News WikiLeaks reveals sites critical to US security

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Security
Click For Summary
WikiLeaks has released a sensitive diplomatic cable detailing locations worldwide deemed critical to U.S. national security, including undersea communication lines and suppliers of essential goods. The Pentagon labeled the disclosure as "damaging," arguing it provides valuable information to adversaries. Discussions revolve around the implications of such leaks, with some suggesting they expose vulnerabilities in U.S. military power and provoke a reevaluation of foreign relations. Critics argue that WikiLeaks' actions are irresponsible and could lead to more aggressive behavior from the organization. The debate highlights concerns about the balance between transparency and national security, questioning the motivations behind such disclosures.
  • #121
encorp said:
Well I know that no one will believe me, since none of the bookmarks I had on it are working right now.

I am trying to find references online about it right now. The best I can offer is a denial on the US Defense website: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=60254

So there is a reference in there about it, but they are denying it took place.

Back when this first started to come about, prior to the media and international explosion that occurred, around June - there was a video on TED with Julian Assange discussing that he had contacted the United States officials, they declined to review the documents and demanded he hand them over in their entirety. Of course by then it was too late, since they were compromised the minute they left the "whistle blowers" hands and there is no giving them back after that.

I'll keep looking, if I can find anymore references I will surely return with them.

You need not look further than earlier this thread. Both sides distorted the truth about whether or not the USG was contacted prior to release. There is no proof, only that AFTER one batch was released, an offer was made and rejected concerning a small portion of unreleased documents. (this is documented) and ONE lawyer claims to have tried to give the USG Assange's contact info regarding it prior to the initial release.
Basically you can't get anywhere arguing either side, as there is no real evidence.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #122
encorp said:
Well I know that no one will believe me, since none of the bookmarks I had on it are working right now.

I am trying to find references online about it right now. The best I can offer is a denial on the US Defense website: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=60254

So there is a reference in there about it, but they are denying it took place.

Back when this first started to come about, prior to the media and international explosion that occurred, around June - there was a video on TED with Julian Assange discussing that he had contacted the United States officials, they declined to review the documents and demanded he hand them over in their entirety. Of course by then it was too late, since they were compromised the minute they left the "whistle blowers" hands and there is no giving them back after that.

I'll keep looking, if I can find anymore references I will surely return with them.

yeah, it kind of sounds like they want to have it both ways. my guess is that they didn't want to implicitly assert the documents' authenticity by reviewing them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #123
Proton Soup said:
yeah, it kind of sounds like they want to have it both ways. my guess is that they didn't want to implicitly assert the documents' authenticity by reviewing them.
If you read back on what was posted, Assange was wanting information on why certian names or information should be redacted, something that the US obviously could not do. The USG could not give more classified information to a criminal illegally holding documents.
 
  • #124
Evo said:
If you read back on what was posted, Assange was wanting information on why certian names or information should be redacted, something that the US obviously could not do. The USG could not give more classified information to a criminal illegally holding documents.

criminal is yet to be determined. but if it's too much to ask to say that person X is an afghani civilian, then what exactly? would the government not even provide that much reason to the new york times, or do they actually just submit redactions without comment and wait to see what happens?
 
  • #125
Proton Soup said:
criminal is yet to be determined.
No the US came out with a statement saying it was illigeal to even wilfully hold the files. Illegal. How or if they decide to press charges is yet to be determined. I'm sure they're biding their time to make sure iof the dom press charges, it's going to stick. Haste makes waste.
 
  • #127
Dr Lots-o'watts said:
So? What about China, Russia, Germany, England, France, Syria, Brazil, Israel, Japan, India, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and Australia?

Hmm? What about Australia?

Why is there ONLY U.S. info these days?

The current controversy has been surrounding the leaks of US diplomatic cables. This is what wikileaks is currently releasing. The previous releases did not receive the same level of coverage.

There was in fact a major release pertainting to Australia in 2009. It revealed the names of sites on the government's internet black list. The list was in theory to prevent access of child pornography, but many of the sites tuned out to be unrelated to child pornography, and some were even political.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1888011,00.htmlhttp://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/wikileaks-expos/

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/296161/australia_web_blacklist_leaked/
 
  • #128
Not only that, one only needs to go to The Guardian's website (guardian.co.uk) to follow the Wikileaks releases. It seems The Guardian reports many of the Wikileaks releases that the US news media seems not to cover.

Here is some of the stuff The Guardian picked up from the releases:

• Washington is running a secret intelligence campaign targeted at the leadership of the United Nations, including the secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, and the permanent security council representatives from China, Russia, France and the UK.

• China is ready to accept Korean unification and is distancing itself from North Korea which it describes as behaving like a "spoiled child". Cables say Kim Jong-il is a "flabby old chap" losing his grip and drinking.

