Wikileaks.org

[American Patriot]

And the New York Slimes is heard from:

Talk to The Times

Answers to Readers’ Questions About State’s Secrets

Published: November 29, 2010





The New York Times is publishing State’s Secrets, a series of articles about a trove of more than 250,000 American diplomatic cables that were originally obtained by WikiLeaks, an organization devoted to exposing official secrets. The cables reveal the daily traffic between the State Department and more than 270 diplomatic outposts around the world and offer a secret chronicle of the United States’ relations with other nations in an age of war and terrorism.

State's Secrets

Day 1
Articles in this series will examine American diplomatic cables as a window in an age of war and terrorism.
Other Articles in the Series »

Related Documents

• A Selection From the Cache of Diplomatic Dispatches

In addition to a nine-day series of articles on the trove of documents, The Times plans to publish on its Web site the text of about 100 of the cables — some edited and some in full — that illuminate aspects of United States foreign policy.
Editors and reporters of The Times are answering questions from readers about the series this week. Questions may be submitted by e-mail to askthetimes@nytimes.com, and if selected, may be edited for length and clarity.
What Right Do You Have?
Q. It is not up to WikiLeaks, The New York Times, or any other entity to determine whether confidential United States government information should be shielded from the public. We elect leaders who, along with their trusted appointees and officials, analyze data and make such decisions. By subverting that process, The New York Times and WikiLeaks are undermining our entire electoral process.
Resorting to “somebody will do it anyway” rationalizations is pathetic.
Legal? Perhaps. Wrong? Definitely.
— Brian Chrisman
Q. I’m writing regarding your decision to publish WikiLeaks documents, and my disappointment in your decision. Whereas, I acknowledge that you attempted to provide some censorship to the release of classified information. And I appreciate your gesture in forwarding documents to the Obama Administration for review. However, at the end of the day, I say, “How dare you?” How dare you decide what’s okay for release in this circumstance and what’s not!
I respect the First Amendment and believe in its importance. But does it mean that a line can never be drawn, even at the risk of national security? And, what makes The New York Times the most qualified to make this decision? I work in the field that you have just aided at putting at risk, and trust me when I say that you are not aware or understand the nuances of the information in these reports as well as you think you do. Even if you found a report or cable that appeared benign to you or simply political, you really aren’t aware of the secondary or tertiary affects that your release of these documents may have. Of course you will not listen to me, because The New York Times, along with WikiLeaks, obviously perceived yourselves to know better than the President of the United States, his National Security Advisors, and the United States military leaders of the war. Well, thank you for putting those of us who attempt to protect our country and your backsides in danger.
I’m sure at the end of the day, you felt compelled to release something because other news agencies were releasing information. Hopefully, you feel proud of partnering with WikiLeaks, as I have now lost a lot of respect for the editors and decision makers of The New York Times.
— F. Jean Ware
Q. I am greatly saddened by your role in this issue, and I disagree with your attempts to cloak your pursuit of readers in the context of some sort “right to know.” The fact is that these are secret documents of the United States Government, which by extension therefore are secret documents of the people of the United States. For the government to function, the simple reality, just as is undoubtedly the case in your organization, is that in order to candidly assess the situation, some items are not for public consumption. To say “it would be presumptuous to conclude that Americans have no right to know what is being done in their name” is a ridiculous statement. Are you really saying that the government should make public all its information at every level? There are reasons why there is secrecy. Should we have told Hitler when and where D-Day was coming so that the “people have a right to know”? Farce, plain and simple.
Moreover, in this case, the release of these documents means that people will die. It is as simple as that. I cannot say how many, but the butcher’s bill from this sorry “disclosure” will have to be met. Personally, I consider this willful release of secret documents to be treason.
I am not a Tea Party fanatic, nor even a Republican. I am proud to be a Democrat and have enjoyed your publication for many years both online and in print. I fear that this relationship will now have to end. I expected better.
— David Stier
A. Quite a few readers are uncomfortable with the idea that a group of editors — unelected editors — can decide to reveal information that the government wants kept secret. Sometimes we’re uncomfortable with that, too. We have as much stake in the war against terror as anyone. Our reporters travel in dangerous places to report on these subjects, and we have had members of the Times family injured, kidnapped and killed in pursuit of the news. So the thought that something we report might increase the dangers faced by the country is daunting and humbling — and not just a matter of theory for us. When we find ourselves in possession of government secrets, we think long and hard about whether to disclose them. Invariably that consideration includes extensive and serious discussions with the government, as it did with the diplomatic cables.
Pause for a second to consider exactly what The Times has done in this case. We have written a series of articles based on what we have learned about various aspects of American foreign policy from this trove of secret cables. We have drawn on our past reporting and the experience of our correspondents to supply context and to cast doubt where information in the cables is questionable. We have also chosen a small selection of the cables — about 100 in all, out of a quarter of a million documents — that we think provide useful source material for the articles we have written. We have edited out any information that could identify confidential sources — including informants, dissidents, academics and human rights activists — or otherwise compromise national security. We did this in consultation with the State Department, and while they strongly disapprove of the publication of classified material at any time, and while we did not agree with all of their requests for omission, we took their views very seriously indeed.
So, two basic questions. Why do we get to decide? And why did we decide to publish these articles and selected cables?
We get to decide because America is cursed with a free press. I’m the first to admit that news organizations, including this one, sometimes get things wrong. We can be overly credulous (as in some of the reporting about Iraq’s purported Weapons of Mass Destruction) or overly cynical about official claims and motives. We may err on the side of keeping secrets (President Kennedy wished, after the fact, that The Times had published what it knew about the planned Bay of Pigs invasion) or on the side of exposing them. We make the best judgments we can. When we get things wrong, we try to correct the record. A free press in a democracy can be messy.
But the alternative is to give the government a veto over what its citizens are allowed to know. Anyone who has worked in countries where the news diet is controlled by the government can sympathize with Thomas Jefferson’s oft-quoted remark that he would rather have newspapers without government than government without newspapers. And Jefferson had plenty of quarrels with the press of his day.
As for why we directed our journalistic attention to these cables, we hope that will be clear from the articles we have written. They contribute to our understanding of how American foreign policy is made, how well it is working, what kind of relationships we have with allies and adversaries. The first day’s articles offered the richest account we have yet seen of America’s attempts to muster a regional and global alliance against Iran; and disclosed that the State Department has increasingly put its diplomats in the uncomfortable position of gathering intelligence on diplomatic counterparts. There is much more to come. We sincerely believe that readers who take an interest in America’s conduct in the world will find this material illuminating. — Bill Keller

