m not demanding anything. Nor is Viper 23. He’s suggesting that Anon tackles some pretty heartless regimes with equal enthusiasm. That to much to ask for politely? Either way, Anon has in fact carried out attacks on Iranian and Syrian websites (Iran’s Supreme Leader site and Syria’s Ministry of Defence site among others). So, it looks like Anon are demanding attacks on these countries too and not just us.

          4. Step one of ‘stepping up’ is recognizing when you are being antagonistic and damaging your own cause to sate your own ego. See also, ideological purity.

        1. Don’t be ridiculous. That would be too tame. There’s no need to make shit up about what’s going on in Syria, or did you forget the part about the thirteen year old boy that was tortured to death, the mass casualties, or the protesters who just disappear?

      1. My understanding is that it may only barely be “Assad’s army,” where the entire power structure of Syria is actually entrenched Alawi whose positions are threatened under the current chaos. That is, the army could be said to be defending itself.

    1. There are certainly anonymous persons in China and Iran and Syria who are attempting to do these things, and they are probably working with Anonymous peoples in the West to accomplish their goals. Whether or not they succeed, and ultimately use the monicker ‘Anonymous’ is in the air.

      Why would you assume that because Anonymous is doing western related leaks there is no global effort to do the same? There could even be many successful leaks that are simply not high profile, or have escaped the pipelines to high profile media centers.

      Anyway, it just seems a bit pedantic to point out everything Anonymous is not doing in response to such a relevant and massive leak; Never mind isolating Anonymous to only those who use a capital ‘A’.

      1. re: “Why would you assume that because Anonymous is doing western related leaks there is no global effort to do the same?”

        Because we haven’t heard of any.

          1. And yet millions of people know of OWS/SOPA.  If Anon wanted to get a message out, they would.  The old media is irrelevant.  

          2.  Stupid disqus not letting me reply to people.
            @boingboing-4fceec4318ea47d3828f6488c5fa12d8:disqus And those millions of people were out of the loop for a long time, only when the message became to loud to deny anymore did they wake up to it.

            They were mislead about the meaning of OWS, and those lies evaporated when they watched police macing people.
            They were lied to about the anti-SOPA campaign being lead by Google just out to make a few more dollars.
            The Head of the MPAA publicly admitted to paying to get the laws he wanted, and hes not in any trouble.
            Sometimes you need to make a scene so they can no longer neatly slip it in as a quick soundbite with just the right spin on it.

        1. Because we haven’t heard of any.

          You haven’t heard any. You’re the guy who thought that Afghanistan was an Arab country.

          1. I did? I don’t think anyone has ever asked me the question before. I know Iranians are Persians, and they separate the Arabs from the rest of the population as “Arab-Afghans”.  Had I been asked I’d have said, “No.” Though in  honesty, I’d have to look up what you do call them – just Afghans, or are they considered Persians, etc. And I may have lumped them in all together by over generalizing.


            Yes – that I have heard of. It looks like I am not alone.  Which means either:

            1) There has been nothing unveiled by Anonymous

            2) What has been unveiled has been low-key and inconsequential

            3) There have been important leaks, but not THAT important that the large western media groups have just ignored it.

            4) There have been very important leaks that the western media is making an effort to suppress.

            So given that, I don’t fault the OP for the perception that “they” aren’t working on getting leaks from Syria, etc.

            Though like someone else said, Anonymous isn’t a real entity, and anyone can claim the moniker.  The lack of official dirt on places like China and Syria may be because records are less likely to be in digital form and a smaller ‘hacker’ base, in the case of Syria. And then there’s the fact that one stands to spend life in a cell in the US, but them and their family killed in places like Syria and China. :o/

          2. And you’re the guy that wants to high five Iran. Just for the sake of clarification, and not because I don’t believe you, please publish a link listing Anonymous type attacks against any of those three governments mentioned above.

      1. The double-edged sword of American Innovation contains the presumption that technology and skills are more democratic than they are, that people around the world know the same stuff, and to be on-topic, know how to leak, or know how to protect themselves if they choose to be a leaker.

