The Real Impact Of WikiLeaks

[PJABBER]

While we have endless discussions of the merits and dangers of a WikiLeaks release in other threads, there is virtually no discussion of what is now likely to happen.

In all seriousness, the damage is not yet fully done as hundreds of thousands of stolen documents are not yet in the public domain. Of course, the spy services of hostile and competitor countries like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and others now do have them, all of them, as do the spy services of allies and erstwhile allies, but the ordinary reader is still out of the loop.

Though WikiLeaks released these stolen documents in an attempt to destroy the credibility and national power of the United States, they may have actually strengthened it. Such is the law of unintended consequences.

On the whole, the documents show the nation's diplomats working to contain anarchy, greed, corruption, megalomania, violence and a whole slew of human rights abuses. The U.S. actually comes off very well in that its intentions are for the greater good, rather than mimicking the wholesale abuses and self serving of those that are targeted for analysis and pressure.

WikiLeaks does not target totalitarian or oppressive regimes, it considers Western democracies much more oppressive than truly authoritarian regimes. It offers no confidential information on those countries that impose tremendous burdens and suffering on both citizens and rivals.

WikiLeaks, in its most simplistic description, is virulently anti-democratic and anti-capitalist. It is a neo-anarchic attempt to precipitate totalitarianism as a stepping stone to full anarchy. The old time anarchist used to throw bombs, the neo-anarchists prefer to use the Internet.

It may be successful in this in that the immediate consequence, and likely the only consequence of note, is that the exchange of information, the consultation between allies and enemies, and the documentation of that exchange, and any previous peace process or treaty consideration to stop the onset of war that was led by the United States is now effectively dead for the foreseeable future. And there is no one else that is going to step into that breach, though there are many that will be glad to take advantage of this for their own, likely less beneficent, purpose.

WikiLeaks has effectively stoppered the flow of information so essential in the critical decision making between nations. At least until the U.S. can offer better assurances that such discussions will not become public and that assurance will take years to become manifest.

There will not be as many notes taken in meetings, there will be greater restrictions in the storage of information, there will be much greater compartmentalization of information. In many cases, this will result in highly independent actions and responses which are uncoordinated with any agency or principal that is not directly involved in that action. And that leaves open the very strong possibility that many more abuses are likely to occur and be hidden in a maze of compartmentalization.

The following article captures quite a bit of the likely impact and how the world will now change.

The Fallout from WikiLeaks' Latest Exposure

by Tunku Varadarajan

Julian Assange may not have endangered lives directly by leaking thousands of pages of purloined diplomatic correspondence, but he's certainly made conducting American diplomacy more difficult.

Another WikiLeaks whirlwind has hit us. The trick, truly, is to stay grounded and ask a question that newspapers (yes, even The New York Times) don’t easily ask: This is all mighty interesting, and truly, madly juicy, but…should we really be colluding with nihilists who traffic in stolen information?

There are a few observations that one should make in the face of the latest act by Julian Assange, the prime mover of WikiLeaks, who has just dumped in the laps of four publications—The Times, The Guardian of London, El Pais of Madrid, and Germany’s Der Spiegel—thousands of purloined pages of diplomatic correspondence between United States Embassies across the world and the State Department in Washington. This correspondence was never intended to enter the public domain, and its entry into the public domain may have thrown American diplomacy into a crisis of confidence.

1. Mr. Assange is a dangerous vandal masquerading as a moral crusader. What is his purpose in publishing this stolen material? There is no clear philosophy behind his actions, no higher aim, other than the gleeful humbling—the public embarrassment—of the United States, a country against which he and his neo-anarchist cohorts have waged their own private little war for well over a year. Mr. Assange detests the United States, detests the philosophy of Western free market democracies, and rejects the notion that the U.S. could ever conceivably wage war abroad that is not criminal. He is, in short, an avowed foe of our society and our way of life.

2. Mr. Assange has not engaged in a single act of “exposure” that disrupts our enemies. When he starts disrupting the enemy, I will begin to concede that he can be treated—remotely—as evenhanded or worthy of praise. Instead, he has by his leaks, and by the pseudo-moral rhetoric that has accompanied them, offered propagandistic succor to those who would harm us, in addition to the priceless intelligence that he has handed to them on a platter.

3. Mr. Assange may not have endangered lives directly in this latest round of leaks, compared with the reprehensible mischief in July, when he imperiled hundreds of people in Afghanistan. But Mr. Assange has certainly made immeasurably more difficult the conduct of American diplomacy abroad. The content of cables leaked contained much that was hypersensitive, spoken to our representatives abroad by foreign politicians, leaders, bureaucrats, military officials, dissidents, and businessmen, in the belief that their thoughts were being received in strict confidence. Will people talk as freely to our diplomats again? What price will we pay for the inevitable evaporation of candor?

