Currently viewing the tag: “Wikileaks”
Gregg Mitchell has a preview of the Frontline piece on Bradley Manning today. He points out that the big “scoop” of the story-that Mannings mother-in-law called the cops in 2006 after Bradley pulled out a knife during a family fight (but then immediately asked if his dad was okay).
The entire story seems to look to Manning’s psychology to explain his alleged leak of classified information.
Frontline says it will continue its report in May in a one-hour program which will, again, focus on Manning’s personal life and how this “led” to his alleged leak; and his new outbursts, this time in the Army (all reported elsewhere)-and how the Army still gave him access to top-secret documents.
[snip]
The overall tone of tonight’s report is sure to spark debate. Consider that MilitaryTimes opens its report today with this: “Could the global turmoil sparked by Wikileaks have started started with a son’s anger for his father?” NPR’s report is headlined: “Home Life Included a 911 Call.”
Such a spin, in the absence of a larger examination of what “led to” the alleged leak, is irresponsible.
If Manning is found to have leaked the cables, he deserves the bulk of responsibility for the leak (though, as Mitchell points out, to explain it, it’d be well to look at his political views and, I’d add, the disclosure requirements for crimes like support for torture exposed in WikiLeaks as well).
But one entity that has thus far avoided all responsibility for the leak are the folks in charge of DOD’s IT. As I have pointed out, DOD’s network security was embarrassingly bad-worse than your average mid-sized corporation. But to make their negligent security even worse, they had already suffered a damaging compromise of their systems when, in 2008, malware was introduced into their system via removable media, the same means by which Manning is alleged to have downloaded the WikiLeaks cables.
The Defense Department’s geeks are spooked by a rapidly spreading worm crawling across their networks. So they’ve suspended the use of so-called thumb drives, CDs, flash media cards, and all other removable data storage devices from their nets, to try to keep the worm from multiplying any further.
The ban comes from the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, according to an internal Army e-mail. It applies to both the secret SIPR and unclassified NIPR nets. The suspension, which includes everything from external hard drives to “floppy disks,” is supposed to take effect “immediately.”
[snip]
Servicemembers are supposed to “cease usage of all USB storage media until the USB devices are properly scanned and determined to be free of malware,” one e-mail notes.
Eventually, some government-approved drives will be allowed back under certain “mission-critical,” but unclassified, circumstances. “Personally owned or non-authorized devices” are “prohibited” from here on out.
Not only did DOD’s failure to do what it claimed it would in response to this malware attack expose DOD’s networks to the kind of leak Manning is alleged to have committed, but it also exposed DOD’s networks to more secret, but potentially more damaging, leaks of targeted information that our enemies would like. The failure to implement the very minimal response to the malware attack is inexcusable.
But, as far as I know, no one is asking anyone be held responsible for that negligence.
None of this excuses what Manning is alleged to have done in the least. But shouldn’t the press be asking why DOD persisted with completely inadequate security after having been attacked already?
Related posts:
What Did Bradley Manning (Allegedly) Do?
Bradley Manning saw that America was committing horrors in his name but could not simply ignore the fact. Instead he (allegedly) supplied Wikileaks with information that has changed the world. The information would reveal that certain Americans were abusing American military power and stop them doing so again. The information would reveal that, although America and its allies (mostly the UK) were supplying dictators with the means to suppress opposition and abuse human rights they did not agree with what they were doing. The leaked information would assist igniting the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
Closing the Stable Door After the Horse has Bolted
Bradley Manning is in solitary confinement and in shackles. This will not reverse the effects of what Bradley Manning did. It is the political and judicial equivalent of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Giving Hope to Tea Bags
When George W Bush took America into war on two fronts, allowed the bankers to rip off Americans in pursuit of massive fortunes and proved that being uncouth, idiotic and uninformed are not obstacles to achieving the American dream the Tea Bags were in clover. The right to kill, exploit and profit from others made this odious but significant sect happy and kept them quiet and content. The Tea Bag thugs could get on with their lives uninterrupted whilst George W bullied the world on their behalf and diverted more money their way. The Floridian election fraud, Shock and Awe and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina were among their finest hours.
When Tea Bag Dreams Were Shattered
The election of Barrack Hussein Obama shattered the Tea Bag dreams. It was the end of them throwing their weight around. Obama wanted to give every American access to medical care and this flagship aim was too much for the thugs to cope with. It awakened the political beasts in them. They needed to protect America from becoming a fairer society.
PJ Crowley Resigns | Tea Bags Dreams Survive
The unnecessary and harsh treatment of Bradley Manning will achieve nothing. It is cruel. The treatment of Bradley Manning is an example of how bullies throw their weight around. Calls to execute Bradley Manning are worrying and emanate from inhumane types. At the same time the treatment of Bradley Manning keeps the Tea Bags dream and their perverse version of the American Dream alive. Perhaps the resignation of PJ Crowley will be the start of the shattering their dreams.
A series of memos released by WikiLeaks exposes how the Organization of the Islamic Conference took over the then-new UN Human Rights Council in 2008. For those who are fans of the arcane world of negotiations, here is how the OIC managed to outmaneuver Western states on one resolution:
AN OIC TRIUMPH
————-OIC efforts to amend — and in effect subvert — the Freedom of Expression resolution had been a dominant subtext throughout the Council’s seventh regular session. With support from the U.S., the EU and others, Canada, as chief sponsor, had sought to fend off an OIC amendment that would instruct the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression to report on “instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.” The OIC, taking advantage of its internal discipline, had held firm throughout. China, apparently angered by criticism during the Council’s March 25 meeting of its behavior in Tibet, floated its own killer amendments two days before the vote. Canada rejected these as having been raised too late in the game.
The decisive action on the freedom of expression resolution and its amendments came on the session’s last day. We had joined Canada and others in efforts to sway moderate OIC members, but these had fallen short. Meanwhile, Canada had sought to find compromise language that would avoid the OIC amendment. When those efforts failed, and with the session having been extended beyond its scheduled 6pm closing time, the OIC called for a vote on its amendment, which passed (27-17-3). The U.S., Canada, the EU and others dropped their co-sponsorship. With the momentum clearly favoring the OIC and its allies, Cuba then pulled an unexpected move, proposing an oral amendment underscoring “the importance for all forms of media to report and to deliver information in a fair and impartial manner.” That amendment passed (29-15-3). Canada and the EU failed in last minute procedural efforts to head off the fully amended resolution, which then passed (32-0-15).
