Obama smacked in the mouth

[loCAtek]

In recent news Washington has been bracing for the release of more Wikileaks, sending it into unprecedented spin mode.

The whistleblower website is expected to put online leaked cables covering US dealings and confidential views of countries, including Australia, Britain, Canada, Israel, Russia and Turkey. US diplomats skipped their Thanksgiving holiday weekend and headed to foreign ministries hoping to stave off anger over the cables, which are internal messages that often lack the niceties diplomats voice in public.

Source

As the rumors about what the leaked documents could contain spread, it's sounding like this could be more damaging than the Iraq/Afghanistan releases;

Wikileaks blow to Obama

With some 2.7 million communications from the US State Department about to be published online, Mr Obama is bracing himself for revelations that would not only be embarrassing but could also seriously damage his foreign policy.

Thousands of these documents are believed to be diplomatic cables from Washington to the US Embassy in London, including brutal assessments of Gordon Brown's personality and cold-eyed judgements of David Cameron's capabilities.

The ramifications for Mr Obama could be enormous. With his popularity flagging at home, one of his remaining political strengths has been his high standing abroad - assiduously cultivated in a series of speeches in which he apologised for past US actions and promised a kinder, gentler America.

Diplomatic cables are necessarily frank, a mirror image of the bland euphemisms offered up to the public after meetings between world leaders. The Obama administration has continued to play this game, uttering little of meaning to the press while swapping private barbs internally.

Mr Obama's problem over Wikileaks is that he promised to repair American relations with the world while at the same time vowing to change the rules of the game in Washington.

...

Once European politicians read about the disdain for them felt by Obama aides, and perhaps even Mr Obama himself, a frost is likely to descend on the warm post-Bush relations with Washington.

Finding out what your friends really think of you on this scale could be disastrous. Time to hit the bunkers?

[Gob]

The biggest outrage from this next leak should be the exposure of the US as supporting terrorists.

SPECULATION last night that WikiLeaks may reveal clandestine US support for terrorism had US embassies across the globe scrambling to limit damage ahead of the latest threatened release of US government documents by the whistleblowing website.

WikiLeaks is planning to make available up to 400,000 sensitive cables from the past five years that include talks with politicians, government officials and journalists, as well as evaluations by US diplomats about their host countries.

According to the London-based Arabic-language newspaper al-Hayat, several documents show that the US had in turn been providing assistance to Turkey's Kurdish separatist movement, the PKK.

Founded in the 1970s, the PKK is listed as a terrorist organisation in Turkey, the US, the European Union and Australia.

A report in Israel's Jerusalem Post said the US military documents refer to the PKK as ''warriors for freedom and Turkish citizens'' and say that the US had set free arrested PKK members in Iraq.

The documents also point out that US forces in Iraq have given weapons to the PKK and ignored the organisation's operations inside Turkey.

One of the documents to be released is also believed to charge Turkey with providing indirect assistance to the terrorist group al-Qaeda by failing to properly control the movement of people across its shared border with Iraq.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/tensions ... 18apy.html

[loCAtek]

This latest could finally get Assange arrested;

On Saturday, the State Department released a letter from its top lawyer to WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, warning that publication of the documents would be illegal and demanding he prevent it.

In the letter, State Department legal adviser Harold Koh said the publication of some 250,000 secret diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks would place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals, endanger on-going military operations, and threaten on-going cooperation between countries.

Source

the Letter;

In a response to Assange, released to the media, State Department legal advisor Harold Koh rejected negotiating with WikiLeaks over the documents: "We will not engage in a negotiation regarding the further release or dissemination of illegally obtained US Government classified materials.

"As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorisation, they were provided in violation of US law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing.

"It is our understanding from conversations with representatives from The New York Times, The Guardian and Der Spiegel, that WikiLeaks also has provided approximately 250,000 documents to each of them for publication, furthering the illegal dissemination of classified documents."

Mr Koh said publication of documents of this nature at a minimum would place at risk the "lives of countless innocent individuals," ongoing military operations and international co-operation.

"Despite your stated desire to protect ... lives, you have done the opposite and endangered the lives of countless individuals.