This is "something of a disaster for U.S. diplomacy," Charles Hill, a professor at Yale and a former U.S. diplomat, told me in an email. "Not because of what's revealed--everyone knows all diplomatic services do and say such things--but because it has been revealed in a way that indicates the U.S. has lost its ability or willingness to keep such material closely held. So foreigners will tell us less and we will write less down and less substance will be conveyed to Washington. An earlier phase of this came in the late 1980s when it became clear --I was involved--that notes of internal Washington meetings could not be protected from release. So people stopped keeping notes. The result has been that the official record has withered, as has history's knowledge of what happened. Now that loss is extended to foreign meetings."

4. Of course, the fault for the exposure lies, in large measure, with the State Department, and its astonishingly profligate approach to confidentiality. Thousands of people, it turns out, have access to this material. Why are we so lax, so trusting? One answer resides in the belief, still ingrained in our civitas, that Americans have a shared sense of purpose and destiny.

Alas, we no longer do. Many in our midst see their own country as “imperialist” and “evil”—and effectively beyond redemption. The rootless, self-aggrandizing Assange has no civic obligations to the U.S., so he’s not being traitorous. But one has to say that the U.S. has been exposed as having a pathetic system of secret documents and communications. A private with minimal security clearance was able to download and distribute all this stuff to a transnational nihilist conspiracy. Can you imagine the Chinese being as flaccid? Or the Israelis?

5. On the bright side: The leaks show, happily, that Foggy Bottom isn’t as clueless in private as it appears to be in public. That is, indeed, gratifying, though it does suggest that its functionaries should perhaps be more candid in their public assessments—diplomacy be damned.

6. Equally, there is nothing that suggests that any great American global conspiracies are afoot. All this is the embarrassing release of diplomatic pillow talk: None of it is particularly surprising or alarming; and certainly, none of it is damning. The United States government, the leaks make clear, is often stupid, but never malevolent. There may be some unexpected propaganda value here.

7. The key to understanding the WikiLeaks phenomenon lies in the erosion of the distinction, once clear and accepted, between the public and the non-public.

Diplomacy, to work at all effectively, must draw a line between the “consultative process” and the “work product.” This is but part of the human condition: Human beings need to consult, speculate, brainstorm, argue with each other—yes, even to gossip and say dopey things—in order to find their way through the difficult task of coming to an official, or publicly stated position which would then be open (legitimately) to criticism. The refusal to see this distinction is, effectively, Marxist: It all comes down to property, which in Marxist terms is the root of evil. So one is no longer allowed to have property even in musings and speculations. (This, of course, is what underlies political correctness: You must no longer be allowed to think, let alone say, certain things.)

8. Ultimately, the U.S. will be insulated from pillory because every single diplomatic mission of every single state sends back confidential cables to the foreign ministry in the country’s capital. Can you imagine what goodies lie embedded in cables from the Saudi Embassy in Washington, the Chinese Embassy in Pyongyang, the Pakistani High Commission in New Delhi, the Israeli Embassy in Ankara, the British Embassy in Buenos Aires, the French Embassy in Kigali, the Indian Embassy in Kabul?

9. Given the above, is Assange a weird and perverse benefactor? The State Department (1) produces tons of useless verbiage at great cost; and (2) distributes this verbiage to missions worldwide, in hundreds of copies. 1 + 2 = impossible-to-protect secrets, as we’ve just learned. Lesson? Find another way; and write scarcely anything down.

10. There are those who make comparisons between the Pentagon Papers and WikiLeaks, not least Mr. Assange himself. If that is so, will he turn himself in to face the consequences of his acts, as Daniel Ellsberg did in the case of the Pentagon Papers? “I did this clearly at my own jeopardy,” Ellsberg said, “and I am prepared to answer to all he consequences of this decision.”

It should be noted, of course, that Ellsberg wasn’t wanted for rape at the time…

Tunku Varadarajan is a national affairs correspondent and writer at large for The Daily Beast. He is also the Virginia Hobbs Carpenter Fellow in Journalism at Stanford's Hoover Institution and a professor at NYU's Stern Business School. He is a former assistant managing editor at The Wall Street Journal.

 

[PJABBER]

The German publication Spiegel has posted a very interesting cross referencing interactive graphic atlas detailing the embassy locations whose dispatches were stolen, a timeline and a volume indication.