Losing Foreign Cooperation?
Q. You note that “Government officials sometimes argue — and the administration has argued in the case of these secret cables — that disclosures of confidential conversations between American diplomats and their foreign counterparts could endanger the national interest by making foreign governments more wary of cooperating with the United States in the fight against terrorists or other vital activities.” But you offer no serious response to this very serious argument. Do you believe that the government argument is invalid for some reason, or do you choose to ignore it in order to accomplish other goods? This, I think, was the most glaring omission in your note to readers regarding the latest Wikileak trove.
— Glenn Willis, Boston College
A. It’s a good question that does not lend itself to a glib answer. So I hope you’ll bear with a long one.

[American Patriot]

Active U.S. criminal probe into WikiLeaks release






Related News

• Wikileaks shows range of diplomatic intel gathering12:08pm EST

Analysis & Opinion

• Our need to be in the midst of danger

Related Topics

• U.S. »
• WikiLeaks »

WASHINGTON | Mon Nov 29, 2010 12:08pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Authorities are conducting an intensive criminal investigation into the release of thousands of classified U.S. documents by WikiLeaks, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Monday.
"There is an active, ongoing criminal investigation that we're conducting with the Department of Defense," Holder said at a news conference. "We are not in a position as yet to announce the result of that investigation."
He said Sunday's leak of the classified documents, mostly cables from U.S. embassies around the world, put at risk U.S. diplomats or other individuals assisting the United States.
"To the extent that we can find anybody who was involved in the breaking of American law and who has put at risk the assets and the people that I have described, they will be held responsible, they will be held accountable," Holder said.
He said that if there are gaps in U.S. law over the disclosure of classified information, the Obama administration would work with Congress to close them.
WikiLeaks released 400,000 secret U.S. files on the Iraq war in October and tens of thousands of secret U.S. military documents on the war in Afghanistan in July.
No federal charges have been filed in the WikiLeaks case. The investigation so far has focused on Bradley Manning, a former U.S. Army intelligence analyst in Iraq.
Manning is under arrest by the U.S. military and charged with leaking a classified video showing a 2007 helicopter attack that killed a dozen people in Iraq, including two Reuters journalists.
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, has said the U.S. investigation is also looking into WikiLeaks itself. Holder made it clear that just because he was a foreigner living outside the United States, he was not immune from prosecution.
"We will move to close those gaps (in U.S. law), which is not to say, which is not to say that anybody at this point, because of their citizenship or their residence, is not a target or subject of an investigation that's ongoing," Holder said.
(Reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky, Editing by Doina Chiacu)