    2. I suspect that(for a substantial majority of Anonymous, at least) just keeping records in the local language offers substantial security. Any entity of nontrivial size(heck, even this dinky little law firm is supposed to be a 3GB dump) doesn’t have a single, clearly marked, ‘Our_Darkest_Secrets.doc’ that you can just grab and run with. If you have to grovel through massive volumes of officialese and intraoffice-email in a language you don’t know, that’ll slow you down considerably.
      It also appears that, beyond the ones that are just in it for the fun, Anonymous has a taste for hypocrites, for things declared secret without cause, for entities that evade accountability. In the case of something like the Iranian nuclear project, or Syrian suppression, or various Chinese projects, there is a certain amount of uncertainty; but it isn’t at all clear that there is a juicy smoking gun: The semi-official policy is “Yes, we are doing whatever we want and don’t really care what you think.”. Digging up dirt corroborating the details of what ‘whatever we want’ consists of would certainly be of interest to the spooks; but wouldn’t be much of a revelation.

      1. Actually what I’m hoping for is “we don’t actually have a nuclear program at all and have been wasting all those Nuke Dollars on hookers and blow”. THAT revelation would be awesome.

        1. Unless I missed that particular porno, or am not down with my drug refining techniques, I’m pretty sure that neither hookers nor blow require large numbers of high-speed centrifuges…

          1. I’m pretty sure that neither hookers nor blow require large numbers of high-speed centrifuges…

            They’re dead useful for making up a batch of glint.

    3. Next time I get a speeding ticket I’m gonna tell the judge there are much worse drivers in China.

    4. The anonymous leaks are primarily aimed at reaching the audience in the west.

      The western public is already pretty thoroughly propagandized about the evils of the governments of Iran, China, and Syria.

      Not that those governments are saintly – but if you release a bunch of files showing that Iran brutalizes dissidents or China summarily executes people, well, most people would shrug their shoulders and say ‘meh.’

      Many Americans, on the other hand, are thoroughly convinced of the Godly Righteousness of the American cause, that we are the only protectors of all that is good and holy in the world, that we might have a few blemishes but are the only thing standing between global Islamo-Fascist domination.

      It’s those people who need their noses stuck in America’s shit, to demonstrate that in a very literal sense we are often as bad as the very worst villains in the world.

      1. No regimes are more insidiously oppressive than Western democracies. It suits them just fine to shine the spotlight elsewhere – not that all oppression doesn’t need exposing.

    5.  Because Iranians and Syrians don’t even have the pretense of voting their governments out of power if they’re outraged by what their governments are doing.  We in the U.S. supposedly do have that privilege and so it makes a lot of sense to foment outrage against the people currently in government to try to effect some kind of change.  Of course it probably wouldn’t be effective, but since that would just make people angrier that’s probably a good thing too.

    1. “In 2010, Lamo became embroiled in theWikiLeaks scandal involving Bradley Manning, who was arrested after Lamo reported to federal authorities that Manning had leaked hundreds of thousands of sensitive U.S. government documents.[3][4]” 

      I don’t feel any urges for shed any tears for Adrian Lamo.

  2. Isn’t dumping documents Wikileaks schtick?  (and Anonymous more into hacking/blocking?)   or is the Venn diagram of the two groups substantially overlapping?

    1.  anonymus is not a group, it’s a label. I could put on a mask, kick somebody and say “anonymus did it” – and I would be right.

      1.  ah, so Anonymous is the Universal set and thus contains us all, including those that would oppress us.   (see also: OccupyX, wherein we’ve been admonished: “we’ve got no leaders! we’re all leaders”)

      2. I could put on a mask, kick somebody and say “anonymus did it” – and I would be right.

        As long as you’re doing for the lulz, yes.  Kicking someone doesn’t sound very lulz-y to me though.

      3. I could put on a mask, kick somebody and say “anonymus did it” – and I would be right.

        Or you could put on a suit, do almost anything and say that it’s a matter of national security.

        1. You can get away with all kinds of shit if you put on a suit and look like you belong in it.   It’s kind of like black magic.

          1. Not as many things as you can do in one of those fluorescent high-visibilty vests. Seriously, those things make you invisible.

          2.  I actually think that’s literally black magic, which I think of as getting people to buy into your bullshit.  Wearing a suit and successfully misrepresenting yourself to someone is hacking that person’s reality and if it gets you something you want, well…magic!

  3. I still want to see the Bank of America documents that Wikileaks kept teasing. I doubt anyone computer-savvy enough to be reading this believes that “the dog erased my homework.”