• Spain's El País focuses on repeated attempts by the US to curb court cases in Spain against American soldiers and politicians accused of involvement in Iraq war crimes or torture at Guantánamo. It highlights a series of cables relating to the possibility of Spain accepting former Guantánamo prisoners. Spain's political situation and public opinion made this "almost impossible", an official said.

• US and British diplomats fear that Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme could lead to terrorists obtaining fissile material, or a devastating nuclear exchange with India. Also, small teams of US special forces have been operating secretly inside Pakistan's tribal areas, with Pakistani government approval. And the US concluded that Pakistani troops were responsible for a spate of extra-judicial killings in the Swat Valley and tribal belt, but decided not to comment publicly.

• Russia is a "virtual mafia state" with rampant corruption and scant separation between the activities of the government and organised crime. Vladimir Putin is accused of amassing "illicit proceeds" from his time in office, which various sources allege are hidden overseas. And he was likely to have known about the operation in London to murder the Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko, Washington's top diplomat in Europe alleged.

• Russia armed Georgian separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and carried out a wave of "covert actions" to undermine Georgia in the runup to the 2008 Russian-Georgian war, according to US diplomats.

•The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, is erratic, emotional and prone to believing paranoid conspiracy theories, according to frustrated diplomats and foreign statesmen. He has also been accused by his own ministers of complicity in criminal activity, including ordering the physical intimidation of the top official in charge of leading negotiations with the Taliban.

•US diplomats have reported suspicions that Silvio Berlusconi could be "profiting personally and handsomely" from secret deals with the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, according to cables released by WikiLeaks. They centre on allegations that the Italian leader has been promised a cut of huge energy contracts. Another memo quoted a friend of Berlusconi saying the Italian prime minister's fondness for partying had taken a physical and political toll on him.

•The US military has been charging its allies a 15% handling fee on hundreds of millions of dollars being raised internationally to build up the Afghan army. Germany has threatened to cancel contributions, raising concerns that money is going to the US treasury.

•Venezuela's Hugo Chávez and Colombia's Álvaro Uribe "almost came to blows" at a Latin America unity summit, according to a US memo, which described it as "the worst expression of banana republic discourse".
 
  • #130
Evo said:
No the US came out with a statement saying it was illigeal to even wilfully hold the files. Illegal.

The US can come out with whatever statement it wants. Assange is not a criminal according to the laws where he lives.

By your logic, since in fundamentalist religious states it's homosexuality is illegal, homosexuals all over the world are criminals.
 
  • #131
Last edited:
  • #132
NeoDevin said:
The US can come out with whatever statement it wants. Assange is not a criminal according to the laws where he lives.
We're talking about classified documents, if you do not hold a clearance with a "need to know" and if you are willfully in possession of said documents, you are illegally in possession. What the US decides to do is the question. It doesn't matter that he might not have broken any Australian laws, do you think agents that steal or receive classified documents are tried based on the laws of their home country or the country they have commited the crime against?

Some reading.

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=53001
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #133
Evo said:
We're talking about classified documents, if you do not hold a clearance with a "need to know" and if you are willfully in possession of said documents, you are illegally in possession. What the US can do to you is the question, not the fact that you have stolen classified dosuments in your possession.

Those documents are only classified in the US. It is not against the law in the UK or Australia to possesses documents which are classified by the US, as far as I know.

Also, Wikileaks did not steal the documents, they merely received them and published them for everyone to see. Also not illegal, to my knowledge, in the UK.
 
  • #134
NeoDevin said:
Those documents are only classified in the US. It is not against the law in the UK or Australia to possesses documents which are classified by the US, as far as I know.

Also, Wikileaks did not steal the documents, they merely received them and published them for everyone to see. Also not illegal, to my knowledge, in the UK.

Do you not grasp the concept that if you commit a crime in another country, you'll be held to their standards of justice as long as you're in their custody? As of this moment, Assange is bearing up to the standard of England's extradition laws, and their interaction with Swedish law.

It was clear to me that Evo was making this point... was it not to you? I also have to ask, are you unaware of this crime: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receipt_of_stolen_property
Receipt of stolen property is a type of crime in the legal code of the United States. It is a federal crime under 18 U.S.C. § 2315 to knowingly receive, conceal, or dispose of stolen property with a value at least $5,000 that is part of interstate commerce (i.e., been transported across state lines).
 
  • #135
NeoDevin said:
Those documents are only classified in the US. It is not against the law in the UK or Australia to possesses documents which are classified by the US, as far as I know.

Also, Wikileaks did not steal the documents, they merely received them and published them for everyone to see. Also not illegal, to my knowledge, in the UK.
Ah, so spying and espionage against the US can only be committed by US citizens. So all of those foreign spies are all make believe.