The Ambassador’s April 2 meeting with like-minded ambassadors to take stock of the session provided additional insights into the dynamics behind the last-minute maneuvering. Canada’s ambassador expressed frustration at the African Group’s solidarity with the OIC. Madagascar and Angola, for instance, had expressed discomfort with the amendment in conversations with the Canadians but had eventually been pressured into voting for it. The OIC had also exerted immense pressure on others during the end game, he reported; Bosnia and Herzegovina, for instance, had been pressed hard, although it had ended up voting against the amendment. Both the Canadian and Danish ambassadors expressed particular resentment toward China: though the Chinese had ostensibly kept their promise, made on the session’s last day, not to put forth an oral amendment, they had clearly struck a deal for Cuba to do so.
In an April 1 extension of the seventh session to allow for closing statements, several OIC members defended the newly amended resolution. Pakistan argued that the OIC amendment had done nothing beyond providing an “add-on” that made the resolution more “comprehensive and holistic,” in order to protect the stability of multicultural societies. Sri Lanka echoed that theme and expressed hope that the decisions on the freedom of expression mandate would not leave the Council as a “house divided.” The U.S. was among several delegations that sharply criticized the amendments.
The OIC had scored an earlier victory with adoption of a resolution on defamation of religions (21-10-14). It also succeeded in rescheduling the Item 7 discussion of the Occupied Palestinian Territories to early in the Council session in order more quickly to condemn Israel’s response to rocket attacks from Gaza. In addition to the resolution passed on that occasion, the Council also passed three other anti-Israel resolutions. One of these, on Israeli settlements, passed 46-1-0, with only Canada voting against it.
Another memo ends off with the observation that the EU has given up and decided to support the OIC:
The prevailing political and negotiating dynamics at the Human Rights Council must be broken if that body, which is still taking shape, is to address human rights problems in a serious and substantive way. Instead of seeking the support of the U.S. and other sympathetic delegations in its efforts to hold violators to their international human rights obligations, the instinct of the EU appears to be to bend over backwards to accommodate the concerns of the violators and their supporters. The result is not pretty. South Africa, which serves as the driving force behind the Durban process and has a tunnel-vision interest on issues of racial equality, appears to have made common cause with the OIC and its parallel tunnel-vision interest in ensuring the alleged rights of the collective in Muslim societies. This vision is fundamentally incompatible with the interests of Western democracies. Until the EU can be made to see that its paramount goal of ensuring its internal unity, with its predictable lowest-common-denominator results, will rarely hold anyone accountable for anything, our efforts to see the HRC evolve into an effective and respectable human rights mechanism are likely to go unrewarded. The U.S. made a greater effort in this short session to influence events, but this level and manner of engagement simply were not enough to have a significant impact.
More on that little slice of insanity based in Pennsylvania, which Roland Shirk discussed at length here. “Meet ‘the Most Dangerous Islamist on Planet Earth’ He lives in Pennsylvania,” from Canada Free Press, March 21:
The latest documents from Wikileaks shows growing concern among U. S. officials over Fethullah Gulen’s attempts to create a New Islamic World and the “braining washing of students” that takes place at his charter schools within the United States and throughout the Muslim world.
The cable that speaks of the “brain-washing” was written in 2009 by James Jeffrey, the U. S. Ambassador to Turkey.
In the cable, Mr. Jeffrey describes Gülen as a “political phenomena” in Turkey even when he resides “in exile” within a mountain fortress in Pennsylvania. He says the Gülen movement has gained control of Turkey’s government and dictates Turkish policy which has become increasing anti-Israeli and anti-American. It points out that the leaders of the Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkinma or AKP) who now govern Turkey, including Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and President Abdullah Gul, appear to serve as Gulen’s puppets.
Other newly released cables state that Gulen’s disciples now direct the country’s 200,000 strong police force – – a force that remains in conflict with the military, which sees the group as an enemy.
In recent months, Turkish military leaders, and other critics of the AKP, have been arrested in the dead of night and whisked off to detention cells.
According to NurettinVeren, who served as Fethullah Gulen’s right-hand man “There are imam security directors; imams wearing police uniforms. Many police commissioners get their orders from imams.”
“It is not possible to confirm the Turkish police are under the control of the Gülen community members, but we have not met anybody who denies it,” one cable said.
The most dangerous Islamist on planet earth
Gulen has been labeled “the most dangerous Islamist on planet earth,” although he has failed to attract the attention of U. S. counter-terrorism experts and the national media.
Gülen is a student and follower of Sheikh Sa’id-i Kurdi (1878-1960), also known as Sa’id-i Nursi, the founder of the Islamist Nur (light) movement. After Turkey’s war of independence, Kurdi demanded, in an address to the new parliament, that the new republic be based on Islamic principles. Kurdi turned against Atatürk and his reforms and against the new modern, secular, Western republic and Gulen has followed his militant mentor’s example.
Hailed as an outstanding educator by Graham Fuller and other CIA officials, the reclusive Gulen is semi-literate and lacks a high school diploma.
In 1999, he was driven from his native Turkey because of his attempts to overthrow the secular Turkish government.
Objectives of transforming Turkey into an Islam republic and of creating a New Islamic World Order
In his sermons, Gulen has stated his objectives of transforming Turkey into an Islam republic and of creating a New Islamic World Order. In one sermon, he said:
“You must move in the arteries of the system without anyone noticing your existence until you reach all the power centers … until the conditions are ripe, they [the followers] must continue like this. If they do something prematurely, the world will crush our heads, and Muslims will suffer everywhere, like in the tragedies in Algeria, like in 1982 [in] Syria … like in the yearly disasters and tragedies in Egypt. The time is not yet right. You must wait for the time when you are complete and conditions are ripe, until we can shoulder the entire world and carry it … You must wait until such time as you have gotten all the state power, until you have brought to your side all the power of the constitutional institutions in Turkey … Until that time, any step taken would be too early—like breaking an egg without waiting the full forty days for it to hatch. It would be like killing the chick inside. The work to be done is [in] confronting the world. Now, I have expressed my feelings and thoughts to you all—in confidence … trusting your loyalty and secrecy. I know that when you leave here—[just] as you discard your empty juice boxes, you must discard the thoughts and the feelings that I expressed here….