[American Patriot]

China urges US action over WikiLeaks revelations

• Published: 1/12/2010 at 01:00 AM
• Online news: Asia

China on Tuesday urged the United States to "properly handle" fallout from a slew of leaked cables that revealed Beijing, long seen as North Korea's protector, would accept a reunited Korean peninsula.


A woman watches the WikiLeaks website as with a photo of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange shown on the next screen. China has urged the US to "properly handle" fallout from a slew of leaked cables that revealed that Beijing, long seen as North Korea's protector, would accept a reunited Korean peninsula.




Cables revealed by the WikiLeaks website quoted US diplomats as saying that China increasingly doubts its own influence over Pyongyang and considers the "spoiled child" regime's nuclear programme to be "very troublesome."


"We hope the US side will properly handle relevant issues," Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Hong Lei said as WikiLeaks made the latest batch of secret cables public amid heightened tensions between Pyongyang and Seoul.


"We don't want to see any disturbance to China-US relations," Hong added, after leaks showed China turned a blind eye to North Korean missile parts exports and the top Chinese leadership was behind cyberattacks on Google.


The leaked cables have left diplomats worldwide red-faced and drew the ire of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who called their release an "attack" on the US and the world.


The memos became public a week after North Korea shelled a South Korean border island, killing four people and sending tensions soaring.


Allegations from the 250,000 cables include that Iran's supreme leader has cancer and will die "within months" and that Saudi King Abdullah urged the US to attack Iran and "cut off the head of the snake" over its nuclear programme.


"Obviously this is a matter of great concern," Clinton said as she headed for an Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe summit in Kazakhstan that looks increasingly like a diplomatic damage limitation exercise.


"We don't want anyone in any of the countries that could be affected by these alleged leaks to have any doubts about our intentions, and about our commitments," Clinton told reporters.


French President Nicolas Sarkozy, described in the missives as "thin-skinned and authoritarian ... naked emperor", slammed their release as "the ultimate degree of irresponsibility," his government spokesman said.


The flood of leaked US diplomatic cables -- most of which date from between 2007 and February 2010 -- has revealed secret details and indiscreet asides on some of the world's most tense international issues.


The website gave the cables to journalists from five Western publications several weeks ago, and they are being released on the Internet in stages.


WikiLeaks creator Julian Assange described the mass of documentation as a "diplomatic history of the United States" covering "every major issue." The site will next year release documents targeting "a big US bank", he said.


Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez, a long-time US critic described in the cables as "crazy", praised Assange, while Ecuador even offered the 39-year-old sanctuary.


US Attorney General Eric Holder said there was an "ongoing criminal investigation" of the leaks and vowed to pursue Assange, an Australian believed to be living in Europe, if he is found to have violated US law.


US officials had raced to contain the fallout last week by warning more than a dozen governments but refused to negotiate with WikiLeaks.


The leaks particularly highlighted the difference between Arab states' public policies and private desires, notably concerning Iran, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay detainees.


The documents allege that Egypt advised the US to forget about democracy in post-invasion Iraq and allow a return to dictatorship, while Kuwait's interior minister said "the best thing to do is get rid of" Kuwaitis held at Guantanamo.


Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Tuesday that Arab countries should not fall into the whistleblower's "trap" after memos suggested Gulf states wanted a US military strike on the Islamic republic.


"This is a very suspicious plot. They have planted some Western and US crimes in them to present them as credible," Mehmanparast said.


US officials have not confirmed the source of the leaks, but suspicion has fallen on Bradley Manning, a former army intelligence analyst arrested after the release of a video showing air strikes that killed reporters in Iraq.


WikiLeaks argues that its first two document dumps -- nearly 500,000 US military reports from 2004 to 2009 -- shed light on abuses in Afghanistan and Iraq, and denies any individual has been harmed by its disclosures.