Please post your source that says US classified documents are legally open to public view by all other nations and that it is not illegal to possesses such documents. What would be the point to classify documents to keep them out of the hands of other nations?

Post your source.

This is the only way documents can be declassified.
http://www.archives.gov/isoo/policy-documents/cnsi-eo.html#three

This is one of the laws against obtaining or holding classified information.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/793

Here is another http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/37/798

Both of these are under consideration for charges against Assange.

Anyway, back to your claim, post the sources that back you up please.

INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
Activities that involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S. or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. 18 U.S.C.

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/i058.htm

And
Classified Information Appearing in Public Media: The fact that classified information has been made public does not mean it is automatically declassified. Information remains classified unless and until it is formally declassified. If you become aware of classified or other sensitive information appearing in the public media, bring it to the attention of your security office.

http://rf-web.tamu.edu/security/security guide/S1class/Classif.htm
 
Last edited:
  • #136
To everyone who has contributed so far, this will be my only post on this touchy subject, see http://dailyator.com/wikileaks-posts-mysterious-‘insurance’-file/29397/" from what limited information I have been able to glean and filter, consider this, and I have no corroborating sources besides what I have read online, the mysterious "insurance" 1.4 GB file that is supposedly in the hands of many individuals without access to the AES 256 bit encryption scheme (reportedly one of the US's most secure methods of protecting sensitive material), and access to that file that has been reported to be known only to the accused, Julian Assange, as a means of holding the rest of the world "hostage" if you will in the event anything bad befalls him, he can supposedly communicate to have the information spilled from many sources at once, thus thwarting any organized means to stop the release of it, which could cause harm to not only the US but many foreign countries, friend and foe alike.

It has been reported by a number of sources that the only quick and reliable way to obtain access to the file is to apply, "extraordinary means" to Assange to obtain access to the data, and you know what that means. Unwittingly, Assange may have contributed to his own suffering if those methods are applied to obtain access to the material in the massive data file.

Rhody... :frown: :mad:

P.S. How did all of this sensitive and damaging material get in this precarious predicament in the first place ? This is scary stuff, and many as yet unforeseen and unintended consequences may result from it. I know someone fairly close who may be deployed in the middle of whatever mess this creates. It gives me cause for great concern.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #137
Evo said:
Please post your source that says US classified documents are legally open to public view by all other nations and that it is not illegal to possesses such documents.

Evo, a clarification... are you claiming that it is against (e.g.) Australian law for an Australian to view a document classified by the US?
 
  • #138
CRGreathouse said:
Evo, a clarification... are you claiming that it is against (e.g.) Australian law for an Australian to view a document classified by the US?
No, that was in response to NeoDevin's incorrect post that once a classified file is leaked it is no longer classified. I've said that you can't get into trouble for reading the news. Now if you go to a server that's illegally hosting the unredacted files, I honestly don't know. I seriously doubt anything will happen to the average citizen as long as they don't download anything.
 
Last edited:
  • #139
Evo said:
NeoDevin's incorrect post that once a classified file is leaked it is no longer classified.

Never claimed that, sorry. Please try again.
 
  • #140
Evo, from your post

Activities that involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the U.S. or of any State; appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping; and occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., or transcend national boundaries in terms of the means by which they are accomplished, the persons they appear intended to intimidate or coerce, or the locale in which their perpetrators operate or seek asylum. 18 U.S.C.

1) Violent acts: nope
2) Dangerous to human life: debatable, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that this is the case. I'm open to your evidence.
3) Violation of criminal laws of the US...: Nope, see the precedent of other media publishing classified documents.
4) Intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population: Nope, just to inform
5) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion: Debatable, the "insurance" package is there, supposedly, to keep the US gov't from coming after him illegally.

Again, he's not a criminal. The people who gave the classified documents to Wikileaks are criminals. Assange has not done anything that is illegal in the country he lives in. Ergo, not a criminal. It is not illegal in the UK to release documents which are classified in the US.

You can argue the merits and morality of releasing the documents, but to say that it was criminal is preposterous.
 
  • #141
Evo said:
Ah, so spying and espionage against the US can only be committed by US citizens. So all of those foreign spies are all make believe.

Generally they would have operated within the US at some point, and are therefore subject to its jurisdiction.

Evo said:
Please post your source that says US classified documents are legally open to public view by all other nations and that it is not illegal to possesses such documents. What would be the point to classify documents to keep them out of the hands of other nations?