The second part of the graphic shows the various Department of State principals and countries involved and summarizes the disclosures for each.

The U.S. Embassy Dispatches

 

[PJABBER]

Let's consider what would happen if WikiLeaks turned on one of its authoritarian darlings instead of a "soft" democracy like the United States...

From Time,

But on Wednesday, an official at the Center for Information Security of the FSB, Russia's secret police, gave a warning to WikiLeaks that showed none of the tact of the U.S. reply to the Iraq revelations. "It's essential to remember that given the will and the relevant orders, [WikiLeaks] can be made inaccessible forever," the anonymous official told the independent Russian news website LifeNews.

When reached by TIME, the FSB, which is the main successor to the Soviet KGB, declined to elaborate on the comment or say whether it was the agency's official position. But history has shown that the FSB readily steps in to shut down Internet tattlers. In June, a Russian analog to WikiLeaks called Lubyanskaya Pravda published a series of documents it claimed to be top-secret FSB files detailing the agency's operations in the former Soviet Union and conflicts with other Russian security forces.

The site stayed online for less than three weeks — during which time no Russian newspapers published the files — and then put up a notice saying it was under construction. With the site down and the people who anonymously ran it unreachable, the leak was apparently stopped. "The FSB could have easily found the people behind it and convinced them that this was not a good idea," says Andrei Soldatov, an expert on Russian security services. "It is also possible for the FSB to take down a site like WikiLeaks. They have the capacity for all of this."

In a far more gruesome case of leak patching, former FSB agent Alexander Litvinenko, who had published damning books about the agency and Russia's leadership, was poisoned with a rare and highly radioactive polonium isotope while living in London in 2006. British police suspect former Russian security agent Andrei Lugovoi of murdering Litvinenko. But the Russian government, which vehemently denies any connection to the murder, has refused to extradite Lugovoi, and a nationalist party has since made him a member of the Russian parliament.

"If the FSB says it is capable [of taking out WikiLeaks], I believe them," says Gadi Evron, an expert on cybersecurity and counterespionage. It would not be necessary to crash the WikiLeaks site, says Evron, because "behind every Internet project, there are people." And people can be coerced — or worse.

But other observers say WikiLeaks presents a far more serious challenge to Russia's security services than the sources of previous leaks. For one thing, WikiLeaks has established a reputation for publishing authentic documents, which means the Russian press would be more likely to cover the story and republish the files. It is also a diffuse and secretive organization that is technologically prepared to deal with cyberattacks. The kinds of hacker raids that took down Georgia's government websites during its war with Russia in 2008, for example, probably wouldn't keep WikiLeaks offline for long.

So the most likely Russian reaction, at least at first, would be to undermine the authenticity of the alleged secrets. "That is the main tool — to filter it through the state-controlled mass media, which would discredit WikiLeaks and put into question the reliability of its sources," says Nikolai Zlobin, director of the Russia and Eurasia Project at the World Security Institute in Washington, D.C. "This would limit any public debate of the leak to the Russian Internet forums and news websites, which reach a tiny fraction of the population."

Zlobin says it would also take something extremely damning to rattle Russia's political elite. "Russians already believe that their leaders steal, that they have offshore bank accounts and funnel money into them," he says. "It would have to give shocking details about the country's two leading figures [Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev], and even then, the complete apathy toward politics in Russian society would absorb a lot of the shock waves at home."

Russia's reputation abroad, however, could be badly hit by the release of foreign-policy secrets. As the Kremlin pushes ahead with a drive to charm the West, its security agencies will be eager to prevent that kind of embarrassment. And there's no knowing how far they'll go to save face.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2028283,00.html#ixzz16oPnmnkS​

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wikileaks is evil because now the american public can look a bit into the dusty corners and see a fraction of what other nations already know. It's unimaginable that Iran didn't know how Saudi Arabia felt.


Ignorance is strength.

 

[JSt0rm]

So pjabber hates when his government limits smoking in public but likes when his government hides things from him. got it.

 

[Generator]

The real impact is that representative government in alot of ways is now obsolete. The genie is out of the bottle and the grand ol' game of political hackery is a facade people when forced to look will not tolerate.

If you really think about transparency, its just another form of check and balances. Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. Sure the people get to vote every now and then, so these clowns can play this game with our lives. Whats wrong with a fourth a check? Where billions of people know the fucking score and bullshit walks.

Some people speak of reality and what they think the real world is where a congress of gangsters, villains, and spies divy up the world and decide how its run. Why? Who the fuck are these people that they can do this without asking the billions of people who lives will be affected?