[American Patriot]

Assange is a terrorist as far as I am concerned now:

November 30, 2010, 12:55 pm State’s Secrets: Teaching About WikiLeaks

By SARAH KAVANAGH AND HOLLY OJALVO

This 2009 cable, part of the WikiLeaks cache, offers a colorful profile of the Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, by the American ambassador to Libya, Gene A. Cretz.
Go to “A Selection From the Cache of Diplomatic Dispatches” »
Go to full Times coverage »
A huge trove of confidential diplomatic cables — some 250,000 individual cables, the daily traffic between the State Department and more than 270 American diplomatic outposts around the world — were obtained by an organization called WikiLeaks and made available to several news organizations, including The New York Times. The Times began publication of articles based on the cables online on Sunday.
Both the information contained in the cables and the decision to publish them raise issues you may want to consider in your classroom. We’ve compiled a list of key questions and short activity ideas to help, each linked to Times materials that support further inquiry.
Please let us know how you’re addressing this news in your teaching.

Key Questions:

The Basics: How and why did a quarter-million confidential American diplomatic cables get leaked to the public? What kinds of information did the cables contain? What do they reveal? How do they affect our understanding of international relations? Why are they controversial? What is WikiLeaks? Who is Julian Assange? Try our 6 Q’s activity on both this set of leaks and the previous WikiLeaks about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to help students understand the basics.
Government Transparency: What arguments can be made to support and to refute the belief in government transparency, specifically that “All governments can benefit from increased scrutiny by the world community, as well as their own people”? Do you think that the public should have unfettered access to information about the government and diplomacy? Why or why not?
Journalistic Decision-Making and Ethics: Why is the decision by New York Times editors to publish a selection of the recently leaked diplomatic cables controversial? What reasons for reporting on these leaked cables has The New York Times given? What choices has The Times made about what it will and will not publish? Do you think those decisions are ethical? Why or why not?
Secrecy and Safety: The leaked cables are classified at several different levels of secrecy. How did the classifications affect Times editors’ decisions about why and how to publish and report on the information contained in these cables? How have human rights groups responded to the leak? How might keeping certain government documents secret help to save lives?
The State Department: What arguments did the State Department make to Julian Assange against publication of the cables? What demands did State make? Why did WikiLeaks defy the State Department? Should there be any repercussions for WikiLeaks or for the news organizations that published the cables?
The Secretary of State: Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton argued that disclosures of classified information “tear at the fabric” of government, “sabotaging peaceful relations between nations.” What arguments can be made to support and rebut Mrs. Clinton’s perspective? Can leaks like this threaten the proper function of government and the maintenance of peace between nations? Why does Mrs. Clinton say that United States relations with foreign nations will survive this leak unscathed?
Diplomacy: What activities have American diplomats begun to engage in that might be read as blurring the line between espionage and diplomacy? How did a State Department spokesman respond on Twitter to accusations of the blurred line between espionage and diplomacy? Do you agree or disagree with his position that all diplomats should and do gather this kind of information?
Iran: What information from the leaked diplomatic cables is causing concern about Iran’s nuclear capabilities and missile program? What actions has the United States already taken to address Iran’s potential nuclear capabilities? How has Iran responded to the leak?
North Korea: What have the leaked cables revealed about world leaders’ views on North Korea? What information about North Korea can we gather from reading the leaked cables themselves?
Guantánamo Bay: What have the leaked cables revealed about how American diplomats were involved in the effort to reduce the population of the Guantánamo Bay prison? What information can we gather about the United States’ effort to reduce the Guantánamo Bay prison population by reading the leaked cables themselves?
Activity Ideas:

Stage a Discussion of WikiLeaks’s Mission: Using our lesson The Ethics of the War Logs: Debating the Pros and Cons of WikiLeaks, have students consider whether WikiLeaks is a champion of freedom of information or an instigator of trouble. Add Times articles about the diplomatic cables and related multimedia features to the resources that students analyze for the activity.
The class might then stage a talk show or round-table discussion on the issue, with students taking roles that represent different points of view on this topic. For example, one might represent the arguments of WikiLeaks itself, while another represents the State Department and a third the point of view of human rights groups.
Debate The Times’s Decision to Publish: Debate The New York Times’s decision to publish a section of the leaked cables. Was it ethical? Was it right? Prepare for the debate by learning more about how and why The Times decided to publish a selection of the cables and how some readers have responded. Use our “Debatable Issues” graphic organizer (PDF) to take notes as you read. To extend the discussion, consider a time when your own school or community newspaper confronted ethics questions on whether or not to publish a story. Do you see any commonalities in the issues raised by publishing this global story and your local one? Why or why not?
Follow the Leak: As The Times publishes and explains the significance of more of the leaked cables, use our Fact/Question/Response handout (PDF) to record new information and generate questions for classroom discussion. Students might sum up what they learned by creating political cartoons on some aspect of the topic. Our 2006 lesson, “It’s a Draw,” offers an adaptable structure.
Starting With Quotes, Questions, Comments and Illustrations: Students read through a selection of the cables, and then each student takes a sheet of paper and creates a “One-Pager” that contains at least two of the following: a specific quotation that seems particularly interesting and why; a question that arose from reading the cables and a name of a person or organization to whom the student would like to ask that question; a comment or observation about the material; a connection between what the student read in the WikiLeaks documents and something else from history, literature or life he or she has experienced; or an illustration that sums up something important about the WikiLeaks material. (Students might use our “One-Pager” organizer (PDF) to help.)
When all students have posted their One-Pagers on the wall, students circulate and write comments in response to their peers’ work. What common threads does the class observe? Why do they think these same issues, quotes, questions or ideas arose several times? How might any of the questions resonate beyond WikiLeaks and relate to something they are currently studying?
Track a Prediction: In “The Fragile Community,” Op-Ed columnist David Brooks writes:

“The WikiLeaks dump will probably damage the global conversation. Nations will be less likely to share with the United States. Agencies will be tempted to return to the pre-9/11 silos. World leaders will get their back up when they read what is said about them. Cooperation against Iran may be harder to maintain because Arab leaders feel exposed and boxed in. This fragile international conversation is under threat. It’s under threat from WikiLeaks. It’s under threat from a Gresham’s Law effect, in which the level of public exposure is determined by the biggest leaker and the biggest traitor.”

Do you agree? Have students collect and post an ongoing collage of news stories, quotes and images that show evidence of how the “global conversation” has been affected by WikiLeaks. The Lede blog may be a good starting point for this.
Related Learning Network Resources:
New Directions for Diplomacy is a 2008 lesson involving a comparison of the foreign policy approaches of the Bush and Obama administrations.
Our lesson Google vs. China: Considering Threats to Internet Freedom has students examine questions about freedom of information and the rights of government to keep certain pieces of information secret from the public.
Our 2004 lesson on Al Qaeda, The Right to Know, has students examine and discuss the public’s right to know about national security threats. See also Terrorism Today: Investigating Al Qaeda’s Presence Around the World.
Our 2005 lesson Press-ing Freedom has students engage in a fishbowl discussion about freedom of the press and the journalism code of ethics.
For other lessons on foreign policy, international relations and other related topics, see our lesson plan collections on American history, current events, global history and social studies.

[American Patriot]

Peterle is wasn't US Cyber command that took down the server.

Assange is a terrorist. We need to take his ass out, and shut down his severs.

Period.

If I catch him, I'll take him down personally.

[Phil Fiord]

This is just a correction in the characterization of what wikileaks is in a position of having done. From all known data, they did not themselves hack or otherwise directly gain access to any data. Other(s) did the data theft and passed that to wikileaks.

That makes wikileaks an entity that breached the documentation, but not by themselves compromising the networks that held the data.

Its an important distinction if any prosecution is to be attempted and for fair assessment.

[Phil Fiord]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/patriotic-h...ry?id=12272776

The attack on WikiLeaks is being claimed to have been done by a US 'hacktivist', not a gov hub

[Backstop]

This asshole is in deep shit.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe...ss_igoogle_cnn

(CNN) -- Interpol, at the request of a Swedish court looking into alleged sex crimes from earlier this year, has put WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange on its most-wanted listed.

The Stockholm Criminal Court two weeks ago issued an international arrest warrant for Assange on probable cause, saying he is suspected of rape, sexual molestation and illegal use of force in August incidents.

Sweden asked Interpol, the international police organization, to post a "Red Notice" after a judge approved a motion to bring him into custody.

The "Red Notice" is not an international arrest warrant. It is an advisory and request, issued to 188 member countries "to assist the national police forces in identifying or locating those persons with a view to their arrest and extradition," according to Interpol.

The Swedish court ordered Assange, 39, formally arrested in his absence, which requires Swedish authorities anywhere in the world to detain Assange if they come across him. Sweden's director of prosecutions, Marianne Ny, had requested the arrest-in-absence.

"The background is that he has to be heard in this investigation and we haven't been able to get a hold of him to question him," Ny said at the time.