Read it all.
What Did Bradley Manning (Allegedly) Do?
Bradley Manning saw that America was committing horrors in his name but could not simply ignore the fact. Instead he (allegedly) supplied Wikileaks with information that has changed the world. The information would reveal that certain Americans were abusing American military power and stop them doing so again. The information would reveal that, although America and its allies (mostly the UK) were supplying dictators with the means to suppress opposition and abuse human rights they did not agree with what they were doing. The leaked information would assist igniting the revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya.
Closing the Stable Door After the Horse has Bolted
Bradley Manning is in solitary confinement and in shackles. This will not reverse the effects of what Bradley Manning did. It is the political and judicial equivalent of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
Giving Hope to Tea Bags
When George W Bush took America into war on two fronts, allowed the bankers to rip off Americans in pursuit of massive fortunes and proved that being uncouth, idiotic and uninformed are not obstacles to achieving the American dream the Tea Bags were in clover. The right to kill, exploit and profit from others made this odious but significant sect happy and kept them quiet and content. The Tea Bag thugs could get on with their lives uninterrupted whilst George W bullied the world on their behalf and diverted more money their way. The Floridian election fraud, Shock and Awe and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina were among their finest hours.
When Tea Bag Dreams Were Shattered
The election of Barrack Hussein Obama shattered the Tea Bag dreams. It was the end of them throwing their weight around. Obama wanted to give every American access to medical care and this flagship aim was too much for the thugs to cope with. It awakened the political beasts in them. They needed to protect America from becoming a fairer society.
PJ Crowley Resigns | Tea Bags Dreams Survive
The unnecessary and harsh treatment of Bradley Manning will achieve nothing. It is cruel. The treatment of Bradley Manning is an example of how bullies throw their weight around. Calls to execute Bradley Manning are worrying and emanate from inhumane types. At the same time the treatment of Bradley Manning keeps the Tea Bags dream and their perverse version of the American Dream alive. Perhaps the resignation of PJ Crowley will be the start of the shattering their dreams.
Written by Jenny Cascante Gonzalez · Translated by Jenny Cascante Gonzalez
· View original post [es]
Several months have passed since WikiLeaks flooded media with the release of diplomatic cables containing information related to political and social issues in many countries around the world. Newspaper La Nación [es] of Costa Rica is the first Central American media outlet to receive the cables -most sent from the US Embassy in Costa Rica- directly from WikiLeaks. The content of these cables has provoked different reactions in Costa Rican blogs and social networks; opinions are as diverse as the topics covered in the cables.
Cristian Cambronero from Fusil de Chispas [es] notes the achievements of digital media:
El caso de la organización WikiLeaks es fascinante por muchos aspectos, y desde muchos puntos de vista. Pero hay uno que me apasiona en particular: el ver materializado el potencial que la tecnología y las redes ofrecen hoy, para que ciudadanos comunes, e iniciativas civiles, consigan incidir a una escala hasta ahora inimaginable.
The case of WikiLeaks is fascinating in many ways and from many points of view. But there is one in particular that I love: the materialization of the potential that technology and networks offer today, so that ordinary citizens and civil initiatives, achieve impact in an, until now, unimaginable scale.
Adriana Naranjo writes in Revista Amauta [es]:
La sorpresa de las publicaciones de los cables esta semana no produjo una grata confirmación de algo que ya sabíamos; sino una profunda indignación ante la reacción/no reacción del pueblo, de las organizaciones civiles, de los grupos políticos no oficialistas… de un pueblo indolente y pusilánime que al parecer se merece que la clase política (nacional e internacional) se burle de él en su propia cara.
The surprise of the publications of the cables this week did not cause a pleasant confirmation of something we already knew, but rather a deep indignation at the reaction/no reaction from the people, civil organizations, opposition political groups … of a country indolent and coward who apparently deserves that the political class (national and international) make fun of it in its face.
Dean Cornito, in his blog La Suiza Centroamericana [es], says:
Los cables diplomáticos pueden contener información interesante, pero hasta ahora lo que hemos visto son, efectivamente, chismes diplomáticos y nada que nos sorprenda ni nos deba causar indignación.
The diplomatic cables may contain interesting information, but so far what we have seen is, indeed, diplomatic gossip and nothing that should cause surprise or outrage us.
Xinia Ch delivered a summary of the main topics revealed in the cables so far in her blog Con derecho al abucheo [es]. She concludes that,
Aunque muchos de los cables confirmen “lo que ya sabíamos” y aunque ejerzamos nuestro sagrado derecho a la chota y al “basureo”, sí es importante que en algún momento saquemos algunas conclusiones acerca de lo que queremos y no queremos a futuro, principalmente con lo que a elección de nuevos líderes políticos se refiere.
Although many of the cables confirm ”what we already knew” and although we exercise our sacred right to criticize and ”mock”, it is important that at some point we draw some conclusions about what we want and don’t want in the future, mainly with what the election of new political leaders is concerned.
Julio Córdoba appeals for the publication of cables as a sign of transparency in his blog Ciencia Ficción [es]:
Los cables que wikileaks han compartido al mundo representan la forma en que Estados Unidos mira sus intereses (porque ningún país tiene amigos ni enemigos). A diferencia de quienes consideran negativo que estos contenidos se compartan soy de la idea que ningún Estado debe tener secretos por una sencilla razón: los secretos pertenecen a las personas.
The cables that Wikileaks have shared with the world represent the way that the United States looks at its interests (because no country has friends or enemies). Unlike those who consider the disclosure of these contents as something negative, I think that no State should have secrets for one simple reason: the secrets belong to the people.