You know I really don't thing wikileaks has any really damning information. But it is a digital precedent in a world where there is nearly 1 million people in the United States handling confidential information. One million possible whistleblowers, how was something like this not suppose to happen?

 

[manimal]

Rip off a scab and it hurts.

 

[Zebo]

Interesting theories PJ. Maybe he just does not like seeing warfare and bodies blown to bits carried out by Western countries he lives in? Peace at all costs & believes in fundamental goodness of man type. Thinks exposure is best way to prevent it.

He seems like a overemotional drama queen to me in interviews. Regardless some info is dangerous to our sources in these countries, allies and such and he's very irresponsible.

moral crusader

Right answer. You're reading into this too much IMO.

Mr. Assange has not engaged in a single act of “exposure” that disrupts our enemies.

This is just flat wrong. This whole week has convinced much of the populace, Iran, needs something little more serious than sanctions.

some other "leaks" which have nothing to do with "anti western" or "anarchist"

Daniel arap Moi family corruption - a corrupt African leader robbing them blind
Bank Julius Baer financial terrorists and tax cheats rule of law needs to be applied
Scientology manuals exposure - whatever not anti west maybe anti cult
Climatic Research Unit emails on doctored global warming
Bilderberg Group meeting reports talks about Western countries surrendering sovereignty
Peru oil scandal - corrupt south American leaders
Nuclear accident in Iran
Kaupthing Bank

Not withstanding in police states it's a little harder to get info out. Leaks and exposure are one of the problems with democracy.

 

[Rage187]

I just don't buy any of this.

This is all too convient. The worst thing they put out before the leaks was the US mowing down some civilians and some reporters. Then they release some leaks that are really everything everyone already knows and says around the world. All these leaks are self serving to the US.

Now they are going to arrest Julian for rape. In the end, both Manning and Julian disappear but America's cards are out on the table.


Next they will release secret documents on a bank that America already hates. Whoopdy freakin doo. If this was real, they would hack shit we care about like the pharmaceutical companies covering up study results or release some shit on the aliens.

This is the worst fiction writing ever. Wag the Dog and the Leonardo/Crowe movie had better scripts.

 

[SandEagle]

^ exactly. Cui bono? Who benefits from this?

 

[PsiStar]

Off topic ... how did Assange get the files. This must have been commented on by someone & I just missed it thru all of the noise.

And, Cliff Notes anyone? Or, is it just SOP to quote everything just said ... especially the really long diatribes?

 

[nonlnear]

The longer this saga drags on the more it looks like the whole thing was orchestrated by the US in the first place. The supposedly damning leaks consist of what? Saying that some guy is afraid of water and likes blondes, that Medvedec is Putin's bitch (gasp!), a German is unimaginative, and that Arab states might not all be in love with each other. My oh my, somebody's got to hang for that! Get back to me when the real dirt on India, China, and Russia come out. Until that happens this all just seems like one big "shocked! SHOCKED!" act. (edit: Yes there was other content of a more serious nature but IMHO virtually none of what is being talked about as being "serious leaks" is all that surprising - or even new.)

It will be interesting to see how the Department of State gets shuffled in the "reaction" to what may have been their own maneuver in the first place. I'll be keeping a close eye on ambassador assignments.

 

[PJABBER]

Off topic ... how did Assange get the files. This must have been commented on by someone & I just missed it thru all of the noise.

And, Cliff Notes anyone? Or, is it just SOP to quote everything just said ... especially the really long diatribes?

It would be nice if you quote just the section you are replying to.

In reply to your question...

U.S. Army Private First Class Bradley Manning is alleged to be the source of Assange's information.

Manning was outed as a gay in the military and was scheduled for discharge. He decided to take revenge against his country by stealing the massive quantities of classified data he had access to as an intelligence analyst.

He is considered by some to be a poster child for DADT.

His future now will be a tossup between a lifetime at Leavenworth or execution if he is convicted under 10 USC Sections 886-934. Specifically, he can be sentenced to death if he is found guilty of one or more of the following:

94 - Mutiny or sedition
99 - Misbehavior before the enemy
100 - Subordinate compelling surrender
101 - Improper use of countersign
102 - Forcing a safeguard
104 - Aiding the enemy
106 - Espionage
110 - Improper hazarding of vessel
118 - Murder
120 - Rape and carnal knowledge

The following only carrying a death sentence if committed during times of war, and thus also apply to his case:

85 - Desertion
90 - Assaulting or willfully disobeying superior commissioned officer
92 - Failure to obey order or regulation
113 - Misbehavior of a sentinel or lookout

Today Show Portrays Wiki Leaker as a 'Teased' and 'Harassed' Victim of the Military

By GEOFFREY DICKENS

From the Media Research Center

Wall Street Journal

• NOVEMBER 30, 2010, 2:32 P.M. ET

Instead of leading with how Army Private First Class Bradley Manning may have jeopardized national security with his document dump to WikiLeaks, NBC's chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski, in his profile of Manning on Tuesday's Today show, told viewers he was the "most unlikely suspect, with a youthful smile" and portrayed him as an abused victim of the military.