Assange faces five counts that appear related to two incidents, according to the request Ny filed with the court.

He faces one count of rape and one count of sexual molestation related to an instance around August 17 in Enkoping, just outside Stockholm. He then faces two counts of sexual molestation between August 13 and 18 in Stockholm, and one count of illegal use of force between August 13 and 14, also in the capital.

Assange could be sentenced to at least two years in prison if convicted, according to the document.

Assange, an Australian, was rejected for permanent residency in Sweden in October. Swedish Migration Board official Gunilla Wikstrom said his application failed to fulfill all the requirements but declined to give details.

On Monday, Ecuador invited Assange to come to Quito to discuss documents leaked on the site relating to Ecuador and other Latin American countries, according to a statement from the country's foreign ministry.

The ministry also offered to process a request for residency "in accordance with the country's current laws."

In a November news release, Assange's British lawyer said the sex-crime charges stem from consensual sexual relationships his client had with two women.

"Only after the women became aware of each other's relationships with Mr. Assange did they make their allegations against him," lawyer Mark Stephens said in the statement.

Stephens also said neither he nor Assange "have ever received a single written word, at any time, in any form, from Swedish authorities on the Swedish investigation against our client."

The media has been the only way they've learned substantial information about the investigation, Stephens said. He called it "a clear contravention to Article 6 of the European Convention, which states that every accused must be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him."

Swedish prosecutors announced over the summer they were investigating Assange in two separate cases of rape and molestation. Ny said then there was reason to believe a crime had been committed, but that more investigation was necessary before she could make a final decision.

Assange has maintained he is innocent, telling the Arabic-language television network Al-Jazeera the accusations were a "smear campaign."

[catfish]

I agree with Rick on three points. A private can't have access to this much, Assange is now a terrorist, I too would take him out if I saw him. This whole thing is ugly, especially that it seems we let it happen, again. To be honest, we knew all this stuff already. But when they aired the dirty laundry it embarrassed people that don't like to be embarrassed. That changes everything this time.

Assange is a dead man walking, Hillary is doing her best with what she has to work with and Obama plays his fiddle, er, I mean basketball.

[Ryan Ruck]

Heard Savage today discussing this. He had an interesting theory that Obama is tacitly allowing these leaks to occur. The first set of leaks were damaging to Republicans and this set of leaks was damaging to Hillary since she is SecState and his closest competition.

Not sure I completely buy his theory but it is interesting...

As for those leaking this information, they should face firing squads. I guarantee that would make future leakers think twice.

[Backstop]

Heard Savage today discussing this. He had an interesting theory that Obama is tacitly allowing these leaks to occur.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2635791/posts

Obama Admin - Allowed WikiLeak
Vanity | 1 Dec 2010 | Self

Posted on Wednesday, December 01, 2010 1:42:41 PM by Sparky1776
Anyone else see Geoff Morrell on Megyn Kelly show (FOX) today admit that the US under the Cyber Command could have stopped the Wikileaks but decded not to for political reasons?

I search earlier this afternoon, and couldn't find an confirmation.

I'll resume searching this evening.

[catfish]

I also heard John Bolton say the UN cables could be fake. Another way for us to lose face at the UN.

[Ryan Ruck]

Cam Edwards on NRA News brought up this most excellent point:

NYT Publishes WikiLeaks, Not Climategate Emails

Last year, the New York Times refused to publish emails with damning evidence showing scientists manipulating data in order to "prove" global warming is a problem. The NYT justified not publishing what are now known as ClimateGate documents because they were "obtained illegally."

“The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.” Andrew Revkin, Environment Editor, New York Times Nov 20, 2009.

Fast forward to today, as Jillian states below, and the New York Times, has published WikiLeaks documents, justifying that the public has the right to know how the government makes its decisions.

...the more important reason to publish these articles is that the cables tell the unvarnished story of how the government makes its biggest decisions, the decisions that cost the country most heavily in lives and money.

How convenient for them...

[vector7]

Quote: Originally Posted by Ryan Ruck Heard Savage today discussing this. He had an interesting theory that Obama is tacitly allowing these leaks to occur.

Here's the broadcast.

[American Patriot]

The New York Slimes is NOT a news organization any more. They are a terrorist group and should be taken down like Wikileaks.