As a result of the release of the cables, and as an effort to maintain transparency and make sure the information they contain reaches as many readers as possible, a group of Costa Ricans is using a website [es] to upload cables translated into Spanish. This is their motivation:
¿Por qué traducimos? La filtración de cables de Wikileaks es un ejercicio de transparencia. La información que se difunde en esos cables debe servir para alertarnos sobre la influencia y en algunos casos, intromisión de gobiernos extranjeros en las decisiones internas del país. Traducir esos cables es un ejercicio de democracia y defensa de la soberanía. Difundir en nuestro idioma la información que filtra Wikileaks es ejercer nuestro derecho al libre acceso a la información y documentar para la memoria histórica.
Why translate? The cable leak by Wikileaks is an exercise in transparency. The information published in these cables should serve to warn us about the influence and in some cases, foreign government interference in the internal decisions of the country. To translate these cables is an exercise in democracy and defense of sovereignty. To share in our language the information that Wikileaks filters is an exercise of our right to free access to information and to document for historical memory.
On Twitter, discussions and opinions regarding the cables can be followed by searching the hashtag #Wikileakscr [es].
Written by Aparna Ray
The latest round of India Cables from Wikileaks, which alleges the bribing of MPs during the July 2008 ‘no-confidence' vote by the current UPA government, has led to a furore in the Indian Parliament with the Opposition demanding an explanation from the Prime Minister, and even demanding his resignation over the matter. Prime Minister Mr. Manmohan Singh, already besieged with his party's scandal-ridden image – thanks to the various scams tumbling out in quick succession, finally gave a statement denying the allegations and at the same time raising questions on the cables' credibility and veracity.
It's Wikileaks time in India…again.
Parliament aside, ever since the Hindu started publishing these cables, netizens have been discussing them with much animation, their reactions ranging from disgust (at the revelations, their content as well as the furore) to sarcasm and even a bit of humor.
@Chellaney: The more one reads WikiLeaks' cables, the more India's men of straw stand out. For e.g., Mulford thanked Kalam for lobbying for nuclear deal
@omkara2: @vikramchandra so many countries were prey to wikileaks..no one acted the way India is behaving..so much of drama..typical India
@m2shooter: Wikileaks should disclose price of india, corrupt have already put the nation to auction. #scam
@twitchdude: Amazing !! how can an unverified and unverifiable cable create so much chaos. #wikileaks #india #sigh
@pradeepphadke: Not knowing any thing is a great leadership quality-ask MM Singh! He is PM of world's largest democracy without knowing any thing at all!
@dibgal: how can someone allege that wikileaks has an India specific agenda? one of my fren's father who is an active politician says so. bemusing
@jhunjhunwala: Japan has a Nuclear Crisis.In India we don't know what to deal with first – 2G, CWG or Wikileaks now. We have an UNCLEAR Crisis
@coolfunnytshirt : On being asked about India's loss to SA, our PM says World Cup is speculative and unverified. #wc11 #cwc2011 #wikileaks
There were also reactions to allegations that the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was concerned about the appointment of Pranab Mukherjee as India's Finance Minister.
@Bansal_Anurag: US wasn't happy with Pranab Mukherjee as FM: WikiLeaks, neither do we. How similar the feelings are across the continents….Surprising
@KanchanGupta: Jury's verdict! The Golden Pumpkin Award goes to Pranab Mukherjee for insisting cables leaked by WikiLeaks enjoy diplomatic immunity!
However, not everyone was amused with the wikileaks revelations. A few of the tweeters felt that any government needed confidentiality to function and wikileaks was diluting that process.
@IntelliCzar: WikiLeaks..a chop on the Government's right to confidentiality..which i think is a must to run a big and diverse country like India.
Have you noticed how almost every single big story in the last few months has been buttressed by something found in the Wikileaks trove of government cables? The latest:
A US embassy cable obtained by the WikiLeaks website and seen by The Daily Telegraph quoted an unnamed expert who expressed concern that guidance on how to protect nuclear power stations from earthquakes had only been updated three times in the past 35 years. The document states:
"He [the IAEA official] explained that safety guides for seismic safety have only been revised three times in the last 35 years and that the IAEA is now re-examining them. Also, the presenter noted recent earthquakes in some cases have exceeded the design basis for some nuclear plants, and that this is a serious problem that is now driving seismic safety work."
The cables also disclose how the Japanese government opposed a court order to shut down another nuclear power plant in western Japan because of concerns it could not withstand powerful earthquakes.
Damn information. Whatever happens, the public must be protected from it.
Have you noticed how almost every single big story in the last few months has been buttressed by something found in the Wikileaks trove of government cables? The latest:
A US embassy cable obtained by the WikiLeaks website and seen by The Daily Telegraph quoted an unnamed expert who expressed concern that guidance on how to protect nuclear power stations from earthquakes had only been updated three times in the past 35 years. The document states:
"He [the IAEA official] explained that safety guides for seismic safety have only been revised three times in the last 35 years and that the IAEA is now re-examining them. Also, the presenter noted recent earthquakes in some cases have exceeded the design basis for some nuclear plants, and that this is a serious problem that is now driving seismic safety work."
The cables also disclose how the Japanese government opposed a court order to shut down another nuclear power plant in western Japan because of concerns it could not withstand powerful earthquakes.
Damn information. Whatever happens, the public must be protected from it.
Along with much more on Manning (even a Tom Tomorrow strip) and Bank of America:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/159254/wik…
8:35am More from my colleague Kevin Gosztola on warnings about Japan’s nuclear risks from new cables and other commenters. A Russian expert: “The Japanese were very greedy, and they used every square inch of the space. But when you have a dense placing of spent fuel in the basin, you have a high possibility of fire if the water is removed from the basin.”
4:10pm Reuters: Jordan used Japan as good example when attempting to calm Israel on idea of builidng nuclear plant along fault line. “According to the U.S. Embassy cable, Amman attempted to ease Israeli concerns about the reactor and its initially proposed location near the port city of Aqaba by inviting Israeli nuclear experts to meet their Jordanian counterparts.” The cable reveals that the Jordanians claimed that “Japan also has earthquake problems but still builds nuclear power plants, which the Israelis acknowledged as true but also extremely costly,” the cable continued. “The Jordanians then assured their Israeli counterparts that the winds blow southwest, not northwest towards Israel.”