    1. Right, we were teased, then we never heard anything about it. So much lack of transparency inside Wikileaks

      1. From what I understand, they were deleted in the wake of the problematic split with Daniel Domscheit-Berg. Their internal structure of safely transmitting data apparently laid the power in very few hands and Domscheit-Berg decided to kill it off.

  4. If true, this is a bad day for justice everywhere.  Just because a verdict goes the way you don’t like, that’s no excuse for pissing on attorney/client privilege.  I had the misfortune of going through a divorce a few years back and I would be appalled at the idea of hacking into my lawyer’s mailbox and publishing the contents.  You say things to your lawyer that you’d never share with anyone else.  

    EDIT: Thank you all for commenting. I enjoy being in a forum that allows for free debate. With that said, I regret not prefacing the above with “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” It would have clarified my views and saved all of us a lot of typing…

    1.  Did your divorce statements contain several admissions of shooting civilians, and giving orders that directly went against SOP for the operation?
      Did your divorce take 6 years and at the end they decided you were never actually married and just needed to get a job at McDonalds?
      Did your divorce involve yet another coverup of wrong doing by military personnel, that resulted in the death of people you were to be protecting?
      Did your divorce decree just appear to be yet another sham finding of a court willing to look the other way to avoid opening a can of worms that might make the priest who married you look bad?

      The release is billed as “detailed records, transcripts, testimony, trial evidence, and legal defense donation records” not attorney/client communications.  Until one sees what it there, it is much to early to decide the privilege has been breached.  I do have a feeling that people will see what is contained and wonder how this case came down to 1 person being scapegoated and given not that severe of a punishment for leading to the death of at least 24 civilians.  That there is much more that they want to make sure no one at home hears about, trying to keep us in the dark about why the world hate us when we are the “good” guys.

      “Wuterich received a rank reduction and pay cut but avoided jail time.”
      And 24 people remain dead, and a country is left wondering were the liberators not much better than what they were liberated from.

      1. Your very argument about the severity of the cases (i.e. my divorce vs. Haditha) means privilege is *more* important, not less.  The bedrock of a working justice system is that everyone deserves fair representation, *especially* those whose hands are bloody.  You start chipping away at that and you will never see any justice.  These releases won’t bring back 24 corpses and they won’t get jail time for anyone, but they will see to it that every defendant will think real, real hard about coming clean with their own attorney when they’re trying to build their defense.

        As to “Until one sees what it there, it is much to early to decide the privilege has been breached,” doesn’t that appear a bit backwards?  You appear to be advocating that we should we should all lie back and prostrate ourselves and place our loving trust in the wise arms of Anonymous.  And not even in Anonymous to perform its specialty of defeating security measures, but in Anonymous’ ability to parse the fine points of constitutional law.

        Frankly, I wouldn’t trust my own judge to make a call like releasing data between me and my attorney.  It’s no one’s business but the attorney’s and the client’s – NO ONE’s:  Not the judge’s, not the other party’s, not the “public’s,” not even (and, yes, I know this sounds horrible) the victims of Haditha.  This is akin to, but substantially worse due to the size of the leak, releasing the identities of those who gave confidential evidence to the prosecution.  Are you in favor of that as well?

        Face it:  If this had been the US govt hacking into the computer of a Guantanamo detainee’s defense attorney and releasing it to the public “in the interests of fighting terrorism” the crowd at BoingBoing (including myself) would be digging out their pitchforks and Molotov cocktails.  Playing by two different sets of rules is corrosive to justice, regardless of whether the Bush administration or Anonymous is playing the game.

        In the end, Anonymous is doing this not out of any sense of justice, but for the reason they do everything:  Because they can.

        EDIT: Fixed typos.

        1. “Face it:  If this had been the US govt hacking into the computer of a Guantanamo detainee’s defense attorney and releasing it to the public “in the interests of fighting terrorism” the crowd at BoingBoing (including myself) would be digging out their pitchforks and Molotov cocktails.  Playing by two different sets of rules is corrosive to justice, regardless of whether the Bush administration or Anonymous is playing the game.”

          You mean like when they were intercepting the lawyers communications and we only discovered it because they accidentally included the secret document in discovery and then the Judge blocked them from using the only proof the Government was spying on them?  And allowed the Government to argue there was no proof of them spying on the lawyers communications?