"If you are genuinely interested in seeking to stop the damage from your actions, you should: 1) ensure WikiLeaks ceases publishing any and all such materials; 2) ensure WikiLeaks returns any and all classified US Government material in its possession; and 3) remove and destroy all records of this material from WikiLeaks' databases."

[Gob]

Dear Mr Assange, we know we were doing a bad thing, but do people really need to know the truth?

[Gob]

Wikileaks cables: key issues

The controversial whistle-blowing site Wilileaks has released a cache of 250,000 secret messages sent by US diplomatic staff. Here are some of the key issues the documents reveal, as reported by the New York Times and Guardian newspapers.
Pakistan stand-off

The cables show US concern over radioactive material in nuclear power stations in Pakistan, with fears it could be used in terror attacks. They reveal the US has been attempting to remove highly enriched uranium from a research reactor in Pakistan since 2007.

In a May 2009 cable, US ambassador Anne W Patterson says Pakistan had refused a visit from US experts. She quotes a Pakistani officials as saying removing the fuel would be seen in Pakistan "as the United States taking Pakistan's nuclear weapons".

China hacking

There is concern over the alleged growing use of large scale computer hacking by the Chinese government. Cables reports claims that a network of hackers and private security experts has been employed by China since 2002and that it has hacked into US government and business computers, those of Western allies and the Dalai Lama.

The cables quote a Chinese contact telling the US embassy in Beijing that the Chinese government had been behind the hacking of Google's computer systems in the country in January.

Iran attack

Several Arab leaders and their representatives are quoted as urging the US to carry out an attack on Iran to bring an end to its suspected nuclear weapons programme.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is reported to have "frequently exhorted" the US to attack Iran in order to bring an end to its nuclear programme.

In a report of a 2008 meeting with US General David Petraeus, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, said King Abdullah wanted the US to "to cut the head off the snake".

King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain is reported to have told the US to stop Iran "by whatever means necessary", while the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammad bin Zayed, told the US he believed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was "going to take us to war".

Biometric spying on UN

A cable to US diplomats issued under US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's name tells them to collect "biographic and biometric" information - including iris scans, DNA samples and fingerprints - on key officials at the UN. They are also ordered to find credit card details, email addresses and passwords and encryption keys used for computer networks and in official communications.

The officials covered include "undersecretaries, heads of specialised agencies and their chief advisers, top SYG [secretary general] aides, heads of peace operations and political field missions, including force commanders".

At least nine similar directives covering various countries are included in the Wikileaks release, both under the name of Mrs Clinton and her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.

Korea plans

US and South Korean officials have discussed plans for a united Korea, should North Korea collapse.

The US ambassador to Seoul said South Korea would consider offering commercial incentives to China to "help salve" Beijing "concerns about living with a reunified Korea".

Guantanamo

The cables appear to reveal discussions between various countries on whether they would take prisoners released from the Guantanamo Bay detention facility.

Slovenia is offered the chance to meet President Barack Obama if it takes a prisoner, while Kiribati, in the South Pacific, is offered millions of dollars of incentives. Brussels is told taking prisoners could be "a low-cost way for Belgium to attain prominence in Europe".


World leaders

Various world leaders are covered by the documents - showing the diplomats' less than flattering views of them.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is referred to as "feckless, vain, and ineffective as a modern European leader" by a US diplomat in Rome.

In 2008, the Moscow embassy describes Russian President Dmitry Medvedev as playing "Robin to (Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's) Batman.

The cables also comment on the extremely close relationship between Mr Berlusconi and Mr Putin.

North Korea's Kim Jong-il is a "flabby old chap" suffering from trauma from a stroke, while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is referred to as "Hitler".

South Africa's international relations and cooperation minister refers to President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe as "the crazy old man".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-cana ... print=true

[Big RR]

would place at risk the lives of countless innocent individuals, endanger on-going military operations, and threaten on-going cooperation between countries.

You really have to love he government saying the same thing again and again, yet never once pointing to anyone who was killed, injured, or even threatened; one would think they clearly would trumpet such information if it really existed, but I've yet to see one such occurrence reported. Bet there's no prosecution either, at least if it has to be done legally and publicly.