Miklaszewski used the New York Times' Ginger Thompson in his report to tell the tale of young man who apparently decided to avenge the abuse he had taken over the years, dating back to high school, by selling out his country.

Before throwing to soundbites from Thompson, Miklaszewski teased that the New York Times reporter "profiled Manning and found that as a young man he was an outcast who tried desperately to fit in." Thompson then went on to reveal that Manning "was teased all the time in elementary school for being a geek" and was beaten up in high school for "because kids figured out that he was gay." After Miklaszewski added that the abuse continued when he joined the Army, noting "once in the military, he quickly became a target," he aired another clip of Thompson claiming "As a gay man in the military, he was, you know, he was outcast and he was, you know, teased and harassed."

Miklaszewski also went on to report that, according to Thompson, Manning had been politicized by the Iraq War, with Thompson underlining: "I think he was driven more than anything by his desire to do something important." At the end of his story Miklaszewski reported that Manning was currently being held under maximum security at Quantico and assured viewers: "He's in good spirits and spends most of his day reading books and following news about this story."

The following is the full Miklaszewski report as it was aired on the November 30 Today show:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: So just who is Army Private First Class Bradley Manning, the man suspected of leaking all of these documents? NBC's chief Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski has that part of the story. Good morning to you Mik.

JIM MIKLASZEWSKI: Good morning, Meredith. Even as a kid, friends describe Bradley Manning as a computer geek who held strong opinions and wasn't afraid to express them. But at first glance, he appears the most unlikely suspect. With a youthful smile looking barely old enough to even be in the military, 23-year-old Army PFC Bradley Manning is at the center of the worldwide WikiLeaks storm. He's in military custody charged with providing WikiLeaks with this classified gun camera video - a U.S. helicopter gunship attack in Baghdad that killed a number of Iraqi civilians. But the more serious charges accuse Manning of leaking tens of thousands of State Department cables. But how is that possible?

Military officials tell NBC News that as an intelligence analyst in Baghdad, Manning had allegedly downloaded the files from classified computers onto CDs, while apparently pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. The charges against Manning claim he then uploaded the material "onto his personal computer" then passed it "to a person not entitled to receive it." But why would he possibly do it? Ginger Thompson, of the New York Times, profiled Manning and found that as a young man he was an outcast who tried desperately to fit in.

GINGER THOMPSON, NEW YORK TIMES: As a young kid, he was teased all the time in elementary school for being a geek. When he was in high school, he got beat up often because kids figured out that he was gay.

MIKLASZEWSKI: His father, a career soldier, reportedly kicked Manning out of their house in Crescent, Oklahoma. Friends say Manning eventually joined the Army to impress his father, but once in the military, he quickly became a target.

THOMPSON: As a gay man in the military, he was, you know, he was outcast and he was, you know, teased and harassed.

MIKLASZEWSKI: Thompson says Manning retreated into the cyber world where he became an accomplished hacker and in the middle of the Iraq War became more and more politically motivated.

THOMPSON: I think he was driven more than anything by his desire to do something important.

MIKLASZEWSKI: Neither Bradley's family or his lawyers are talking. He's being held under maximum security at the Quantico Marine base outside of Washington where military officials say he's in good spirits and spends most of his day reading books and following news about this story. Now the military is preparing to hold a hearing to determine if he's actually mentally competent to stand trial and he could face additional charges. If convicted on any of these charges, he could spend the rest of his life in a military prison, Matt?

MATT LAUER: Alright Mik, thank you very much. Jim Miklaszewski at the Pentagon this morning.

—Geoffrey Dickens is the Senior News Analyst at the Media Research Center.

Bradley Manning, in his own words: 'This belongs in the public domain'

The Guardian (UK)

In May last year, the man suspected of downloading the US embassy files began a series of online chats with a fellow-hacker

• The Guardian, Wednesday 1 December 2010

Bradley Manning, above, initiated a series of online chats with former hacker, Adrian Lamo.

• On 21 May this year, Bradley Manning initiated a series of online chats with former hacker Adrian Lamo. Below are edited excerpts that took place over several days, and which Lamo gave to Wired.com (and to the FBI). Dates are approximate.
  