[vector7]

WikiLeaks fallout
W.H. creates post to analyze leaks

By MATT NEGRIN | 12/01/10 2:34 PM Updated: 12/01/10 3:28 PM


The new position will be housed in the National Counterterrorism Center, where President Obama is shown here delivering remarks Tuesday, Oct. 6, 2009. AP Photo Close

The Obama administration has created a position to investigate the gaps in security that led to the WikiLeaks release of diplomats’ private conversations, the White House announced.

Russell Travers, the deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center, will be the national security staff’s senior adviser for information access and security policy. He will “lead a comprehensive effort to identify and develop the structural reforms needed in light of the Wikileaks breach,” the White House said in a statement.

The White House also announced that the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board “will take an independent look at the means by which the Executive Branch as a whole shares and protects classified information.”

[catfish]

This is turning out to be far worse than I had originally thought.

[American Patriot]

Massive Release of Raw WikiLeaks Files Threatened


Updated: 5 minutes ago

Print Text Size




Theunis Bates Contributor


AOL News



(Dec. 6) -- Julian Assange's lawyer has warned that supporters of the WikiLeaks founder will unleash a "thermonuclear device" of government files containing the names of spies, sources and informants if he's killed or brought to trial.

Assange, the 39-year-old Australian who has most recently embarrassed the U.S. by leaking hundreds of previously secret diplomatic dispatches over the past week, has dubbed the unfiltered cache of documents his "insurance" policy. The 1.5-gigabyte file, which has been distributed to tens of thousands of fellow hackers and open-government campaigners around the world, is encrypted with a 256-digit key, reports The Sunday Times. Experts interviewed by the paper said that even powerful military computers can't crack the encryption without the key.

Keystone / AP
WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange says a cache of unfiltered government files containing the names of spies, sources and informants is his "insurance" policy, and his lawyer warns the documents will be released if he's killed or brought to trial.


Contained inside that file -- named insurance.aes256 -- are believed to be all of the documents that WikiLeaks has received to date, including unpublished papers on the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and papers belonging to BP and the Bank of America. Assange has previously suggested that the documents are unredacted, meaning they contain names that normally would be removed before publication to protect the lives of soldiers, spies and sources.

"We have over a long period of time distributed encrypted backups of material we have yet to release," he told the BBC in August. "All we have to do is release the password to that material, and it is instantly available."

Assange's lawyer, Mark Stephens, told the BBC news program "The Andrew Marr Show" on Sunday that if the WikiLeaks website was taken down -- or if anything ill happened to his client -- the key to that damaging file would be released. "[WikiLeaks founders] need to protect themselves," Stephens said, "and this is I think what they believe to be a thermonuclear device, effectively, in the electronic age."

Stephens added that the insurance policy was vital because Assange had received numerous death threats from around the world, including one from Canadian Tom Flanagan, a former campaign manager to Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Flanagan told a TV interviewer last week that Assange "should be assassinated" and taken out "with a drone or something." He later apologized for the remark.

Assange is believed to be hiding in Britain, where he is fighting attempts by Sweden to extradite him on sex-crime charges. His lawyer told the BBC that the legal moves against Assange were a "political stunt" and that Sweden's chief prosecutor had dropped the case against his client in September. He said it was only "after the intervention of a Swedish politician" that another prosecutor opened a new case.

The head of the whistle-blowing website has always denied the allegations, made by two women who hosted a party for him in Stockholm in August. He has admitted having consensual sex with the women, and according to an AOL News investigation, the charges relate to disagreements over condom use.

Stephens said he was worried the attempt to extradite Assange to Sweden could be a precursor to moving him to the U.S. "It doesn't escape my attention that Sweden was one of those lickspittle states which used its resources and its facilities for rendition flights" by the U.S. to transport terrorism suspects around the world for interrogation, he said.

Although Sarah Palin has called for Assange to be prosecuted for treason and Newt Gingrich has labeled him an "enemy combatant" who is "engaged in terrorism," U.S. charges against the hacker are unlikely. He is not a U.S. citizen and so can't commit treason against America. And because he didn't steal the documents but simply released them, he would likely be protected by the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech.

[American Patriot]

This guy and his lawyers will be completely taken aback when a .22 cal round is found embedded in the brain of the anarchist and no one knows how it happened, who did it, or what country to point at....

The guy is seriously stepping on the toes of a lot of places - specifically aiming at the US, but pissing off everyone else.

[American Patriot]

And because he didn't steal the documents but simply released them, he would likely be protected by the Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech.

Ummm bullshit. No foreigner is "guaranteed freedom of speech" against the USA.