[Gob]

This seems to be the standard line "Wikileaks put lives at risk". A standard catch all for; "hey, don't let on about we've been doing, it makes us look bad..."

[Gob]

Is it just me, or is the major outcome of this latest leak the shocking revelation that US diplomats lack ...diplomacy....

....shock, horror, the world is ending....

Did anyone expect them to have any?

[dgs49]

Barry may be the one who has to smooth many of the feathers ruffled by these disclosures, but the problem (if it is a problem) is with the State Department - through several administrations.

There is no need to be diplomatic in private communications, and the communicators had a reasonable belief that those communications would remain private.

This is embarrassing to some people and institutions. Maybe a couple jar-heads will be forced to resign. In fact, that would be a good result, eh?

[Econoline]

There is no need to be diplomatic in private communications, and the communicators had a reasonable belief that those communications would remain private.

This applies to all nations equally, and the fact that Assange has singled out the U.S. for his leakage puts us at a real disadvantage internationally. What is in the secret diplomatic cables of the Chinese, Russians, Saudis, Japanese, Germans, etc.? Why not wait till they had cables from other nations before taking a leak?--or do the Wikileakers really think that only American diplomats are less diplomatic in private than in public?

[Andrew D]

I wonder what statute Koh thinks that Assange has violated. Or does Koh really think that Assange has violated any statute at all? Notice the careful phrasing:

As you know, if any of the materials you intend to publish were provided by any government officials, or any intermediary without proper authorisation, they were provided in violation of US law and without regard for the grave consequences of this action. As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing.

So the people who provided the classified documents to Assange violated U.S. law. But what, if any, statute did Assange violate by receiving it?

[Long Run]

So the people who provided the classified documents to Assange violated U.S. law. But what, if any, statute did Assange violate by receiving it?

Isn't the potential violation for keeping and disseminating known classified documents, or did I miss something?

[Andrew D]

Last time I looked -- the results of which may still be here or at The Other Place -- the assertedly applicable statute made it a crime for anyone who had authorized access to classified documents to disseminate them to people who did not have authorized access to them. It conspicuously did not make it a crime for a person who did not have authorized access to them to receive them from someone who did. That was only one statute; there may be other relevant statutes. I don't know, and I don't feel like hunting it down.

I just notice that the State Department's legal person said that the documents "were provided in violation of US law". And he said that "As long as WikiLeaks holds such material, the violation of the law is ongoing." But he conspicuously did not say whose violation of the law is ongoing.

Maybe it's just me, but if I were in Koh's position, and I really thought that Assange was violating the law, I would have said something more like: "By receiving documents which you knew were classified, you violated U.S. law, including but not limited to [whatever statutes I thought applicable]. By retaining possession of those documents, you are continuing to violate U.S. law, including but not limited to [whatever statutes I thought applicable]. By disseminating those documents, you are violating U.S. law, including but not limited to [whatever statutes I thought applicable]."

But Koh said none of those things. In short, Koh did not come right out and say that Assange is doing anything illegal. Why not?

It makes one wonder ....

[Long Run]

Well, the authorities may get him for some other crime. Back to whether this is a crime or not, how can it not be a crime to publicize private information? If he were to obtain and publicize medical information, legal files or any other private and confidential files for a person or company, we would be outraged and there would be civil liability if not criminal. How can this not be the case when it comes to confidential information of the government?

[Andrew D]

Well, the authorities may get him for some other crime. Back to whether this is a crime or not, how can it not be a crime to publicize private information? If he were to obtain and publicize medical information, legal files or any other private and confidential files for a person or company, we would be outraged and there would be civil liability if not criminal. How can this not be the case when it comes to confidential information of the government?

Well, which is it? Are you asserting that the disclosure of confidential medical, legal, etc., information would be a crime? Or merely that it would provide a basis for a lawsuit?

[Lord Jim]

One can only hope:

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange: Has US already indicted him?

By Peter Grier, Staff writer / December 2, 2010
Washington

Sweden has issued an arrest warrant for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, and according to one newspaper report, he is hiding out in Britain. But is he already under indictment in the United States on charges related to his online release of a vast trove of secret US documents?