  May 21
  
  (1:41:12 pm) Bradley Manning: hi
  (1:44:04 pm) Manning: how are you?
  (1:47:01 pm) Manning: im an army intelligence analyst, deployed to eastern baghdad, pending discharge for "adjustment disorder" [. . .]
  (1:56:24 pm) Manning: im sure you're pretty busy…
  (1:58:31 pm) Manning: if you had unprecedented access to classified networks 14 hours a day 7 days a week for 8+ months, what would you do?
  
  May 22
  
  Manning apparently told Lamo that he had provided WikiLeaks with 260,000 classified diplomatic cables (as well videos of a 2007 airstrike in Iraq and a 2009 airstrike in Afghanistan).
  
  (1:39:03 pm) Manning: i cant believe what im confessing to you :'(
  (1:40:20 pm) Manning: ive been so isolated so long… i just wanted to be nice, and live a normal life… but events kept forcing me to figure out ways to survive… smart enough to know whats going on, but helpless to do anything… no-one took any notice of me
  (1:43:59 pm) Manning: im self medicating like crazy when im not toiling in the supply office (my new location, since im being discharged, im not offically intel anymore)
  
  Later, Manning discussed his role as a source for WikiLeaks and his links with its founder Julian Assange.
  
  (2:04:29 pm) Manning: im a source, not quite a volunteer
  (2:05:38 pm) Manning: i mean, im a high profile source… and i've developed a relationship with assange…
  
  Manning went on to discuss his growing disillusionment with the army and the US.
  
  (2:26:01 pm) Manning: i dont believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… i only a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
  (2:29:04 pm) Manning: i guess im too idealistic
  (2:38:45 pm) Lamo: What would you do if your role /w Wikileaks seemed in danger of being blown?
  (2:39:34 pm) Manning: try and figure out how i could get my side of the story out… before everything was twisted around to make me look like Nidal Hassan [the suspect in the fatal Fort Hood shootings]
  (2:40:15 pm) Manning: i dont think its going to happen
  (2:40:26 pm) Manning: i mean, i was never noticed
  (2:41:10 pm) Manning: regularly ignored… except when i had something essential… then it was back to "bring me coffee, then sweep the floor"
  
  Manning elaborated on how easy it was to siphon off data from classified networks.
  
  (1:52:30 pm) Manning: funny thing is… we transfered so much data on unmarked CDs…
  (1:52:42 pm) Manning: everyone did… videos… movies… music
  (1:53:05 pm) Manning: all out in the open
  (1:53:53 pm) Manning: bringing CDs too and from the networks was/is a common phenomeon
  (1:54:14 pm) Lamo: is that how you got the cables out?
  (1:54:28 pm) Manning: perhaps
  (1:54:42 pm) Manning: i would come in with music on a CD-RW
  (1:55:21 pm) Manning: labelled with something like "Lady Gaga"… erase the music… then write a compressed split file
  (1:55:46 pm) Manning: no-one suspected a thing
  (2:00:12 pm) Manning: everyone just sat at their workstations… watching music videos / car chases / buildings exploding… and writing more stuff to CD/DVD… the culture fed opportunities
  (2:12:23 pm) Manning: so… it was a massive data spillage… facilitated by numerous factors… both physically, technically, and culturally
  (2:13:02 pm) Manning: perfect example of how not to do INFOSEC
  (2:14:21 pm) Manning: listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga's Telephone while exfiltratrating [sic] possibly the largest data spillage in american history
  (2:15:03 pm) Manning: pretty simple, and unglamorous
  (2:17:56 pm) Manning: weak servers, weak logging, weak physical security, weak counter-intelligence, inattentive signal analysis… a perfect storm
  
  Manning said security should be improved.
  
  (2:21:32 pm) Manning: its sad
  (2:22:47 pm) Manning: i mean what if i were someone more malicious
  (2:23:25 pm) Manning: i could've sold to russia or china, and made bank?
  (2:23:36 pm) Lamo: why didn't you?
  (2:23:58 pm) Manning: because it's public data
  (2:24:15 pm) Lamo: i mean, the cables
  (2:24:46 pm) Manning: it belongs in the public domain
  (2:25:15 pm) Manning: information should be free
  (2:25:39 pm) Manning: it belongs in the public domain
  (2:26:18 pm) Manning: because another state would just take advantage of the information… try and get some edge
  
  In a later chat Manning tried to sum himself up.
  