6:00pm More cables released with connection to nuclear disaster, this time covered by ABC News. “Months after a senior Japanese International Atomic Energy Agency official urged better safety procedures at nuclear plants around the world to ‘avoid another Chernobyl,’ another IAEA official said that earthquakes presented a ‘serious problem’ to nuclear plant safety, according to a recently released U.S. State Department cable…..Other leaked U.S. State Department documents, published by the website WikiLeaks, show the U.S. had little confidence in Taniguchi, who was at the time the head of the IAEA’s Department of Nuclear Safety and Security. ”
Click link to get links to referenced items.
Also, at 4:35pm, ACLU writes to Secty of Defense Robert Gates saying treatment of Manning is “cruel and unusual” punishment. Longish entry. Criticism from various publications of military’s treatment of Manning is growing with several referenced by Mitchell.
Concerning the following information, I sincerely hope no Anonymous hackers will be harmed. But, damn, if Forbes has found her, surely DOJ will be hot on her trail?
11:25am Great piece from Forbes’s Parmy Olson: “Is This the Girl Who Hacked HBGary?” She’s 16. “Kayla played a crucial role, posing as Barr to an IT administrator (who happened to be Nokia security specialist Jussi Jaakonaho) to gain access to the company’s servers. Read their email correspondence here and here.”
More cables on the Japanese atomic energy issues noted in Mitchell’s Day 108:
http://www.thenation.com/blog/159231/wik…
6:10pm Daily Telegraph: In new cable, ” An official from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in December 2008 that safety rules were out of date and strong earthquakes would pose a ‘serious problem’ for nuclear power stations. The Japanese government pledged to upgrade safety at all of its nuclear plants, but will now face inevitable questions over whether it did enough….The cables also disclose how the Japanese government opposed a court order to shut down another nuclear power plant in western Japan because of concerns it could not withstand powerful earthquakes.”
Updated to correct 4:35 reference.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
A WikiLeaks cable dated March 5, 2007 has raised new interest in the BAE bribery scandal (AP, WSJ, Telegraph). While no one seems to have noted this, the cable shows that the British lied to their counterparts at the OECD about details of the bribery investigation into BAE.
As the Guardian (which led the reporting on this story) reported three years ago, the UK’s Serious Fraud Office started investigating evidence of an elaborate kickback system by which the Brits would give money to the Saudis for BAE contracts in 2004 (it turns out those kickbacks were allegedly used to fund covert operations). In 2006, Prince Bandar bin Sultan flew to London and threatened Tony Blair the Saudis would stop sharing information on terrorists if the SFO continued its investigation. As a result, in early 2007, the SFO stopped its investigation, citing public interest. The US settled its investigation of the same bribery scheme for $ 400 million last year.
The cable appears to be preparation for the March 2007 OECD meeting of the Working Group on Bribery; it serves as a review of what had happened in the previous, January 2007, meeting regarding the British decision to stop its investigation of the BAE bribery scheme. Much of the cable reviews the stance of each country regarding the UK decision, with France vocally complaining that the British decision violated the Convention on bribery’s prohibition on invoking relations with foreign countries as reason to spike a bribery investigation, and Australia fully supporting the UK decision. According to the cable, the American delegation was in between those two positions (they were basically arguing for putting off a conclusion about the appropriateness of the decision until the March meeting for which this cable served as preparation):
The U.S. delegation took note of the experience and professionalism of U.K. delegation members. The US del inquired into what appeared to be inconsistent accounts relating to differences in views of the SFO Director and Attorney General regarding the merits of the case, reports alleging British intelligence agencies had not joined the government’s assessment that the case raised national and international security interests, and whether the SFO could provide WGB members with assurances that BAE would not continue to make corrupt payments to senior Saudi officials.
[snip]
The U.S. delegation commented that it was not appropriate at this juncture to conclude that Article 5 does not contemplate the proper invocation of national security interests.
Ultimately, the cable reveals, the group developed a consensus to revisit the issue in the March meeting after further review of the British investigation.
The cable is perhaps most interesting because it gives us a glimpse of what the British publicly told the international community about its investigation, the targets, and the reasons for dropping the investigation.
The SFO Deputy Director falsely portrayed the decision to end the investigation as voluntary
Most interestingly, the cable shows that SFO Deputy Director Helen Garlick portrayed SFO Director Robert Wardle’s decision to terminate the investigate as entirely voluntary.
Garlick started by underscoring the U.K. delegation’s willingness to answer as much as possible the questions of the WGB, bearing in mind pending litigation in the U.K. Garlick reported that SFO and MOD Police investigators had expended more than 2 million pounds sterling on the BAE investigations. She said on December 14, SFO Director Robert Wardle had decided to discontinue the joint SFO/MOD Police investigation based on his personal, independent judgment.
The French doubted this (I’m guessing they were suspicious partly because Wardle did not brief the group himself). Shortly after the January meeting, the Guardian reported that Wardle disagreed with Lord Goldsmith’s ultimate decision to spike the investigation and in 2008 Wardle testified that he strongly disagreed with the decision.
Wardle told the court in a witness statement: “The idea of discontinuing the investigation went against my every instinct as a prosecutor. I wanted to see where the evidence led.”
All of which suggests the French were right to doubt that Wardle made this decision himself.
The Brits may have kept Bandar bin Sultan’s role in the bribery scheme secret
In addition, tt appears that the Brits may have kept Bandar bin Sultan’s rule in the bribery scheme secret-though it may be, instead, that the cable didn’t record the details of the briefing pertaining to Bandar. The cable describes the Brits exhorting their partners to keep the contents of the briefing on the investigation classified.
U.K. delegation head Jo Kuenssberg said the U.K. recognized the level of interest of WGB members in the case and stressed the need to respect the confidentiality of the information contained in the U.K.’s briefing,
And then, among the details revealed in the investigation, the Brits described an “unnamed senior Saudi official” and “another very senior Saudi official” as recipients of some of the bribes in the scheme.