It’s certainly possible. US officials publicly will only say that they are investigating the matter and that no legal options have been ruled out. But an indictment in such an important federal matter would be handed down by a grand jury, and grand jury proceedings are secret, notes Stephen Vladeck, an expert in national security law at American University. There may be an empaneled grand jury considering the Assange case right now.

“We wouldn’t know what they’re doing until the whole thing is concluded,” he says.

A judge could order an indictment of Assange sealed until such time as the US is able to apprehend him, or until he is in custody in a nation from which he is likely to be extradited. The purpose of such secrecy would be to keep the WikiLeaks chief from going even further underground. [sounds quite sensible]

At least one prominent US legal analyst thinks this is just the sort of thing that is going on.

“I would not be at all surprised if there was a sealed arrest warrant currently in existence against [Assange],” said CNN legal expert Jeffrey Toobin on Wednesday. “That question is whether the American authorities can find him and bring him back to the United States for trial.”

In recent days US military officials have been talking about the WikiLeaks matter as if more is going on, legally speaking, than may meet the eye. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has said that the military has enlisted FBI agents in its investigation of the matter, which could mean that someone who is not a uniformed US military person is about to be charged, or has been.

Army Pfc. Bradley Manning, an alleged source of WikiLeaks material, was arrested in Iraq last May and has been charged with providing classified information to an unauthorized source.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday, Sen. John McCain (R) of Arizona expressed a desire in a conversation with Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to hold someone “other than a private first class” responsible for the WikiLeaks document dump.

Adm. Mullen’s reply was somewhat cryptic.

“We just have not gotten to the point yet – and I don’t – I don’t know how this – obviously how this turns out,” said Mullen.

A US indictment, perhaps for alleged violations of the Espionage Act, would be a separate issue from the Swedish arrest warrant for Assange, which is already outstanding.

On Thursday, Swedish prosecutors won a round in their legal battle against the WikiLeaks founder, as Sweden’s Supreme Court upheld the order to detain him.

Assange is accused in Sweden of rape, sexual molestation, and coercion in a case dating from August. Assange’s lawyers have vehemently denied the charges, saying they stem from consensual encounters.

According to British media reports, Assange has been in Britain since October, and has provided police with his contact details. A WikiLeaks spokesman on Thursday said only that Assange is working on a new project at a secret location.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/20 ... dicted-him

[Andrew D]

Indicted for what?

An indictment must specify the statute(s) which the accused has allegedly violated. Can anyone say what statute(s) Assange has allegedly violated? Or are we hoping to prosecute him on the ground that he did something which, although not actually criminal, our government didn't like?

(Notice that I am not saying that what Assange did was not criminal. Until I know what statute(s) he is accused of violating, I cannot even begin to opine on whether he has or has not violated that/those statute(s). I am simply saying that unless someone's conduct violates a statutory proscription, it cannot be a crime.)

[Gob]

Can you arrest a foreign citizen for doing something in a foreign nation which you do not like?

[loCAtek]

A tough, very tough call: at what point does investigative journalism turn into espionage?

[Lord Jim]

Can you arrest a foreign citizen for doing something in a foreign nation which you do not like?

You can certainly seek extradition against a foreign national for violating your laws, even if they do so from a foreign country.

If somebody is sitting in Lichtenstein, hacking into the Pentagon and downloading classified documents, damn right we can go after them.

My personal view is that when the whole story comes to light we're going to discover that PFC Bradley Manning had considerable help in learning how to bypass security protocols in order to down load millions of pages of classified documents undetected....

Help from someone with advanced computer hacking skills....

Like Mr. Asswipeange....

It is admittedly speculation on my part at this point, but given scum boy's skills in this area, (and the traitor's lack of expertise) it's certainly plausible and logical speculation...

I suspect that what probably happened is that the traitor approached scum boy, (wikileaks has been around for a while) and let him know of his desire to betray his country and the position that he occupied which granted him some security access. Scum boy in turn worked with him to provide him the expertise he needed to pull off the massive document theft.

If my belief is correct, that would make scum boy not just a recipient and and publisher of classified documents, but also a part of a conspiracy to steal them.