  (4:42:16 pm) Manning: im not sure whether i'd be considered a type of "hacker", "cracker", "hacktivist", "leaker" or what …
• (4:42:26 pm) Manning: im just me… really

 

[LumbergTech]

not a convincing argument.....basically just a giant deflection

you do jabber on and on true to form, but you are just making a bunch of assumptions

 

[PJABBER]

not a convincing argument.....basically just a giant deflection

Argument for or against what? Deflection from or to what?

 

[LumbergTech]

Argument for or against what? Deflection from or to what?

that it has a chilling effect on "diplomatic relations" if the citizens of the world know the truth about just how the world stands right now


thats too fucking bad as far as im concerned, if you want to be ignorant to what is going on, then fine, i just dont agree

its hilarious how now its time to talk about diplomacy and ass kissing once you can use it to try to support your causes

 

[PJABBER]

that it has a chilling effect on "diplomatic relations" if the citizens of the world know the truth about just how the world stands right now


thats too fucking bad as far as im concerned, if you want to be ignorant to what is going on, then fine, i just dont agree

its hilarious how now its time to talk about diplomacy and ass kissing once you can use it to try to support your causes

My "causes" are anti-totalitarianism, anti-corruption and pro-human rights.

I don't see the world as black and white, except in very specifically defined cases and I have all too often accepted the ends justifying the means. While this is likely bad for my personal karma, I'd rather ask for forgiveness than permission.

 

[DominionSeraph]

The following article captures quite a bit of the likely impact and how the world will now change.

Are you retarded? All I had to do was read this one sentence of yours to know I should stop reading. Yet these words came out of you and you decided to POST IT? WTF? Do you understand NOTHING about the world?

Goddamn I hate stupid people.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Let's see... Saudi Arabia still funding Al Qaida, them wanting Iran nuked, Egypt strongly disliking the Iraqi government, China being angry with N-Korea, some stuff about Russia too... So who are the enemies he didn't publish about? Antartica? Toga?

I understand that Al Qaida, Iran and N-Korea are the best friends of the US, but Saudi Arabia isn't right?

Edit: Oh, and he already announced he'll release documents which will prove that the Chinese government was behind a hack attempt on Google to get access to the mail of 'dissidents'. And he announced he'll release more stuff about Russia. If he doesn't get information from a country he can't post much about it either. But he seems to release whatever he does get.

 

[DominionSeraph]

blah blah blah blah

 

[Throckmorton]

Is secrecy dead or just out of fashion? Soldiers can't even keep their gayness secret anymore. Information DOESN'T want to be free, people are just too fucking stupid to not blab every god damn thing.

 

[between]

..

 

[nonlnear]

Let's see... Saudi Arabia still funding Al Qaida,

Not surprised in the least.

them wanting Iran nuked,

Probably hyperbole, but still not surprised to hear that they are not particularly fond of unstable neighbors.

Egypt strongly disliking the Iraqi government,

Egypt is a complicated place, so I'm not particularly surprised to hear about anybody "they" dislike.

China being angry with N-Korea,

Only idiots thought China and NK were completely cozy for the last while. Sure China has been very reluctnat to break their steely facade on the mater, but only idiots have maintained the belief that the two are fast friends and unshakeable allies.

some stuff about Russia too... So who are the enemies he didn't publish about? Antartica? Toga?

I understand that Al Qaida, Iran and N-Korea are the best friends of the US, but Saudi Arabia isn't right?

No, Saudi Arabia is not and never has been. They have ben tolerant of American presence for one reason and one reason alone. However they have absolutely no ideological alignment with the US and never have.

Edit: Oh, and he already announced he'll release documents which will prove that the Chinese government was behind a hack attempt on Google to get access to the mail of 'dissidents'.

I would be shocked if anyone with a clue about China truly believed that the Chinese haven't made repeated hack attempts against every single company in the world that might have significant data on Chinese data traffic.

And he announced he'll release more stuff about Russia. If he doesn't get information from a country he can't post much about it either. But he seems to release whatever he does get.

I don't doubt that Assange may very well be completely honest about his motives and publishing everything he has according to whatever procedures he believes are appropriate. If this was in fact a planned operation (which I'm not sure of, but merely suspect), I think it's more likely that he is a stooge releasing data that has been fed to him rather than an agent knowingly engaged in an operation.

 

[PeshakJang]

Is secrecy dead or just out of fashion? Soldiers can't even keep their gayness secret anymore. Information DOESN'T want to be free, people are just too fucking stupid to not blab every god damn thing.

Those calling for no government confidentiality of any kind are just children who never grew up and figured out how the world works, much less international relations.