Third, payments made under the al-Yamamah contract to an unnamed senior Saudi official: Garlick advised that in October 2005, the SFO had demanded BAE produce documents including payments related to the al-Yamamah contract. The company made representations to the AG on public interest grounds (political and economic considerations) as to why the investigation should be halted. The AG undertook a Shawcross Exercise and sought representations from various British officials regarding the case. The SFO Director wanted to continue the investigation. On January 25, 2006, the AG agreed that there was no impediment to continuing the investigation. The SFO sought Swiss banking records regarding agents of BAE. The SFO found reasonable grounds that another very senior Saudi official was the recipient of BAE payments. The SFO was poised to travel to Switzerland in connection with its Mutual Legal Assistance (MLA) request when the decision to discontinue the investigation was made;
The cable explicitly named Turki Bin Nasir, then the head of Saudi Arabia’s Air Force and already by that point publicly tied to the bribery scheme. So these two must be others. I’m guessing that Bandar-whose receipt of $ 1 billion via the scheme would be broken by the Guardian in June 2007-is the “very senior Saudi official” mentioned, not least because his involvement seems to have been exposed at the Swiss bank account stage of the investigation. So the only question, then, is whether the Brits kept his name-as they did the “unnamed senior Saudi official”-secret from their counterparts at the OECD. It appears, however, they did.
In addition, the British review of the investigation far underplayed the amount involved here.
Related posts:
WikiLeaks has promised to being releasing today a swath of emails and other internal documents from Bank of America. Count us as very interested if this comes about.
This Wikileaks cable, from January 2009 and classified as “secret,”, shows that the State Department was researching exactly what Iran’s plans for Latin America are. It is attributed directly to Hillary Clinton. It is filled with dozens of questions to be researched and answered.
Some of these questions would appear to be more properly answered by the CIA, although it appears that the State Department has a set of “Iran watchers.”
Question A4, asking whether Hezbollah and Iran share strategic interests, seems dangerously naive.
I don’t know if the “converts” in B1 refer to converts to Shi’a Islam, which would indicate that Iran is using Islam to recruit spies.
In general, the questions being asked are the right ones.
Here is most of the cable:
WASHINGTON ANALYSTS ASSESS THAT TEHRAN IS REACHING OUT TO LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES IN ORDER TO REDUCE ITS DIPLOMATIC ISOLATION AND INCREASE TIES TO LEFTIST COUNTRIES IN THE REGION THAT TEHRAN PERCEIVES MAY SHARE ITS ANTI-US AGENDA. PRESIDENT AHMADI-NEJAD APPEARS TO BE THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THIS POLICY, AND HE HAS RECEIVED PERSONAL ASSISTANCE FROM VENEZUELAN PRESIDENT HUGO CHAVEZ. IRAN'S TIES WITH VENEZUELA, WHICH INCLUDE MILITARY COOPERATION, ARE THE CLOSEST AND MOST SIGNIFICANT. GIVEN THE HIGH-PROFILE IRAN-VENEZUELA RELATIONSHIP, HIZBALLAH-LINKED INDIVIDUALS PROBABLY SEE VENEZUELA AS A SAFEHAVEN WHERE THEY CAN CONDUCT FUNDRAISING AND SUPPORT ACTIVITIES WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. OTHER POPULIST GOVERNMENTS LIKE BOLIVIA, ECUADOR, AND NICARAGUA HAVE ALSO SOUGHT TO CREATE CLOSER POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC TIES WITH IRAN. IRAN HAS ESTABLISHED CULTURAL CENTERS IN 16 COUNTRIES OF THE REGION AND HAS EMBASSIES IN 10 COUNTRIES. AS TIME AND RESOURCES PERMIT AND AS APPLICABLE TO POST, ANALYSTS AND SENIOR LEVEL POLICYMAKERS WOULD GREATLY APPRECIATE ANY INFORMATION ON THE FOLLOWING TOPICS/QUESTIONS THAT YOU COLLECT DURING THE COURSE OF YOUR NORMAL MEETINGS/BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. ¶A. (U) FOR IRAN WATCHERS AND THE IRAN REGIONAL PRESENCE OFFICE (IRPO): 1) (S/NF) BEYOND IRAN'S OVERT POLICY TO INCREASE ITS DIPLOMATIC AND ECONOMIC RELATIONS IN THE REGION, WE LACK INFORMATION ON TEHRAN'S STRATEGIC INTENTIONS. WHAT DOES TEHRAN SEE AS THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF IRAN'S OUTREACH TO LATIN AMERICA? HOW HIGH A PRIORITY IS LATIN AMERICA FOR IRANIAN FOREIGN POLICY? DOES TEHRAN ENVISION BECOMING A KEY REGIONAL PLAYER IN LATIN AMERICA? WHERE DOES IRAN THINK IT IS IN TERMS OF DEVELOPING RELATIONS WITH THE REGION? WHAT SPECIFIC COUNTRIES, GROUPS, AND INDIVIDUALS DOES IRAN VIEW AS ENABLERS IN THE REGION? WHICH COUNTRIES APPEAR TO BE THE FOCUS OF IRANIAN EFFORTS TO MAKE POLITICAL, DIPLOMATIC, AND ECONOMIC INROADS IN LATIN AMERICA, AND WHERE IS IT PLANNING TO EXPAND? WHAT DOMESTIC, POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, OR SOCIAL ISSUES MIGHT IMPACT ITS OUTREACH TO LATIN AMERICA? 2) (S/NF) WHO IN TEHRAN IS PUSHING IRAN'S OUTREACH TO LATIN AMERICA? IF IT IS AHMADI-NEJAD, WHAT IS THE SUPREME LEADER'S OPINION ON IRAN'S EFFORTS TO EXPAND ITS PRESENCE IN THE REGION? WHO IN TEHRAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING IRAN'S LATIN AMERICA POLICY--THE MFA, THE MOIS, THE IRGC? WHO WITHIN THESE ORGANIZATIONS IS INVOLVED IN FORMING IRAN'S POLICY ON LATIN AMERICA? HOW DO THESE ORGANIZATIONS COORDINATE THEIR ACTIVITIES IN THE REGION? 