          We already have 2 sets of rules, not everyone wants to see that.
          Anonymous might have just released it because they could, but maybe also because exposing hypocrisy and watching them try to spin it all might be lulzy

          If we lived in a world where truth wasn’t what was convenient to make things better, then it would be wrong to see dox out there.  But in the face of a well orchestrated coverup…

    2. Bad day for justice? It must be difficult to digest for an USian to see such events contradict their narrative of the Soldier as “Heroes” and “Liberators” but for the rest of the not-US world there was no justice.

      This is another incident in an ongoing series of ‘accidents’ and war crimes where lots of civilians get killed by US soldiers (My Lai, Haditha or something like Cavalese) and then the  accused soldiers get a slap on the wrist despite overwhelming evidence. 

      1. When the prosecutors cut a deal with the defendants that included no jail time, that was a travesty of justice.  These guys were murderers and the prosecutors chickened out.  They (the Haditha servicemen) shamed their uniform, committed horrible crimes, and made it that much tougher for every one of their fellow troops to do their jobs.  They deserve to pay for it with jail time and the residents of Haditha deserve justice.  Don’t assume I’m blind because of the passport I carry.

        With that said, my comments were about the actions of Anonymous.  Two wrongs don’t make a right.  Will Anonymous’ stunt bring back the dead?  No.  Will it bring justice to the victims?  No.  Does it piss on the entire concept of fair trial?  Yes.

        Everyone’s beef here should be with the criminals who killed at Haditha and the prosecutors who derilicted their duty, not the defense or the concept of attorney/client privilege.

        EDIT: Typos.

    3. If true, this is a bad day for justice everywhere.

      Only if you think that ‘a fair trial’ is equivalent to the way that we do things in the US.

      1. Call me naive, but yes, I do think that we tend to get fair trials here in the U.S.  100% of the time?  Of course not.  There is no perfect system, but given that our justice system is messy, inefficient, and compromise ridden *by design* and that it is now being starved for funding and hobbled by special interests, it still limps along pretty damn well.

        If you’re arguing our domestic justice system is inherently unfair (and I *think* that’s what you’re getting at – I can’t really tell) then it needs fixing just as much as the parallel military justice system that let the Haditha plea deal occur.  That’s the great thing about all political systems in a democracy – they *can* be fixed.  The best way to do that for our justice system is up for debate:  Better funding for public defenders?  Correcting economic disparities in society as a whole?  Eliminating profit motives from our incarceration industry?  All excellent ideas and well worth talking about.  On the other hand, writing off the problem with a cynical “par for the course” comment does no one any good.

        Regardless of my digression (sorry about the soapbox), the core point remains:  One instance of injustice (the Haditha prosecutors cutting a sweetheart deal with the defendants) does not excuse another.  That’s the way warlords and juntas justify their actions, not the way a nation of laws works.

        1. If you’re arguing our domestic justice system is inherently unfair

          I’m arguing that the US justice system is an accretion of a millennium of case law and that our rules of evidence, for example, aren’t intrinsically ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’. It’s possible to have a fair trial in a way that has little to do with the way that we do things here.

  5. it is up on the bay.  and when justice is no longer available to all, but only to some, what else are you going to do, but shine a light on the corruption, wherever you can hack a slice off.

    1. As Julian Assange is planning on hosting his own television show and will be appearing on the Simpsons, I think you may be right.  It appears he has caved into the pressure.  Not casting blame though.  It’s probably hard to stay motivated towards helping an apathetic world when they’ve got you up against the wall.  But it does appear as if the torch has to be passed to others.

      1. Well, Wikileaks forced the US to start saber rattling about restricting the net, and that brought the Anons attention. Sony sued a beloved iphone jailbreaker, and that brought the Anons attention. Then all the ACTA and occupy stuff, has politicized a once apolitical group…. Or maybe radicalized a demographic who have become anons. I cant tell which.

        So i guess in a bizarre twist theyve become a what Washington feared wikileaks would become (but never would have).

  6. Important to note that the documents cover a lot more than Haditha–including the correspondence between one of the firm’s lawyers and his Guantanamo prisoner client, as well as the identities of rape victims from another case.

    Wuterich isn’t going to be retried because of anything in the leak. Seems like a lot of collateral damage for very little gain.

  7. PBS’s Frontline did their usual in-depth report on Haditha, which you can read all about and watch online (or, coincidentally, they’re replaying it on 2/7/12). One thing that it makes clear is that it’s not as black and white as one might think (in other words, it’s not “My Lai redux”).