The hypocrisy of some who support these leaks is beyond belief. If the US is trying to publicly form a peaceful relationship with Iran to work toward diplomatic solutions to tension, but behind closed door all of our officials are very untrusting of them, believe they are working to build nuclear weapons, and have no interest in peace, would it benefit our position to disclose these sentiments, or greatly damage it?

Is our nation's government's job to act in the best interests of our nation, or the best interests of everyone else?

Can a business function if its operations were completely open to anyone and everyone to analyze?

Would it benefit your family's relationships with others if they knew everything you talked about with your wife and kids while in your own home?

People need to pull their head out of their ass and stop living in a fantasy world where secrecy is irrelevant and not one person alive has bad intentions.

 

[PJABBER]

I am still not sure why the leftists here support the WikiLeaks releases undercutting American diplomacy. I mean I do understand that the anarchists would, their political philosophy dovetails with that of WikiLeaks. But the leftists?

The Irony of Wikileaks

By threatening U.S. diplomacy, the hard left is undercutting its own worldview.

• James P. Rubin
• The New Republic
• December 1, 2010 | 12:00 am

There’s no question that many of the Wikileaks documents are a great read. These diplomatic conversations between American officials and leaders from the Arab world, China, and Europe provide important insights about the subtleties of U.S. policy and the complexities of dealing with different personalities and governments around the world. But the disclosures are not just interesting; they are also ironic. That’s because they undermine the very worldview that Julian Assange and his colleagues at Wikileaks almost certainly support.

By and large, the hard left in America and around the world would prefer to see the peaceful resolution of disputes rather than the use of military force. World peace, however, is a lot harder to achieve if the U.S. State Department is cut off at the knees. And that is exactly what this mass revelation of documents is going to do. The essential tool of State Department diplomacy is trust between American officials and their foreign counterparts. Unlike the Pentagon, which has military forces, or the Treasury Department, which has financial tools, the State Department functions mainly by winning the trust of foreign officials, sharing information, and persuading. Those discussions have to be confidential to be successful. Destroying confidentiality means destroying diplomacy.

This is not to say there isn’t an important place for quality journalism that may, at times, rely on sensitive diplomatic exchanges or that seeks particular information through leaks. Without such journalism, the American public would have never known about the abuses at Abu Ghraib or the electronic surveillance programs of the National Security Agency that became rightly controversial during the Bush administration. In those cases, there was a higher principle at stake than protecting the secrecy of diplomatic exchanges.

Government-sponsored torture or domestic spying on U.S. citizens without legal oversight are profound questions of policy that merit substantial public knowledge. But, in the undifferentiated mass disclosure of diplomatic conversations, there is no higher principle to merit damaging the foundations of American diplomacy.

Fortunately, there is little or no discussion in the cables, as yet, of the Middle East peace process. Would the supporters of Wikileaks want secret Middle East diplomacy to promote peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis to be made public, too? Do they have any understanding of how difficult it is for Israeli and Palestinian leaders to make the compromises necessary for peace under the glare of public pressure? My guess is the special envoy for President Obama, former Senator George Mitchell, has created a separate reporting channel for his discussions with Arab and Israeli leaders, outside the normal State Department diplomatic channels. But had he not done so, there is every reason to believe that Wikileaks would have dumped that information, along with the other 250,000 cables. Would the likely outcome of such disclosures—the imperiling of the peace process—really have been something that accorded with the left’s professed goals in the Middle East?

There’s another irony here, too. The Wikileaks document dump, unlike the Pentagon Papers in the 1970s, shows that American private communication with foreign leaders by and large reflects the same sentiments offered by U.S. officials in public. There is no grand conspiracy, no grand hypocrisy to uncover and expose. The big hypocrisies here are not being perpetrated by Americans; they are being perpetrated by foreign governments, namely non-democratic ones.

Yet those on the hard left are usually the loudest critics of America imposing its own values, its own way of doing business, and its own culture on other countries. For better or worse, in many parts of the world there’s a big difference between what government officials are prepared to do publicly and what they’re prepared to say and do privately. We may wish it otherwise, but those are the realities faced by U.S. officials. The hard left, so quick to demand that America accept other countries’ political systems, now seems blind to the fact that other governments want to have the right to say one thing in public and a different thing in private. By respecting that difference, American diplomats are doing their job.

Surely the Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, would prefer for Arab leaders to be as honest and open and transparent as we are in our country. Until such democratic values come to the Arab world, however, we have to work with what we’ve got. U.S. diplomacy has been damaged, not destroyed; it will recover after a time. But for now, Wikileaks is making diplomacy’s task a whole lot harder.

James P. Rubin teaches international affairs at Columbia University. He was Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs during the Clinton administration.