3) (S/NF) DOES TEHRAN HAVE ANY INTENTION OF USING THE REGION AS A STAGING GROUND FOR POTENTIAL TERRORIST ATTACKS, EITHER DIRECTLY OR THROUGH SURROGATES? ARE ANY PERSONS AFFILIATED WITH THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT MAKING CONTINGENCY PREPARATIONS TO CREATE NETWORKS FOR POTENTIAL TERRORIST ACTIVITIES LATER? IF SO, WHAT SORT OF ACTIVITIES? 4) (S/NF) DO TEHRAN AND HIZBALLAH SHARE SIMILAR OBJECTIVES IN THE REGION? IN WHAT WAYS DO THEY WORK TOGETHER/INDEPENDENTLY? WHAT, IF ANY, ARE IRAN'S INTENTIONS AND CAPABILITIES FOR STRENGTHENING HIZBALLAH OBJECTIVES IN LATIN AMERICA? ¶B. (U) FOR IRAN WATCHERS, IRPO AND LATIN AMERICAN POSTS: 1) (S/NF) WHAT IS THE EXTENT OF THE MOIS AND IRGC-QODS FORCE PRESENCE AND RECRUITMENT IN THE REGION? WHAT HAPPENS TO THE POTENTIAL RECRUITS AFTER THEIR TRAINING IN IRAN OR OTHER MIDDLE EASTERN COUNTRIES? ARE IRANIAN OFFICIALS ATTEMPTING TO ACCESS US TERRITORY OR US PRIVATE FIRMS VIA LATIN AMERICA? DO THE IRANIAN CULTURAL CENTERS MAINTAIN CONTACT WITH THE CONVERTS? DO IRANIAN DIPLOMATIC OR MILITARY (I.E. IRGC-QODS FORCE) OFFICIALS IN THE REGION MAINTAIN ANY CONTACT WITH CONVERTS? HOW DOES TEHRAN PROVIDE MONEY TO THE ICCS? 2) (S/NF) TO WHAT EXTENT ARE IRAN AND ITS LATIN AMERICAN ALLIES COOPERATING AGAINST THE U.S.? IN WHAT WAYS HAS IRAN BEEN SUCCESSFUL AT FOSTERING GREATER ANTI-AMERICANISM IN THE REGION? WHAT KINDS OF COVERT IRANIAN ACTIVITY HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN THE REGION? TO WHAT EXTENT DO IRAN AND LATIN AMERICA APPEAR TO SHARE INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION? HAS IRAN PROVIDED INTELLIGENCE TRAINING WITHIN THE REGION? 3) (S/NF) IS IRAN SUPPORTING TERRORIST ACTIVITIES IN LATIN AMERICA? IS IT RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPORTING OR TRAINING ILLEGAL ARMED GROUPS IN COLOMBIA OR ELSEWHERE? IS IRAN FACILITATING LETHAL AID FOR ITS ALLIES OR WORKING TO ESTABLISH NEW TERRORIST INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE REGION? 4) (S/NF) HOW IS IRAN CIRCUMVENTING ECONOMIC SANCTIONS THROUGH ITS TIES IN THE REGION? WHAT KINDS OF COMMERCIAL AND FINANCIAL RELATIONSHIPS ARE DEVELOPING BETWEEN IRAN AND THE REGION? DO JOINT BUSINESS VENTURES WITH IRAN TURN A PROFIT? WHICH COUNTRIES HAVE EXPANDED TRADE RELATIONSHIPS WITH IRAN? ARE THESE TRADE AGREEMENTS FOCUSED ON SPECIFIC GOODS OR SECTORS? IS THERE ANY INDICATION OF TRADE INCLUDING MATERIALS OR TECHNOLOGY WHICH COULD BE USED FOR WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT BY IRAN? 5) (S/NF) HOW SUCCESSFUL HAVE TEHRAN'S EFFORTS TO EXERT INFLUENCE IN THE REGION THROUGH CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUS PROSELYTIZATION BEEN? ARE THERE ANY INDICATIONS THAT THESE EFFORTS HAVE EFFECTIVELY FOSTERED EXTREMISM IN LATIN AMERICA? WHAT IS THE RELIGIOUS SHIA CONNECTION COUNTRY TO COUNTRY? ...8) (S/NF) WHAT IS THE STATUS OF IRAN'S EXISTING MILITARY AGREEMENTS WITH LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES? WHAT STATE-TO-STATE MILITARY AGREEMENTS IS IRAN PURSUING IN LATIN AMERICA? 9) (S/NF) SPECIFICALLY, REGARDING IRAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH VENEZUELA, WHAT IS THE STATUS OF IRAN'S AGREEMENT WITH VENEZUELA TO OVERHAUL VENEZUELAN F-5 AIRCRAFT ENGINES, IRAN'S CONTRACT WITH VENEZUELA TO CONSTRUCT MUNITIONS PLANTS, AND THE AGREEMENT WITH VENEZUELA TO PROCURE IRANIAN UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES (UAVS) AND LIGHT IRANIAN AIRCRAFT? WHAT IS VENEZUELA'S LEVEL OF SATISFACTION REGARDING THE QUALITY OF MILITARY GOODS AND TRAINING IT HAS RECEIVED FROM IRAN? IS THERE ANY INFORMATION INDICATING PDVSA PLANES ARE BEING USED TO TRANSPORT ARMS FROM TEHRAN TO DAMASCUS AS REPORTED IN OPEN SOURCES? IS THERE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE CARACAS-BOUND IRANIAN CARGO SEIZED BY TURKEY? WHO OR WHAT ENTITY IN THE VENEZUELAN MILITARY OR CAVIM ORDERED IT AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE? ARE TEHRAN AND CARACAS ACTIVELY PURSUING ANY FORM OF NUCLEAR COOPERATION? AND IF SO, FOR WHAT PURPOSE? WHAT IS THE NATURE OF WEEKLY CONVIASA FLIGHTS BETWEEN CARACAS AND TEHRAN? DO WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION THAT THESE ARE BEING USED FOR TERRORISM PURPOSES? ¶C. (U) FOR LATIN AMERICAN POSTS: 1) (S/NF) WHAT DO LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES WANT FROM IRAN? HOW ARE REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS, ESPECIALLY BUT NOT LIMITED TO VENEZUELA, BOLIVIA, ECUADOR, AND NICARAGUA, CATERING TO IRANIAN OVERTURES? TO WHAT EXTENT ARE LATIN AMERICAN LEADERS CONCERNED ABOUT IRAN'S HISTORIC TIES TO TERRORISM AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF CLOSER TIES TO TEHRAN ON THEIR OWN INTERNATIONAL STANDING? 2) (S/NF) WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE IRANIAN DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS AND THE HOST GOVERNMENTS IN LATIN AMERICA? WHAT SORT OF DIPLOMATIC COOPERATION DO LATIN AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS ENVISION WITH IRAN? WHAT ARE THE GOVERNMENTS' PERCEPTIONS AND DECISION-MAKING REGARDING GAINS VS COSTS/RISKS OF INVOLVEMENT WITH IRANIAN OFFICIALS? WHAT LIMITATIONS DO LATIN AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS PLACE ON COOPERATION WITH IRAN? HOW MUCH DO REGIONAL, US, OR WORLD REACTIONS FACTOR INTO LATIN AMERICAN POLICYMAKING TOWARDS IRAN? HOW ARE DISAGREEMENTS WITHIN LATIN AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS REGARDING INVOLVEMENT WITH IRAN HANDLED? 