Never claimed that. Please post your source that the UK has laws against possessing materials classified by the US. To clarify: I'm not, and haven't, claimed that it is legal to possesses these documents, or even necessarily to view them, within the US. What I am claiming, is that the UK or Australia have no laws with respect to documents classified by the US. The point of classifying documents is to prevent people operating within the US from giving them to other nations. Whoever leaked the documents is the criminal, not Assange. The UK almost certainly employs people to spy on the US. These spies are not criminals in the UK.

You seem to be operating under the assumption that US law applies everywhere in the world. It doesn't. The US can apply for extradition (to a country they have an extradition treaty with) assuming that a crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the US. Further, most of the extradition treaties stipulate that the crimes in question cannot be of a political nature. The case against Assange fails on both counts. I sincerely hope that no country would extradite him for this contrived and illegal prosecution.
 
  • #142
I'm still waiting for you to post sources that back you up. You said

NeoDevin said:
Those documents are only classified in the US. It is not against the law in the UK or Australia to possesses documents which are classified by the US, as far as I know.

Also, Wikileaks did not steal the documents, they merely received them and published them for everyone to see. Also not illegal, to my knowledge, in the UK.

Also read my post about classified documents and International Terrorism.

And post your sources to back up your claims.

I never posted
the UK has laws against possessing materials classified by the US.
 
Last edited:
  • #143
NeoDevin said:
Never claimed that.
I just reposted where you claimed that (look up).

You seem to be operating under the assumption that US law applies everywhere in the world.
I quoted US law, I have made no claims about the laws of any other nation.
 
  • #144
NeoDevin said:
Evo, from your post



1) Violent acts: nope
2) Dangerous to human life: debatable, I haven't seen any conclusive evidence that this is the case. I'm open to your evidence.
3) Violation of criminal laws of the US...: Nope, see the precedent of other media publishing classified documents.
4) Intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population: Nope, just to inform
5) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion: Debatable, the "insurance" package is there, supposedly, to keep the US gov't from coming after him illegally.

Again, he's not a criminal. The people who gave the classified documents to Wikileaks are criminals. Assange has not done anything that is illegal in the country he lives in. Ergo, not a criminal. It is not illegal in the UK to release documents which are classified in the US.

You can argue the merits and morality of releasing the documents, but to say that it was criminal is preposterous.
I'm sure that the US government will change their mind after they read your post. :-p I'll bet that'll be a double face palm moment for them.
 
  • #145
NeoDevin said:
Those documents are only classified in the US. It is not against the law in the UK or Australia to possesses documents which are classified by the US, as far as I know.

.
It is also not against Australian law for Assange to come to the US and rob a liquor store or sexually assault somebody, but it is in the US, and he can be held accountable for that or violation of US law by agreement between the US and Australia.
 
  • #146
NeoDevin said:
4) Intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population: Nope, just to inform
I think it very likely you were aware Assange called for the US Sec of State to resign. Yet you post this?
 
  • #147
NeoDevin said:
Again, he's not a criminal. The people who gave the classified documents to Wikileaks are criminals. Assange has not done anything that is illegal in the country he lives in. Ergo, not a criminal. It is not illegal in the UK to release documents which are classified in the US.

You can argue the merits and morality of releasing the documents, but to say that it was criminal is preposterous.

That's why we have extradition treaties with other countries. Where it is an equivalent crime in his own country, if he commits that crime against another, his country may honor the extradition treaty they have with the U.S. and let the U.S. try him for the equivalent offense.

If I publish my government's classified documents, I can be tried here for the offense. If I commit the same act against another government in another country, and it is within the bounds of an existing treaty between them and us, then the U.S. may honor the treaty and hand me over - because it is an equivalent offense. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is sometimes international, and these treaties help to outline what can and can not be pursued. In Assange's case, I see very little jurisdictional arbitrage that he could claim in his defense.
 
  • #149
Julian Assange will likely end up in a US Federal Court some time in the near future, unless Sweden or the UK muster up some courage and deny the extradition request to the US (very unlikely). I think the next group of people who manage to obtain classified info will avoid publicity and just mass distribute it over the Internet or sell it to the highest bidder.
 
  • #150
Evo said:
No the US came out with a statement saying it was illigeal to even wilfully hold the files. Illegal. How or if they decide to press charges is yet to be determined. I'm sure they're biding their time to make sure iof the dom press charges, it's going to stick. Haste makes waste.

he's not under US jurisdiction. and making a statement is not how we determine criminality in the US.
 

Similar threads

News WikiLeaks & Anonymous: "Hacktivism" & Freedom of the Internet
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
News Assange's lawyer outraged about leaked rape information
  • · Replies 64 ·
3
Replies
64
Views
8K
News The SIOP: A Hazard to Ourselves as Well as Our Enemy
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
News An integrated North-American super-state
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
News Gen. Zinni: 'They've (PNAC) Screwed Up'
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K