    1.  It would be interesting to see what gaps the documents were able to fill in.  While the story might not be black and white, sometimes the shades of gray in-between become lighter or darker with more information.

      1. Agreed. Part of the problem with forming an opinion about what happened in Hadditha is the amount of “he-said-she-said”.

  8. A friend of mine was in Marine Recon. He said he was on a mission in Iraq, when he and his team saw assailants shooting women and kids from a rooftop. He and his team killed the baddies on the roof, went up to inspect. Low and behold, it was two marines that had been doing the killing.

    They reported it, and as it went up the chain of command, it changed, until the official story was two marines died in combat against armed insurgents, after killing several.

    I think these massacres the rule rather than the exception.

    1. It really depends on your perspective and the information you choose to let into your worldview.  I’m not saying these things didn’t happen, but that if this is the only thing you hear about or the only thing you choose to accept, then it can twist your perspective into believing that’s all there is.

      For a completely different perspective, see the documentary, “Voices of Iraq”.  

      1. Perhaps i was unclear. I think massacres of civilians are commonplace in war. I dont think Americans are exempt.

        I think these generally get covered up, as a matter of necessity, and as a matter of course. Collateral damage. Acceptable losses… I dont see much of a difference between civilians getting blown up next to a target, or maliciously gunned down by rogue soldiers.

        Well… At least the rogue soldiers aren’t supposed to be killing civilians.

      2. I’m not saying these things didn’t happen, but that if this is the only thing you hear about or the only thing you choose to accept, then it can twist your perspective into believing that’s all there is.

        Or you can let U.S. military press releases and U.S. gov’t approved “journalism” twist your perspective into believing that’s all there is. 

        Or you can think for your damn self and ask the obvious question, “If this sort of thing did happen a lot would the U.S. military chain of command have a vested interest in covering it up wherever they could?”  I won’t insult your intelligence by answering that for you.

    2. Firstly, Rob is going to need a more credible source than “my friend in Marine Recon” and “I think”. The problem with world view is it is too easily shaped by interweb comments. Anon is in a position to bring into the cold light of day the raw data that is needed to prosecute various injustices, but they really shouldn’t be making moral pronouncements. I want numbers, facts, data. Those can’t be skewed easily.

  9. This is just one of the more high-profile hacks that makes it’s way to the media. Anonymous is always hacking oppressive regimes. Today three databases from Nigerian websites was dumped online by Anonymous under #OpNigeria. The other day Anonymous was ddosing sites but were told to stop after Telecomix told them ddosing may hurt civilians as well. They instead defaced Syrian websites. The Parliament of Syria is vulnerable to hacking and has already been dumped online.

    Just because the media isn’t reporting it doesn’t mean it’s not happening. If you have a Twitter you can follow Anons to stay updated.

  10. While I’m glad Anon do manage to go directly after bad regimes, I’m not bothered that the majority of their targets are “good” countries. You can seldom act directly against a dictator, but you an go after those helping him stay in power, among them a lot of people in “good” countries. There’s nobody so evil that there isn’t someone “good” making a buck off them and lying about it in public.

    1. I meant to finish this. Spotlighting this kind of sleaze is very useful, especially if timed well, and isn’t at all the same as saying “America / the UK / the West sux.” If you want the “good” countries to stay good, you have to keep them honest, by showing them it’s more trouble than it’s worth to try to hide the sleaze (which was WikiLeaks’s point). Realpolitik is depressing enough without its proponents also personally profiting through it.

      1.  It is the best defense against “leaks”.  Stop trying to cover up everything that might give you a black eye.  Take your lumps and learn the lesson to never do that again, not to just make sure no one catches you – because there will always be someone.

        There recently was a baseball player, I think was only half paying attention to the news, who has a history of problems with alcohol.  He was doing something and ended up having a drink.  Rather than shift the blame onto everything but himself, he stepped right up and said he screwed up.  He made that decision, it was a stupid decision, and he was going to start again on his path to avoiding alcohol.
        I have way more respect for that player because he took his lumps for his failing.
        To often we let people abdicate responsibility and we need to stop that trend.

  11. Many of Anon’s attacks are based on spear-fishing and social manipulation (e.g. Aaron Barr). It’s relatively easy to chat up or impersonate some American lawyer dude and get his password.
    It’s not really possible to do that to someone in a different country/culture who speaks a language you don’t understand. It’ll come off as transparently fake as a nigerian 419.

Comments are closed.