3) (S/NF) WHAT IS THE STATUS OF AGREEMENTS OR BUSINESS VENTURES SIGNED BETWEEN IRANIAN ENTITIES AND LATIN AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS OR PRIVATE FIRMS? WHAT SORT OF FINANCIAL AID OR CASH TRANSFERS IS TEHRAN PROVIDING TO LATIN AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS? HOW MUCH AID IS DELIVERED AS OPPOSED TO PROMISED? 4) (S/NF) TO WHAT EXTENT ARE HOST GOVERNMENTS WILLING TO ASSIST THE U.S. AGAINST THE IRANIAN TARGET? 5) (C/NF) WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE SHIA MUSLIM COMMUNITY? WHICH ARE THE KNOWN HIZBALLAH "CLANS?" 6) (S/NF) WHAT ARE THE ACTIVITIES AT THE IRANIAN DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS, NGOS, AND IRANIAN CULTURAL CENTERS IN LATIN AMERICA AND HOW ARE THEY BEING USED TO EXPAND INFLUENCE? WHAT DO LATIN AMERICAN CONVERTS TO SHIA ISLAM, OR OTHER STUDENTS OF IRANIAN INDOCTRINATION, DO UPON RETURN TO THE REGION FROM RELIGIOUS TRAINING IN IRAN? WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IRANIAN EMBASSIES AND CULTURAL CENTERS AND KNOWN HIZBALLAH MEMBERS OR SUPPORTERS IN THE REGION? 7) (S/NF) IN ADDITION TO NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS, HAS IRAN ESTABLISHED TIES WITH ANY NONGOVERNMENTAL GROUPS OR INDIGENOUS PEOPLES? IF SO, WITH WHICH GROUPS/PEOPLES AND WHAT IS THE CURRENT STATE OF IRAN'S RELATIONSHIPS WITH THESE GROUPS/PEOPLES? HAS IRAN PROVIDED THESE GROUPS/PEOPLES WITH MONEY OR OTHER SUPPORT? HAVE THE IRANIANS ESTABLISHED ANY TIES WITH OTHER RADICAL OR TERRORIST GROUPS, LIKE THE FARC? ARE IRANIAN OFFICIALS OR THEIR SURROGATES INVOLVED IN OTHER ILLICIT ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS NARCOTRAFFICKING? ¶2. (U) PLEASE CITE C-AL8-02836 IN THE SUBJECT LINE OF REPORTING IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE QUESTIONS. CLINTON
As a follow up to yesterday afternoon’s decision in the WikiLeaks grand jury subpoena case, it is, shall we say, interesting that the New York Times today comes out with and editorial slamming democracies that use secret evidence and maneuvers to prosecute journalists.
The editorial is titled No Way to Run a Democracy and it doesn’t spend one word of it on the rabid use of just those tactics in relation to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange (See here and here). Nor has there been any comparable outrage over the US actions against WikiLeaks journalists in any other NYT effort and/or article.
Now, make no mistake, the plight of investigative journalists in Turkey under threat from the administration of Prime Minister Erdogan is extremely troubling, and it is commendable that the Gray Lady has called it out. But it does make you wonder where the same outrage is in relation to the First Amendment eviscerating effort of the US Department of Justice toward WikiLeaks and Assange. An investigation which could, and if it is taken to its logical conclusion, should involve the Times itself.
Maybe it is because Bill Keller reached some agreement with the DOJ not to trash them in return for DOJ laying off the NYT during one of his endless tete a tetes with them over quashing news reporting, maybe Keller and the Times are fearful that they don’t have some kind of secret agreement with the DOJ, maybe it is the product of the merging of the media and government in the US, or maybe it is because of Keller’s irrational and unprofessional extreme dislike of, and contempt for, the “dirty” Julian Assange and WikiLeaks.
Whatever the reason, the stridence against the Erdogan government actions contrasted with the silence toward the domestic Obama government actions is telling.
Related posts:
Manning is being held in the brig on charges of aiding the enemy. He’s in solitary confinement for 23 hours every day and is stripped naked before he goes to bed. Some in the Obama Administration believe he is being “mistreated” by the Marines. From The Guardian:
Hillary Clinton’s spokesman has launched a public attack on the Pentagon for the way it is treating military prisoner Bradley Manning, the US soldier suspected of handing the US embassy cables to WikiLeaks.
PJ Crowley, the assistant secretary of state for public affairs at the US state department, has said Manning is being “mistreated” in the military brig at Quantico, Virginia. “What is being done to Bradley Manning is ridiculous and counterproductive and stupid on the part of the department of defence.”
Crowley’s comments are the first sign of a crack within the Obama administration over the handling of the WikiLeaks saga in which hundreds of thousands of confidential documents were handed to the website.
It is the first time anyone within the administration has expressed concern about Manning’s treatment, which has included being held for 23 hours in solitary confinement in his cell and being stripped naked every night. Until now the US government had presented a united front, promising to aggressively pursue anyone involved in leaking state secrets. Clinton herself described the WikiLeaks material as “an attack on America” and said “we are taking aggressive steps” to hold those who leaked it to account.
Read the whole article here.
